Two years ago, my best friend asked me to officiate at her wedding. It was an honor to play that special role in her life, and I loved doing it. But standing before the crowd, I was struck by the unfortunate irony of the situation: Even as I married my friend and her husband, I could not marry my own partner. I decided that hers would be the last wedding I attended until I had the freedom to have my own.
Now, I will have that chance. Today the United States Supreme Court held that California’s ban on marriages between same-sex couples is unconstitutional. In a separate ACLU case, the Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing married same-sex couples to begin receiving federal benefits, now that the federal government will recognize those marriages.
People will pay lots of attention to the details of the Court’s opinion. As an attorney and the deputy executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, I could give my legal analysis. But instead, I want to tell you about what this day means for me personally, as an unmarried gay man in a relationship that has lasted longer than any our parents ever had.
Before the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that same-sex couples have a right to marry, my partner and I didn’t think much about marriage. We grew up in Tennessee, where gay rights still languish. I spent years ignoring those commercials about saving two months’ salary for an engagement ring. Even after my partner, Lamont, and I moved to California in 2000, I didn’t daydream about proposals. Marriage never seemed like a possibility.
But after the release of the groundbreaking In re Marriages decision, I went from never thinking about marriage to not being able to get it off my mind. Marriage became an option. I asked around about the best wedding venues in southern California. I thought about what role our pets would play in a ceremony. Then, less than six months after the California Supreme Court granted me the freedom to marry, voters passed Proposition 8, taking away that right.
I still remember the passage of Proposition 8 in painful detail. Lamont and I gathered around the television. We watched the election returns trickle in. We witnessed the historic victory of our first black president. We stayed up late together, hoping to see the proposition’s defeat. By the early hours of the morning, however, the outcome was clear. I was shocked to see Californians enshrine discrimination into the state’s Constitution.
Living in Tennessee, I was accustomed to slurs about my sexual orientation. But California was supposed to be different. Crossing the state line on our move to the Golden State – our car filled with our belongings – Lamont and I listened as the Pet Shop Boys sang about how “life is peaceful there” in the song “Go West.” It seemed to herald a new kind of life. Sure, we were excited about “sun in wintertime,” but we also hoped California would be a place where we could celebrate fully our long-term relationship. The day Proposition 8 passed, I felt that hope dissolve.
Why didn’t we marry during the window in 2008 when marriage between same-sex couples was legal in California? In part, the decision was practical. With the Defense of Marriage Act in place, we would not be entitled to the federal tax benefits afforded other married couples. But there were also emotional reasons. Because marriage had not been a possibility for us before, we never really had enough time to discuss the idea. And the passage of Proposition 8 cut short our time to have that conversation.
The past five years have been long. They have been painful. But today, with the Supreme Court’s decision to restore the right to marry here, California is the state we hoped it would be when we first arrived. It is a state full of possibility.
Eighteen years have passed since my partner and I fell in love. Now I can finally go home and have a long talk with him about marriage.
James Gilliam is the Deputy Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act, holding that the criteria Congress established for which states must get federal permission before changing voting laws was unconstitutional. ACLU of Southern California attorney David Sapp weighs in on the 5-4 ruling:
What’s the takeaway from today’s decision?
Congress may continue to require “preclearance” – which compels jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to get federal assent before changing their voting laws.
But it struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which dictates which jurisdictions must obtain the government’s approval. Under the formula that the Court struck down, nine states were subject to the preclearance requirement. These states no longer need to get special federal approval before making changes to their election laws. The Texas Attorney General, for example, now says the state can implement its voter ID law and redistricting plan without federal assent.
What happens now?
Under the Court’s ruling, Congress can try to craft a new formula to determine which jurisdictions should have to obtain the federal government’s approval before changing their election laws. Congress must use current data to figure out who needs preclearance, the Court said.
What’s your opinion of the decision?
It will only make it harder to guard against voting discrimination. Congress has repeatedly recognized the need for certain jurisdictions to get government approval before changing their voting laws: Just seven years ago, it reauthorized this portion of the Voting Rights Act, after holding hearings over nine months and compiling 15,000 pages of evidence.

In a disappointing 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down Section 4, a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act that had protected the right to vote for people of color and language minorities since 1965. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of our nation’s most critical federal civil rights statutes. It ensures state and local governments don’t pass laws or policies that deny American citizens the equal right to vote based on race. Section 5, a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, requires certain jurisdictions that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to secure advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was used to determine which states and jurisdictions were subject to government review. Importantly, today’s decision did not strike down Section 5 itself, which requires the Department of Justice to “pre-clear” any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting.” Instead, today’s decision struck down Section 4 of the Act, leaving it to Congress to devise a new coverage formula to determine which jurisdictions must get government clearance before making such changes. Section 5, therefore, is alive but for the moment dormant until Congress chooses to act. In the jurisdictions that had been covered, voting remains divided along racial lines. These jurisdictions may “bail out” of Section 5 by maintaining a “clean record” – no evidence of discrimination in voting rights – for ten years. More than 100 jurisdictions have done so in recent years, including California’s Merced County. However, three counties in California still fall under Section 5 coverage: Kings, Monterey, and Yuba. Nonetheless, the state still wrote a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Section 5 to ensure that all Californians had equal access to the polls.
The court’s decision presents a serious challenge to Americans’ fundamental right to vote and represents a significant departure from the Court’s previous four decisions over four decades recognizing that Congress is in the best position to judge the value of the preclearance requirement and where it is most needed. As recently as 2006, Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, recognized that strong federal legislation remains necessary to ensure that all Americans can exercise the right to vote free from racial discrimination. This is as true today as it was seven years ago. The Court’s decision today is especially disheartening in light of the spate of restrictive voting laws that were passed prior to the 2012 presidential election. This pattern continues. More than 75 restrictive voting laws were introduced in legislatures across the country in the first half of 2013 alone. The Court’s decision today does not change the fact that voting laws that discriminate against minority voters remain unlawful. The ACLU will continue to challenge laws that erect barriers to voting.
Lori Shellenberger, Director, Voting Rights Project of the California ACLU