On Monday, May 17, Massachusetts began issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses to residents of the state. For a license fee ranging from $4 to $15, same-sex couples that receive these Massachusetts licenses become the first anywhere in the nation to lose their second-class status.

Though this victory for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights is overshadowed by grief for the atrocities that have occurred in the Middle East and continue to occur throughout the world, same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts are the culmination of years of dedication and hard work in the ongoing struggle to win full GLBT equality in the United States and deserves its attendant celebrations.

California has a lot to celebrate as well. If Massachusetts with same-sex marriages and Vermont with civil unions top the list of gay-friendly state legislation, California is not far behind. Passage of AB 205, the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, effective January 1 of next year, grants many of the legal benefits of marriage to registered domestic partners – many, but not all. AB 205 only grants state rights; there are still 1,138 federal laws regarding marriage that do not apply to the legislation.

AB 1967, the Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno and sponsored by Equality California, would amend the state family code, defining marriage as between “two persons” instead of between a man and a woman. It would permit, but not require, pastors, rabbis and other clergy to perform marriages for GLBT couples. The bill made history last month when it passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but is now being held back until the next legislative session pending an economic analysis of its impact.

The rights GLBTs have gained, in other words, are tenuous.

Same-sex marriages in Massachusetts could be overturned if a measure – approved by the Massachusetts Legislature and Governor Mitt Romney – defining marriage as between a man and a woman and replacing same-sex marriage with civil unions, gets voted into law in 2006.

The legal gray area arising from this scenario suggests a bureaucratic mess of epic proportions, which was one of Romney’s arguments for why the Supreme Court should hold off on allowing same-sex marriage in the state until the voters decided in 2006. C’est la vie.

The big question, then, is what happens to the legality of the same-sex marriages performed between 2004 and 2006 – will these GLBT couples remain legally married and how will the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage be dealt with on the federal level?

Some legal experts say that if a ban on same-sex marriage is voted into the Massachusetts constitution and civil unions are legalized in its place, the legislation is prospective only and cannot be applied retroactively.

Barbara Cox, a professor at the California Western School of Law and co-chair of San Diegans Against Marriage Discrimination, explained that there are very complicated interpretations of constitutional law regarding retroactive legislation – most of it having to do with situations where an act is criminalized after it has been performed – but that the general constitutional rule is that you can’t retroactively change someone’s status. “Now, I guess there is a possibility that Massachusetts could say that what they would do is transfer all of those marriages into civil unions,” she said. “I’m not convinced that that is constitutionally valid. I think that once you get married, you’re married. The state can’t take away that status.”

Massachusetts heterosexual couples that obtain marriage licenses during this time period will be able to keep their original marriage license since a constitutional amendment would not technically affect them, but same-sex couples from the state face innumerable legal troubles and an uncertain future. For example, if Massachusetts same-sex couples relocate to another state where their marriage is not recognized due to Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) laws, they run into problems with insurance, home ownership, inheritance, health and death issues, as well as custody issues if they have children. Not the least of their worries is the fact that, though Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the federal portion of DOMA still denies these couples all 1,138 federal laws and benefits.

“What we’re going to see is countless situations of courts having to struggle with, ‘Is this a relationship that is legally recognized or not?’” Cox said. “Which gets us to the real issue, which is that the reason we … recognize [straight couples’] marriage when they go to a new state is that we recognize that it’s crazy that your marital status changes if you cross the border. … That’s really the question that we’re all struggling with. … The couples who get married in Massachusetts are going to be in a very strange situation. According to the state where they live, they’re married, and according to the federal government, they’re not married. If I were guessing, I would guess the first litigation is going to come out of that.”

While our newfound rights will most certainly be challenged in local, state and federal courts, we’re winning in the court of social acceptance, and that has a power all its own. In a government run for the people, by the people (let’s get hypothetical, here), legal milestones generally follow social movements. The uproar over same-sex marriage in this country, both for and against, has caused everyone who is not deliberately hiding under a rock to form an opinion on the topic; the term “gay marriage” floods the airwaves at the same frequency allotted 10 years ago to OJ Simpson and four years ago to chads.

Possibly due to this overexposure forcing people to think in depth on the subject, polls show an increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians as well as same-sex marriage. Since Canada’s legalization of same-sex marriages in June 2003, Massachusetts’ Supreme Court ruling in November declaring discrimination against same-sex marriages unconstitutional and San Francisco’s issuance of gender-neutral marriage licenses in February and March of this year, national acceptance of GLBTs has climbed dramatically, with a March Gallup poll finding 54 percent in favor of civil unions – the highest level of support measured in the eight times Gallup has asked the question since 2000. A national poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times in March found only 25 percent in favor of same-sex marriages but 49 percent opposing a constitutional amendment banning them. Fifty-two percent do not believe same-sex relationships are “morally wrong.”

Californians have weighed in as slightly more liberal than the national average. Support for same-sex marriages climbed six percentage points between January and February of this year, and another Times poll of 1,571 California adults conducted April 17-21 found that 51 percent believe gay and lesbian relationships between consenting adults are not a moral concern. Almost a third support the legalization of same-sex marriage and 51 percent are opposed to a constitutional ban on them. Like the rest of the nation, 40 percent of Californians support civil unions in place of marriage.

Even the late Senator Pete Knight, author of Proposition 22 (the California Protection of Marriage Initiative), said in an undoubtedly painful concession made shortly before his death that he would be willing to compromise at civil unions if gays and lesbians would stop pushing for full marriage rights.

Combining these statistics with the slew of television shows depicting gay characters in a friendly – if stereotypical – light, gay-centered reality shows and the corporate quest for the gay dollar, simply having the issue of same-sex marriage be so hotly debated across the nation helps the GLBT struggle for equality, because nothing normalizes an outlandish prospect like regular exposure.

Normal, everyday, no big deal: that’s what we’re working for. And we’re making progress. Polls show that the younger the age group surveyed, the greater the acceptance of GLBTs and same-sex marriage.

Young adults both nationally and in California were far more likely to support same-sex marriage than their elders, according to the Times. Forty-four percent of young adults ages 18 to 29 across the nation support same-sex marriage, while almost half of the young adults in California do. Each generation, it seems, moves us that much closer towards full acceptance.

June is National Gay Pride Month, and West Hollywood will celebrate progress made since last year with its first ever wedding and commitment ceremony held June 1 at a newly expanded social hot spot called The Abbey. West Hollywood Mayor John Duran will officiate and comedian Margaret Cho will preside; Pepper MaShay and the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles will sing “Amazing Grace.” The mass wedding is strictly ceremonial and will have no legal effect.

“Margaret Cho, of course, she’s there to provide her humor and lightness and gayety – if you pardon the expression – and I think I’m there as the official elected official to sort of preside over the weddings,” Duran said.

Cho, however, is also an outspoken advocate for same-sex marriage, writing opinion pieces for national publications and speaking at pro-marriage events across the United States. She created an activist website, loveisloveislove.com, in response to the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“Their actions have illuminated the dark, prejudiced side of American politics, and ‘outed’ the ignorance and hatred that exists in our nation,” Cho says in a statement on her website in response to the Bush Administration’s support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. “Same-sex marriage will promote the welfare of children, providing them with more two parent households, as well as promote the stability of society by expanding the range of what the American family is allowed to be. … Marriage does not seek to be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots. It seeks to be available to all Americans. Hatred and homophobia are the elements that weaken the good influence of society.”

Cho’s website provides articles on the same-sex marriage debate; lists upcoming marriage equality rallies; provides tips on how to be a marriage equality activist as well as links to GLBT rights and voting websites; quotes celebrities who support same-sex marriage; and has posted photos of committed couples. In classic tongue-in-cheek Cho style, she is also selling a “same-sex wedding dress” on the site for $230.

“Gay culture seems to be ever present these days,” she says in a blog titled “Gay Marriage”. “Interior designers are the new rock stars, and gay is the new straight. But there is a co-opting of the culture here, as the mainstream society robs the jewels of queer community, like better window treatments and the importance of a multi-step skincare regimen, but there is still an egregious lack of equality. It seems like gays and lesbians can do all the things that straight people can do, society is saying ‘You are OK just as you are, just don’t try to get married or anything!’ It’s like when whites stole rock and roll from blacks in the ’50s and the kids were all dancing to Little Richard. We love your music, but please don’t use that drinking fountain.”

Duran is also tracking the link between courts and culture.

“I think one of the reasons that we’re doing this at this time is that the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court [regarding San Francisco’s issuance of gender-neutral marriage licenses ] are set to occur on May 25, so we should get a Supreme Court ruling within one to three weeks, maybe, of that oral argument,” Duran said. “Everybody anticipates, including me, that it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule against the gay and lesbian community; rule against San Francisco and probably even void the marriage licenses that were issued, so in anticipation of an adverse court ruling, I think the message that we want to send is that no government can stop us from loving who we choose, and establishing a relationship with whom we choose. Irrespective of what the court does, or the U.S. Congress does, or the President proposes, we’re going to continue to love and care for one another, and set up our families and relationships.”

Though he has a partner of five years, Duran himself is not planning to get married until he can do so legally. “I’m a practicing Episcopalian, and it is my dream to have a real ceremony in my Episcopalian church that is binding,” he said. “So that’s what I’m working towards.”

Unfortunately, California mayors like Duran can’t be political upstarts regarding marriage equality even if they wanted to. Though other cities in the nation can issue marriage licenses, California law grants counties, not cities, the authority to issue them. San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom was able to manipulate the marriage license statute because San Francisco is the only county-city government in the state – its city and county boarders are identical. As such, the mayor is not only a city official, but a county official as well.

“I wish I had the authority,” Duran said about following in Newsom’s footsteps. “In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors controls the issue of licenses, and, tragically, we only have two of the three votes that we need. So we’re precluded as West Hollywood from issuing licenses. Then again, so is San Diego, so is Laguna Beach, so is Palm Springs, Santa Cruz – these cities that have high concentrations of gay and lesbian people are facing the same dilemma.”

Duran, who was sworn in as mayor last month, is a member of the board for Equality California, the GLBT advocacy organization that sponsored both AB 205 and AB 1967, among many other pieces of GLBT-friendly legislation. The City of West Hollywood is a sponsor of AB 1967, and has issued a resolution in support of the bill, which Leno has vowed to reintroduce with the support of Assembly House Speaker Fabian Nunez in December.

“For those of us who have sort of been doing this work for the last two or three decades, we didn’t have 41 votes for AB 1 – the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Discrimination Bill – and it took us 20 years to get that bill from its first introduction to signature by a governor,” Duran said. “So sometimes you introduce your piece of legislation in order to see it pass, and sometimes you introduce legislation to start raising public debate, awareness, consciousness in preparation for the day when it will eventually occur. This is that time. We’ll keep moving [AB 1967]; we’d like to put it on the Assembly floor, see where the votes are, figure out where we need to pick up additional votes. The state Senate is a lot friendlier to this issue. We think we do have the votes in the state Senate. We’re not sure what Governor Schwarzenegger would do with the bill; he has sent out conflicting messages and it’s not clear whether he would sign or veto the bill. But that doesn’t stop us. That’s not a deterrent. We’re going to keep pushing the bill until it becomes law.”

The major threat to AB 1967 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, from where it was pulled March 19, has to do with the impact the bill will have on state income tax revenue. According to the State Department of Finance, the bill will reduce the income taxes received by the state because same-sex couples would be permitted to marry and file joint tax returns. However, only couples who have widely different incomes would see significant savings; if both members of a couple earn about the same amount, after they marry their joint taxes would be similar to their combined separate taxes before they married.

“We need to counter this argument against the bill with evidence of the economic benefits to the state economy and to tax revenues for state government,” reads a recent Lambda Letters Alert, citing an independent economic analysis conducted by the UCLA Williams Project that found the potential for $11 million in sales tax generated from the wedding industry, almost $1 million in marriage license fees and $13.6 million in business income taxes. “To be honest, the committee members will be making a political decision as well. They will be calculating the harm that will be done to their political careers, if any, if they vote for the bill. The best way we can deal with this concern is to just bury them in mail supporting AB 1967.”

Holding AB 1967 until next session was anticipated by many, Duran said. “We’re up against a lot of very powerful interests. Granted, for the first time in California history we have a little power, too; we have five legislators – Senator Kuehl, four members of the Assembly – we’re starting to become powerful ourselves. But the speaker’s job is to preserve the political interests of the Democratic Party, since they are in power, and he has the ultimate trump card.”

The 2006 Assembly elections will play a key role in the fight for marriage equality, Duran said, when many sitting legislators will be termed out of office. “The Democratic primaries that will occur in June of 2006 are critical. We can either get a Democrat in Assembly that leans Democrat who’s good on marriage, or a moderate or conservative Democrat who is not good on marriage.” Key districts will be in San Diego County and the south bay of Los Angeles County, he said.

On May 17, The Center hosted a community event jointly celebrating the Massachusetts marriage equality victory and the end of the ACLU’s five-year battle with the City of San Diego, which ended last month when a federal court ruled that the Boy Scouts could not lease city land at nonprofit rates because they discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation.

“The federal court’s ruling makes it clear that the City of San Diego can no longer treat our community as second-class citizens by providing special public benefits to those who discriminate against our youth,” said Delores Jacobs, executive director of The Center. “This victory is the result of years of hard work on the part of the ACLU, who spent five years on this case. I can’t emphasize enough how important these victories are in sending all cities and people the message that our governments should not take taxpayer dollars and then discriminate against those very same taxpayers and their families. The real irony in this case is that the Boy Scouts spent much time and money arguing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for their right to discriminate, based on their status as a private religious organization. They were granted that right, but today they are protesting that they are not a religious organization and shouldn’t be treated as one. We are delighted that the court’s wisdom exposed their real agenda.”

The event featured a wedding cake, champagne, acknowledgement of the progress made and a reminder of how much has yet to be accomplished.

“All of us – no matter where we live – are excited by the promise of equality that Massachusetts now holds,” said Robert Gleason, chair of The Center’s board of directors. “Ending discrimination against same-sex couples and their families was the fair and just thing to do. Our greatest hope is that one day soon, marriage equality will be the law of the land.”

“Our community and our allies fought hard to pass AB 205,” said AJ Davis, The Center’s director of public policy. “… However, while this is a step towards equal protections for our relationships and our families, we must still continue to move forward towards full civil marriage equality. Not only must we defeat the discriminatory federal marriage amendment, but we must also continue our work to end marriage discrimination here in California and across the country.”

Jacobs added that, though the past year has seen tremendous progress for GLBT rights, it has also been a year of equally harsh backlash.

“Bill O’Reilly’s ‘No Spin Zone’ calls all this the ‘great culture debate’ and I agree,” she said. “America as a nation faces some critical choices about what we stand for, and the marriage issue is one of those issues. Either America stands for freedom, justice, fairness and equality for all people, or we are a people that support imprisoning others without due process, torturing prisoners, rolling back the basic rights of adults to choose happiness, and insisting that some people are more equal than others. We all know separate will never be equal. Most Americans are clear: Freedom and equality for all people is the right choice for a responsible people and for the leadership of the free world. Massachusetts will teach us that equality won’t threaten existing marriages; no divorces will be filed just because same-sex couples married today, and no major cultural institutions will fail. All that will happen is people who love each other will commit themselves publicly to each other and gain the rights and recognition they deserve. After the last two horrible weeks of the events on the world stage, Massachusetts will remind us that turning away from freedom and equality is a greater danger to our culture than same-sex marriages will ever be.”

Anyone who is openly gay in this country asks to be treated fairly, and, however apolitical they may be, is participating in the most unified fight for GLBT civil rights ever. Or, as Margaret Cho said, “Even if you are still in the closet, the voting booth is a private place to fight.”

To participate in or donate to The Center’s Marriage Equality Project, contact AJ Davis at (619) 692-2077 ext. 212, or Jeffrey Mittman at Equality California, (619) 692-2077 ext. 211. For more information about the mass wedding and commitment ceremony at The Abbey in West Hollywood or for ceremony reservations, call (310) 289-8410. The Abbey is located at 692 North Robertson Blvd.