As both are really, really long -- I don't know what it is that compels me, sometimes -- I'll just leave the links, rather than hogging the whole front page.
Wingnuts & Moonbats: My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?
Sorry I've been remiss in not posting, here. Nothin' lately seemed worthy...
It's always worthy.
ReplyDeleteThe GLBT movement may have underestimated the amount of prejudice remaining based upon the progress that had already been made. And it makes sense to suppose that once rights have been granted, the general tendency is to broaden them and not take them away. But that did not happen in this case, and I think it took a lot of people by surprise.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the protesting against Proposition 8 is that they ha d their chance. This America and in America we vote on issues. The people of California voted to ban gay marriage from their state and that's it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, great blog I'm willing to add you to my blog roll if you add me to yours. Let me know.
I can appreciate voting on issues, but not so much on voting on the rights of minority groups or members of them. To my way of thinkin', you're born with those inalienable rights already intact & guaranteed for life, here in America.
ReplyDeleteA disproportionate amount of the money that funded Proposition 8 came from outside California. Yes, that’s right. Outside agitators! Most of the contributions come from far right sources; some I would describe as self-styled “American Taliban” whose goal is to impose their own form of religious law over secular law. To follow the money trail, click here:
ReplyDeleteHere are the largest four contributors from that list:
Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT. $1,425,000
Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Irvine, CA. $1,395,000
John Templeton/Josephine Templeton, Bryn Mawr, PA. $1,100,000
National Organization for Marriage, Princeton, NJ. $1,041,134.80
Christopher: This [is] America and in America we vote on issues. The people of California voted to ban gay marriage from their state and that's it.
NO, THAT IS NOT IT! The is a shameful red meat issue invented by an immoral political faction wholly bereft of any decency or any understanding of democracy. Prop 8 was bought.
Prop 8 nullifies a right that had been affirmed by the California Supreme Court. In a democracy, one does NOT extend rights one year and taketh away the next. The purpose of a constitutional democracy is to protect minorities from political winds and the whims of a majority. And BTW, there is a concept known as “separation of church and state” in case you haven’t noticed. It protects citizens from religious persecution and oppression … and protects persons of faith from each other.
Christopher, you need to go back to Civics 101 and start over.
Well, I’m a favorer of demo-crassy, but sometimes the most direct brand of it (like what the Athenians had in their glory days) can cause serious trouble. Our initiative process in California has at times been like an engine of destruction against democracy itself. Any fool (or sinister, selfish, ideologically twisted group) can write up a devious or misguided proposition and then pay people to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot. There hardly seems to be a limit on what you can propose—I mean, you could propose rounding up left-handed Californians and putting them in concentration camps if you wanted to. Some propositions are just asking to be struck down as ludicrous violations of the US or State Constitution, but other than that, all sorts of harmful, stupid stuff can get itself on the ballot by the initiative process.
ReplyDeleteThe point here is that, as Octo says, there’s always strong potential for “the tyranny of the majority” in democratic and even republican representational systems. And that’s what happened with Prop. 8: it amounts to a majority of straight people saying, “We don’t like LGBT people, or perhaps we even fear them and despise them. Even though they are citizens and pay taxes just as we do, we don’t think they should be granted the same rights. They need to understand that they are second-class citizens, no matter what the courts have said.” It’s really as simple, and as ugly, as that! (I think a big problem here, by the way, is that in the case of marriage, the state seems to have gotten itself into the sacrament-dispensing business—it should probably just be granting everybody “civil union licenses with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto” and then leaving it to couples to find a church to “marry” them, if that’s what they want, by way of purely religious, symbolic addition. But nooooo, that would be too practical, too commonsensical—we can’t have that! By all means, let’s be sure to keep mixing church and state in ways that drive us all to distraction.)
As for “accepting” the people’s verdict in such cases as Prop. 8, I would say, well, in the short run there’s really no good choice, but in the long run, no, certainly fair-minded people of any persuasion shouldn’t be content with it. They should challenge it in the courts if possible, and if that doesn’t work out, they should propose a countermeasure and try to get the people to reverse their inconsiderate, destructive, misguided decision. Isn’t that the way MLK and the Civil Rights advocates thought back in the 1950s-60s? They didn’t just say, “oh well, segregation seems to be the majority’s will here in Alabama or Mississippi, so we’ll just have to accept it as a permanent or nearly permanent institution.” No—they denounced it as a moral evil and fought it by civil, democratic means. Democracy is a messy business; it is exactly what Mr. Lincoln said it was: an experiment the success of which is never guaranteed and always subject to nullification either by corrupt leaders or by the very people it is designed to serve and protect. The fact that an idea is enacted into law by democratic means is no guarantee that it will further the health of the republic or any given state. Creatively challenging the results of such ideas (which sometimes stem from custom and tradition) is part of the democratic process, and it’s a vital one.
Finally, I would add that angry and destructive protests probably aren’t the ticket for the LGBT group that has been ill served here. Such angry displays or expressions of outrage will only widen the rift between opponents of 8 and those who voted in favor of 8. While progressives like myself tend to view gay marriage as a basic human rights issue, only a minority seem to see it that way. In my experience, many people see “gay marriage” as something very forward-looking and radical, almost exotic. So that means its proponents can’t take its acceptance for granted, the way many did this time around. I think you’ll see them figure out a set of creative and intelligent ways of making their case over the next couple of years. Younger voters aren’t as biased as older voters about orientation issues, so things should get better in the near future.
Bloggingdino: the state seems to have gotten itself into the sacrament-dispensing business—it should probably just be granting everybody “civil union licenses with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto” and then leaving it to couples to find a church to “marry” them
ReplyDeleteProbably the best solution, I agree, and the one that keeps the camel's nose of religion out from under the tent of government.
Of course, there will always be those "autocratic, social-dominator" types insinuating themselves into the private affairs of others. The purpose of a constitutional democracy is to protect us from these self-appointed demagogues.
Any fool (or sinister, selfish, ideologically twisted group) can write up a devious or misguided proposition and then pay people to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot.
In my state too, this is happening. Our constitution has become, not the enduring document it is supposed to be, but a target for every kind of political whimsy and chicanery imaginable. Florida had its own version of Prop 8. Even more draconian than the California version, it affects all forms of domestic partnership out of wedlock.
With Prop 8, constitutional democracy failed, and now the question is: How can we protect ourselves without having to take up arms … all eight of them in my case?
I am late to this conversation - but I just wanted to point out & reiterate one thing you said, Octo, that doesn't get enough thought. We can not keep giving rights one moment & then vote to take them away again when the next election rolls around. It makes too many disenfranchised groups too vulnerable to the whims of chance - whims bought by money as you point out...
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough that couples can be legally married in one state but not in another. What if they move? Let's admit it - we have 50 individual fiefdoms. NOT a unified country. Politicians are getting too quick these days to duck tricky social issues by saying "I think that's an issue for the states to decide" - oh please! What a cop out.
I digress . . .
I digress . . .
ReplyDeleteOh, please! There you go again. Today is Cephalopod Pride Day. Be BIG! Be BOLD, Be BAD!
Down here in Florida, the retirement home of the Confederacy, They passed an amendment that, as I read it, takes away the right to make civil contracts between individuals of the same sex that might be construed to benefit them in a way reminiscent of marriage.
ReplyDeleteI welcome it because it's so bloody unconstitutional that it may enable the ACLU to challenge it successfully.
Squid, I thought this may interest you:
ReplyDeleteOne of Echidne’s co-bloggers is gay and wrote about Prop 8 recently: Civil Unions and the All or Nothing Principle by Anthony McCarthy (11/09/2008 07:05:00 AM).
There is no reason to see civil unions as settling for something, it can be a stepping stone, a way to obtain what rights we can, enjoy the benefits of those and fight on towards the farther goal of complete equality. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment (which should be revived) didn’t mean that women shouldn’t enjoy what rights they could get in the mean time. I don’t think a country in which many places legally disallow a full range of rights based on gender preference can let the struggle for those lapse while this one, very difficult to obtain, right is focused on. We need as many of our rights as we can get at any one time. Marriage absolutists have no right to insist we defer those for a right many of us will not use to begin with. By all means, lets work on it, but not just on that issue.
The comments following the article are also a worthy read.
This matter should be put before the Supreme Court to decide - is there or is there not a constitutional ban on same sex marriage? If none exists then same sex couple should be able to marry, divorce, etc in ANY state of the Union.
ReplyDeleteThe only exception I would want to see is the continued upholding of the separation of church and state whereby churches are not forced to perform marriages their doctrine doesn't approve of.
Now, if the conservatives insist on foisting their religious beliefs on the rest of us, then if such a decision were made, churches SHOULD be forced to comply.
Can't have it both ways; either there is no distinction between church and state and therefore all religious organizations must abide by all rulings or there is a separation and religion is left out of the equation.