Fear not, the march of progress is not without its colorful lunatic branch. They are out there and ready to do battle. Anti-gay wignuts on the right have already mobilized their forces all over California collecting a reported 1.1 million signatures to put a ballot initiative forward that would, if passed, amend California's constitution to negate a court ruling in favor of marriage equality. Governor Arnold the Discriminator (needing to have it both ways?) has already said that he would oppose such an initiative, though he has twice vetoed bills passed by the California legislature to extend the freedom to marry to all. So it seems clear that Arnold doesn't know what to do. He wants someone else to take responsibility for doing the right thing; perhaps tomorrow the court will do it for him. Optimists have lately emerged with rumors that the decision will be a pro-marriage one. Cynics have guessed that the right-wingers push the story that a pro-marriage ruling is imminent to boost their petition drive. Continued here.

A pro-marriage ruling would be an interesting hot potato for the presidential election. McCain could beat the tired drum of "activist judges," only the Mayor of San Francisco is the one who started it all and he is an elected official. And then there is the inconvenient truth that the California legislature has already twice passed marriage equality legislation. Actually, it's the court that is late to join the bandwagon. Republicans will likely try to use gay and lesbian Americans as a scapegoat or marriage equality as a wedge issue, but with the economy tanking and the country mired in a never ending war, it seems almost impossible to imagine that voters could be stupid enough to fall for that charade again. Regardless, a win tomorrow in California would put 10% of the U.S. population in a marriage equality state and change the course of history.

If only Mildred Loving had lived just a few weeks longer she would be with us today to witness the arc of history continue to bend toward justice. More than 41 years after she and her husband (pictured here) won the Supreme Court case striking down anti-miscegenation laws, she passed away at her home in Viriginia at the age of 68. In 1965 she said, "We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."
In a statement she released last year (listen to NPR) she said of the Supreme Court victory that bears her name:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Whatever the court's decision today, Mildred and Peter Loving will continue to be a part of our journey.