This is completely unprecedented, isn’t it? New Hampshire is on its way to joining its neighbors in extending civil rights to lesbian and gay couples who wish to marry, and truly creating the Lavender States of America. 

On Wednesday, May 6, the bill legalizing [1] same-gender marriage passed the New Hampshire legislature, although narrowly. Democratic [2] Governor John Lynch has five days to sign or veto the bill or it will become law anyway. As of this morning he hasn’t indicated what he will do. According to the Union Leader, [3] all eyes are on Lynch. [4] Associated Press says Lynch promises to make the best decision for the people of the state.

New Hampshire is completely surrounded by other states and Canada where gay marriage is legal or soon will be. (Tuesday’s breakthrough in Maine does not take effect until August 4; one news commentary said not until mid-September, but the law says 90 days not 120. [5] Opponents are gearing up now.)

Is there political pressure on other states where action has been expected? My suspicion is that gay-positive activists are taking a gentle hand, knowing that time is on our side. The process is already underway in New York and [6] New Jersey. Why push? Perhaps there will be less backlash (”wedlash”?) if progress there now slows and takes its time.

[7]

NGLTF’s “Recognition Map” of the status as of May 6. [8] Download it here.

Of course, anti-gay voices in Maine are already threatening to overturn the legislature through a ballot veto, as early as November. (Would that be a special election? Does everybody have a ballot every November? And May and March and June and every time somebody wants to storm the electorate with their issue? This stuff is time-consuming to track.)

But what about the left coast of America? California is still waiting for its own Supreme Court. The clock is really ticking now, since a decision is “due” no later than June 4, or just 28 days from now.  [9] Meet in the Middle 4 Equality is prepared to march, rally and carry candles to Fresno, California the Saturday after the California Court announces its decision.

My husband and I have been discussing the issues which our court must decide. In either case, whether they uphold Proposition 8 because it amended the constitution, or turn it down because it violates equal protection and the spirit of justice in the constitution, it seems that internal conflict might be a legal case worthy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Either side, pro– or anti-gay marriage, could presumably appeal the California decision over Proposition 8, but that would be a very slow and expensive process. In the meantime, today’s Los Angeles Times had a front page [10] story by Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan predicting that the repeal of Proposition 8 will be back on the ballot as early as 2010 (June? November? Aaaaarrrgh!) So does ABC News with a [11] story by Teddy Davis, and the New York Times in a [12] story by Jesse McKinley.

But to say that “time is on our side” is a simplism to be wary of. Timing, rather than the ticking of time itself, is critical for social change. If the California Court upholds Proposition 8, it will most likely not derail legislative or court changes in other states, although it might give momentary energy to right-wingnuts trying to fight change on all fronts (didn’t they learn anything from the Bush administration about fighting too many wars at once, or do they have unlimited budges for their histrionics and aggression?) After all, many non-Californians already see this state as a granola bowl–filled with fruits, nuts and flakes. Intyelligent people can be California-phobic because we frequently suffer whiplash (or again,”wedlash”), being hit from behind by extremists.

But if the California Court overturns Proposition 8, it is also possible that a long drawn-out appeal to the federal Court would give pause to other states on their own marriage statutes. If appealed to the U.S. Supremes, even before the case is presented or argued, the general perception would be this is now a nationwide issue, so local initiative could, therefore, be trumped federally.

Maybe. In the meantime, a federal marriage amendment (banning gay marriage forever and ever) seems to have less traction now than two years ago. With regard to that, time is on our side, because the more couples who wed and live and watch each day’s sunrise without social or cosmic catastrophe, the more the popular view of lesbian and gay couples shifts toward a “live and let live” view. And is time progresses, more issues and more expressions of LGBT people and their lives slide into that “live and let live” column.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a “slippery slope.” And, as reactionary as the wingnuts want to be, a slippery slope is impossible to defend. The slippery slope of social change, right now, are the shores of New England. But in 28 days the tides may shift.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles