The California Supreme Court handed down a major decision yesterday, declaring that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. (text of the opinion via the NYT)

The 4-3 decision referenced a decision 60 years ago that overturned state laws prohibiting interracial marriages, something many Hawaii residents should care about. Massachusetts is the only other state whose Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples can be married.

Kenji Yoshino of Slate has a good straight-forward write-up on why the decision is so significant, how it differs from the 2003 Massachusetts high court decision and what could happen next.

The decision becomes effective in 30 days, but some worry that it may be short-lived. Opponents who support traditional marriage are pushing to put a measure on the ballot in California in November that would ban same-sex marriage.

You’ll find no shortage of news and analysis regarding the California Supreme Court’s decision today, including what it may mean for the presidential election. A plethora of same-sex couples rushing to get married in California before the ruling is potentially overturned in November could make same-sex marriage a galvanizing issue for Republicans before Election Day.

Younger citizens, more of whom are getting involved with the election this year, seem to be more accepting of same-sex marriage, but the question remains: will they vote?

It should be interesting to see what happens in California in November, but also to see if the decision causes ripples in the same-sex marriage debate in Hawaii. Our state provides some marriage-like rights to same-sex couples but does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions. In the 1990s, Hawaii seemed poised to become the first state to allow same-sex marriages, but in 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters chose to give the state legislature the power to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

People have compared that to what happened in California in 2000 — the last time the same-sex marriage issue was put to California voters. That year, 61 percent voted to strengthen the state’s one-man, one-woman marriage law.

That was one of the statutes struck down yesterday.

Throwing it out there: Is the California Supreme Court’s decision something to be celebrated or mourned?

Or is it too soon to say?

photo: AFP

Women: What if you walked into the ladies room and saw a person standing up to pee?

Men: What if you entered the men’s room and saw someone applying lipstick and mascara in the mirror?

According to an article in The Williams Record (my college paper), a group of students are asking the school to make campus bathrooms more welcoming to the transgender community by removing gender designations from all single-use restrooms. The students have the support of some senior staff members of the administration and would eventually like to see locker rooms modified (for more privacy for those who feel uncomfortable changing in front of others) and all campus buildings outfitted with gender-neutral restrooms.

It’s one thing to switch the signs on single-use bathrooms, but as the article acknowledges, adjustments beyond that are going to require more resources … and more acceptance from the community.

The public reaction to Thomas Beatie, a pregnant man who used to be a woman, indicates that the “T” in the GLBT acronym might very well be the hardest for our society to accept. As homosexuality is accepted gradually, transgendered individuals are still met with stares or awkward glances. Media still struggle with how to refer to transgendered people — whether to call them he and she, or “he” and “she,” or even he/she.

As more people now identify themselves as transgendered, there’s a new call to avoid separating people based on “male” and “female.” In one example, a former (mostly straight) dance club in Scottsdale, Ariz. transformed itself into the premier spot for the GLBT community following a widely-talked about 2006 incident involving the owner and a transgendered woman.

According to an article in The Arizona Republic, the owner asked the woman, Michele de LaFreniere, to leave the club after female patrons complained about men in dresses using the bathroom designated for women. De LaFreniere responded by filing a claim of sex discrimination with the Arizona attorney general, and the owner, Tom Anderson, became the subject of dozens of articles pitting him against the GLBT community.

(Anderson reopened the club in Dec. 2007 with a gender-neutral restroom and the place now caters to the GLBT community, attracting more than 700 patrons on Friday and Saturday night. Each.)

I’ll never forget walking into a multi-stall mixed-gender bathroom in a club in Beijing, which was attended mostly by gay men. In the stall to one side was my female friend; in the stall on the other side, a guy. The stalls were private; the bathroom was bathed in soft red lighting and the sinks with their basins of smooth stones and soft cascading water made you feel like you were washing your hands in a small waterfall. It was a weird experience, to say the least. But surprisingly, “uncomfortable” wasn’t one of the feelings that came to mind.

Many people would feel uncomfortable. Williams has a fairly open-minded student body, but even there, as with most places, you’ll likely find people who want to keep the women’s room for women and the men’s room for men.

Is our traditional way of thinking about gender confining? Are we ready for all things gender-neutral?

pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_bathrooms