Prop 8 is enough
It’s more than enough, in fact. We’ve had more than enough codified discrimination in this country over its long and sometimes misguided history, and whatever semantics those in favor of Proposition 8 choose to hide behind — “it’s about judicial activism” this, “why can’t ‘they’ just call them ‘civil unions'” that — it’s bigotry. It’s about feeling profoundly uncomfortable with gays and lesbians, and then it’s making that discomfort gays’ and lesbians’ problem, when it’s actually your own.
Just a reminder: the state of California allows prisoners to marry. Prisoners. Lyle Menendez has a wife. So does Erik. The Menendezes killed their parents for money; the Menendezes have wives. My cousin has not killed her parents (both ministers, by the way, and both down with the program), and is a Ph.D, a published author, and a total sweetheart whose current relationship has lasted longer than all of mine combined, but if my cousin moves to California, who can she marry? A dude. A dude in prison, even. But…not a lady. What the fuck, Golden State.
That’s the bad, dumb news. The good news: if you would care to object to that ridonkulous state of affairs, you can do it, in person, even if you don’t live in Cali. On Saturday, Join The Impact is coordinating a protest to take place at the same time in all 50 states (y’all Hawaiians will have to get up kinda early…sorry dudes). Just click the link above to find out where to gather, to become a local organizer, or to order a t-shirt.
That’s our friends they’re talking about. Don’t let it stand.
Tags: friends politix shut up Prop 8 and all the others like you sites
One small point – of the Yes on 8 money donated, about $5,000 came from the LDS church. $15M or so came from Mormon/likely Mormon individual donors, but the LDS church itself made a (relatively) small donation.
@LauraF – that’s a staggering statistic for San Francisco voters. It makes me really sad…this could have been so different. And really, there’s an aspect to the incredible enthusiasm against 8 we’re seeing now that also makes me sad. Like…where was this energy and dedication in the weeks that mattered – before the election? I live in SoCal, and though TV became a wasteland of Yes on 8/No on 8 ads in the two weeks before the vote, there didn’t seem to be much of an organized presence of support. Certainly nothing like what’s going on now. Most of what people saw/heard, it seems, came through the TV ads. I was really frustrated with the angle they presented. Before the whole thing devolved into each side saying “Nuh-UH!” about the other side’s ads, the No on 8 stuff was mainly about how mean it was to support 8. That…doesn’t persuade people. I wish they had focused more on the substantive rights that come with a legally recognized marriage – SS benefits, surviving spouse carveouts in estate matters, medical decisions, gift transfers, etc. There are so many substantive, tangible things that are denied to same-sex spouses that just don’t occur to a lot of people, and mentioning them would have done a lot to bolster the argument of “you want to take rights away from people.”
Hubby and I are taking the baby down to Federal Plaza in Chicago tomorrow for her first civil rights protest. I think it’s important to be involved, and we are raising a child who will have a social conscience.
Separate is not equal.
“The anger and violent protests against Mormons and other churches is beyond civil. It’s one thing to disagree; it’s another to take out your frustration on people simply because of their beliefs.”
@ Lib: As you sow, so shall you reap.
As long as this conversation stays at the level of the states, then it will continue to be about the rights to a word. The rights that most people associate with marriage that cannot be afforded by present domestic partnership legislation are at the federal level and they include things like immigration concerns. From what I can tell from the history of marriage licenses in the United States, the practice began with the intention of regulating (specifically prohibiting) interracial marriages. Personally, I’m annoyed at the way the word “spouse” opens up so many privileges in our society like employer health insurance. Adding provisions for “same-sex partners” have opened dialogue as to the rights of “opposite-sex partners” We’ve had provisions in our laws for “common law marriage” but wouldn’t domestic partnerships work for people who make a long-term commitment to living together? Significant human relationships do NOT fit one mold regardless of the genders of people involved. In many ways, our legal system is totally archaic and does require updating.
I do not support relegating a class of people to a particular rational category. We will have people who are single, people who are married, people who have companions, people who have partners, etc. I’m loving surveys that I’m seeing that ask about marital status: single, engaged, married, living with same-sex partner, living with opposite-sex partner, widowed, separated, divorced, prefer not to answer. ALL people should be able to check the box that best fits them.
I do not live in CA, AZ, FL, or AR; therefore, I did not have an opportunity to vote directly on these issues.
What everyone else has said. I’m a het Christian who is beyond in favor of full equality for gays, and I’ll totally kick in on rent for the Summer of Love House! I took my toddler to her first protest today, and it was wonderful, especially seeing so many people out and honking their support deep in “Yes on 8” territory. I kind of want to bring it up at Thanksgiving this year, as a segue to asking all of the members of my family who voted yes on 8 to look my beloved second cousin and her incredible partner, who have been together for 20 years and who have gone to the mat to help out family members WHO VOTED YES ON THIS why, exactly, they shouldn’t get married. It’s a good thing I quit drinking; with a couple glasses in me I can pretty much guarantee that I wouldn’t be able to help myself. SO MAD.
I have a gigantic screed about this, but I think the territory has been wonderfully covered. I especially appreciate the links to Peter Gomes — his interpetation of the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is not only intellectually compelling, but so much more in line with the Christ I know — one who is about love and inclusion, and in line with a God who doesn’t make mistakes and who make some people gay (and don’t tell me that that’s a sign from God that they aren’t supposed to get married because marriage is about making babies — I guess my infertile friend better get a divorce right now because God means for her to be alone too, then, right?). I’ve gone around and around with my more conservative Christian friends on this stuff, and have to say, they all end up falling silent; I may not have changed their hearts yet, but at least they know their arguments are piss-poor. Only one more addition: I hear the “I don’t mind gay marriage but WHAT WILL IT LEAD TO?” /clutch pearls/. So…you are going to withold basic rights from an entire group of people for something that OTHER people MIGHT do at some point in the future? That’s real nice.
And Sarah D. Bunting — you are just plain fantastic. Thanks for speading the word, and for your righteous rage.
Word, word, and doubleword. And not much more to add, except that my husband suggested that the people on City Hall Plaza in Boston, rather than protesting, should hold up advertisements: “MOVE TO MA. WE LOVE YOU HERE.”
(And grumble mutter about this being on a Saturday, no way I could go.)
“The ballot item asked about my definition of marriage, which compounds the issue.”
Excuse me, but it did not. It did not ask about your personal definition.
It asked whether one particular rule about marriage — namely, “it is limited to between a man and a woman” — should be part of the state constitution.
My definition of parenting includes substantial time with your children doing things they enjoy, but it’s not the law.
My definition of marriage includes supporting your spouse with loving care, but it’s not the law.
This is the fundamental nature of liberty, seriously. Seriously. It sounds corny, but seriously, that is liberty, right there. Understanding that the question of how you personally define what makes a proper marriage is an *entirely* separate question from whether your definition should be written into the law; that’s what it means to live in a free society.
And let me add that I find it particularly disingenuous to argue against gay marriage by claiming the word “marriage” is not important. “Oh, we’re arguing over a silly word.” Then why can’t they have it? If it doesn’t matter, why are millions of dollars being spent to keep it from them? You know why. It’s because withholding it stamps a badge of inferiority on the relationship, exactly the way the Supreme Court was smart enough to realize that racial segregation itself was meant to perpetuate a discriminatory caste system, even if the dining cars or schools were otherwise “equal.”
Marriage is a fundamental right; the Supreme Court has said it is a fundamental right. Several times. Not marriage-like benefits are a fundamental right; MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. Of course they’ve never said same-sex marriage is a fundamental right; they’ve never said short-tall marriage is a fundamental right either, but you can bet that if the state declared the short could not marry the tall, you’d get a Supreme Court reversal.
I’ve told this story before, but my uncle’s partner cared for him and cleaned him when he was dying of cancer, and then carried the memorial stone ON HIS BACK into the Arizona desert. For anyone to suggest that there would be some tearing at the fabric of society if that relationship were recognized as a marriage is flat-out ignorant. I’m sorry. I’ve been nice a long time, and I’ve tried to say I understand, but that is just ignorant.
You want to tell me that as that guy carried that rock on his back to remember someone he loved who had recently died, he was supposed to stop and ask everyone to take a vote on the legitimacy of the relationship? You presume to pass judgment on their partnership and deem it less deserving of state recognition than, as Sarah has mentioned, the prison marriage of Lyle Menendez?
That is a level of certainty about my place in the universe that I would be relieved to one day realize.
Hey, thanks for the info. I went to City Hall today and it was lovely. I wanted to hug everyone there.
“marriage and traditional families are the fabric of society, and that’s just something that shouldn’t change.”
Y’know, I live in Massachusetts. My parents have lived here for the past twenty-five years and married for the past thirty-two. We’ve had gay marriage for a few years and my parents? Still married! Doing fine! Unaffected by the fact that my favorite English teacher is now legally married to her wife, or that another lesbian couple moved in down the street with their baby, or by anything except their own internal issues. The fabric of society seems to be pretty well intact from what I see living here; it’s more threatened by shit like the economy tanking and the schools left to scramble and the town library left with a deficit. The fabric of society is made of innumerable threads; the rainbow stripe of gay marriage has its own place therein.
My parents, brother, sister and I all marched in San Diego, where 20 – 25,000 beautiful people marched 2 miles in brutal (for SoCal) heat. I have never felt prouder to be American than I did that day, to see so many people come together in peaceful protest.
I live in Canada and I can say that since they made gay marriage legal here (November 2004 in my province; July 2005 for the whole county), I have not yet had the urge to leave my husband to marry a girl. I also haven’t seen a surge of gay couples descend on Catholic churches demanding that they recognize their marriages. Because, why would they want that???
Seriously, all of this fretting by churches that they’d be forced to recognize gay marriages? No. Not happening. Get over it. No one forced the Catholic church to recognize my mom’s marriage to my step dad. I had my marriage blessed by the Catholic church and hubby and I had to take freaking classes first or they wouldn’t do it. Know why? Because that’s their right. Saying that the scary gays are coming to sue all the churches until they are acknowledged IS NOT HAPPENING.
And also, as many have said here before, two gay people in love with eachother is not going to cause the unraveling of the sanctity of marriage. Allowing divorces does more harm to the “institution of marriage” than allowing more people to enter into it.
Even Stephan Harper reneged on his 2006 election promise to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage (the purpose of which was exactly the same as Prop 8 – remove the pre-existing rights to marriage). He promised over and over that the people of Canada would vote on the issue. And then he realized that the people of Canada actually weren’t too keen on watching rights be taken away from a whole group of people and he shut up. (It seems there was also concern that he’d never get it past the Liberal senate.)
I hope that the good people of the U.S. can get this atrocity reversed. It’s such a shame.
Also, just a side-note from a northern friend: I remember 2004 when Bush was re-elected and all of the talk from progressive Americans about moving to Canada. While we’d be glad to have you, thank you for staying where you were to usher in the awesome change of power that is Obama. And, knowing that you did that so wonderfully, I have no doubt that you will be successful in getting rid of this awful discrimination. Staring down the barrell of another several years of Stephan Harper rule up here is making the days of 2004 come back to me in reverse.
Sorry, I forgot to mention above that while I have not yet had the desire to leave my husband for a girl, Sars’ awesome and eloquent rant did have me briefly hoping to join her at the girl make-out mansion.
Sars and others keep saying, “What is it to them? I don’t get it.” And the thing is… while “they” are not a homogenous (insert Beavis & Butthead laugh here) group, I have a feeling that I *do* kind of get what it is to many of “them”… and it makes my head explode EVEN MORE. And I wish people (this includes Keith Olbermann) would talk about it more explicitly, because the only way to deal with the reasons it matters to “them” is to confront those reasons and condemn them for the trash they are.
For example: it matters because their religion tells them that homosexuality is an abomination, and to apply the sacred concept of marriage to an abominable union would defile it in the same way that sacred ground can be defiled by abominable acts being done there.
(There are a number of arguments to be marshalled against that viewpoint, some of which have already been brought up above. Have at it.)
Another example: it matters because they believe (or, they are willing to misrepresent the issue in order to make others believe) that allowing civil marriage would “force” their religious institution to perform those marriages. And they can’t deal with the idea that their church would ever, EVER change its stance on something that they have been told up to this point is a non-negotiable tenet of their religion.
(Hey, LDS? The 70s are calling, they want to talk to you about allowing blacks in the priesthood. And that isn’t the only example.)
Or this (this one really gets me): they figure that if gay marriage is recognized as legal, then the schools will start teaching their children that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. And THAT is at odds with their “rights” (for which read: desire) to continue to discriminate against gays, and to continue to view them as an abomination, within their own communities.
(But wrestling with this issue — parents who don’t like any of hundreds of things that schools teach their children — is a wider issue, and just contemplating it makes me feel enraged and helpless on behalf of the cause of education.)
Finally: it matters to them because (I saw someone post this in a comment just today on Boston.com; and yes, I should know better than to read the comments) the more legal rights that are given to gays, the more society begins to accept gays as normal, the more gays feel free to not have to hide themselves. And where does that lead? Why, that leads to a man feeling free to kiss his husband in public! Just like “they” get to kiss their own husbands or wives! Without having to be afraid of a right-thinking passerby beating the two of them to a pulp, or killing them for the abominations they are. (… leaving aside the problem of how much that danger still exists.) And what might happen then? Well, Mr. Homophobe’s young son or daughter might SEE it! And might ASK about it! And what is Mr. Homophobe supposed to TELL them? (… because apparently legalizing same-sex civil marriage will make it against the law for Mr. Homophobe to *be* a homophobe, or to say homophobic things. Oh, IF ONLY.)
You know, out of all of them, it’s the last one that really makes me see red. Because even amongst people who I have heard make efforts to be “tolerant”, they wreck themselves on the rock of the “problem” that homosexuality = nothing except gay sex = icky, and they can neither bring themselves to talk about it nor condone it. They don’t seem to grasp the possibility that if little Johnny saw a man and woman kissing, and asked about it, the parent is not obliged to give the child illustrated color diagrams depicting heterosexual sex… and the same is true for gay people. “They love each other”. See how simple that is?
But oh no! Because aside from the fear of having to imagine/describe gay sex, the other problem — and this relates to schools teaching that gay marriage is okay and normal — is that it *might give the child ideas*. The child might grow up to think that it would be okay if he or she kissed someone of the same sex!
And obviously THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER. Obviously, “they” can imagine nothing worse than that — having their child think being gay is okay; having their child turn out to BE gay. (Perhaps… admitting that they, themselves, are gay. Perhaps admitting that denial of their own homosexuality for all these years has been meaningless and unnecessary.)
Sure, I believe that there are supporters of Prop 8 out there who don’t fit any of the above categories. Maybe. But I’m tending to think that *most* of them do.
What’s it to them? A lot. It’s about preserving their privilege and their bigotry, both for themselves, and for imposing it on their children. It matters a LOT to them.
It just SHOULDN’T. Because their fears are groundless and hollow, and preserving bigotry and teaching it your children is wrong.
@bossyboots: Exactly. Everyone’s freaking out about Proposition 8 NOW…two weeks too late.
Seriously–in California you don’t even have to GO TO THE POLL. You can sign up for “permanent vote by mail” and they just send you a ballot a month before the election. You can take all day to vote, in the comfort of your own home, with as much time as you need to look up the ballot measures you never heard of. But I guess that all these “I wish we’d voted no on 8” people had better things to do with their time.
****
My view: I voted no on 8. But I shouldn’t have had to. The Court should have thrown it back to the legislature. Court precedent is not an actual, codified right; it’s just a decision. And a successful argument can turn the decision the other way–particularly with a weak-ass 5-4 decision. Rescinding a law is a LOT harder.
And California judges are elected. If the California judges overturn Proposition 8, they’re handing the next election to whoever cares to run against them.
I don’t know if I’ll ever get married but if I do:
1. It will be in California.
2. It will be legal.
3. I will have awesome bridesmaids like Sarah and Maria. :)
3b. Who will be making out with each other.
@ Joe Mama – you aren’t, by chance, the Joe Mama from the UCB 2007 group, are you?
“Also, I challenge anyone who is against gay marriage to look one of those numerous gay friends/family members/colleagues/neighbors/celebrities you know in the face and say the following words without hesitation, reservation, or qualification: “You don’t deserve to get married because you’re gay. I deserve to get married because I’m straight.” If the thought of saying those exact words makes you feel guilty, awkward, uncomfortable, nervous, or otherwise ashamed of yourself, congrats – you’re a hypocrite, and you ought to feel like crap about that.”
Jess, I don’t know you, but at the hypothetical girl-on-girl beach house I will be waiting for you by the Freddie Mercury ice sculpture. Too awesome.
@CB & Sars – Aw, happy tears! And also, hee!
Earlier I asked “Why do they care?” Holly gave me the answer. I think I already knew the answer, but it’s hard for me (even though I’m a grown-ass woman) to fathom that level of fear and hate.
Thanks Holly. Big smooches to you, even if I don’t make it to the Beach House.
bossyboots: No, I’m just someone who used the same pun.
Hey – I’m also really annoyed Prop 8 was passed and I am Mormon – but that doesn’t excuse the bricks through church windows and people yelling and children as they are going to church people. I mean – why can’t everything stay about love – it’s that supposed to be the over all message? Love and mostly rights – not hey you hurt us so lets hurt you back?
bossyboots: I’d like to see where you got your info because from what I can see “The Church” it’s self didn’t give a dime to support the prop – yes lots of people who were members did but The Church as a whole did not.
And Janie – again so you are saying it’s all good to yell at kids and spray paint churches – that is going to make it so the prop gets turned around? Come on. There is no excuse for what some people have done. I have seen some nasty pictures and yes – I live in Michigan so I didn’t see any of the commercials and I have no clue how messed up the Cal Mormons were about wanting Yes on the prop – but in my book – there is never a reason to punish children for the sins of the parents. And wrecking a temple or church is never excusable – ever.
“Seriously, all of this fretting by churches that they’d be forced to recognize gay marriages? No. Not happening. Get over it.”
@Moira: Seriously. The sky still resolutely hasn’t fallen here.
“It just SHOULDN’T. Because their fears are groundless and hollow, and preserving bigotry and teaching it your children is wrong.”
@Holly: An excellent post altogether, and this last especially well said. And finally, @Kate H.: Co-signed.
@ Aubrey – I found it several places, but it’s easiest to see here: http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=242 Look at the bottom of the page.
Chiming in from AZ here. I didn’t see this post originally and haven’t had time to read all the posts, so sorry if I’m repeating anything.
My husband and I had a lot of discussion about Prop 102 out here. We are members of a Southern Baptist church, but I have to say, in the end, I found that to be sort of irrelevant. No matter what a person’s religious beliefs, it’s a dangerous thing to encourage laws based solely on those beliefs. I’ve never heard a coherent, secular argument against gay marriage. I came across one that tried–it said that marriage is expensive for the gov’t and so the gov’t has the right to limit that privilege to couples who will benefit society by procreating–but that’s just dumb. Does that mean that infertile couples shouldn’t marry? And Sars’ argument really shoots that down–are prisoners really going to contribute to society by procreating? At any rate, voting for something like a gay marriage ban because it aligns with your religious beliefs is dangerous–what if the next religious-based law is from a different religion? I’m a deeply religious person, but I’m also deeply in favor of the separation of church and state.
There were two parts of Prop 102 out here that just really irked me. First, as Sars mentioned, was the money. I would much rather see churches give money to feed the poor than pour it into legislation like this. Second, the ads out here were simply disgusting. I heard one on my way home from voting, and I was just livid. There was a woman talking about wanting to have kids with her husband, and she finally got pregnant, but the baby died shortly after birth, and she was so sad, but then they had lots more kids, and she knew that one day her family would be reunited with that poor little lost baby and be happy and complete. I was totally confused by this until I heard the ending: “Marriage is a husband, a wife, a family. Vote yes on Prop 102.” They used DEAD BABIES to BAN GAY MARRIAGE. It’s disgusting that anyone was persuaded by that campaign.
As for marriages and churches, AZ has what’s called a “Covenant Marriage License.” If I understood correctly, it’s something people can get in addition to a standard marriage license that’s basically a religious-based, divorce-proof marriage license. Why can’t churches just encourage their congregations to get those if they want to more closely connect the religious and legal sides of marriage?
But anyway. Anybody who uses dead babies for something like this is just sick.
I know this is awfully late, but I felt I had to post this link I got from my cousin.
http://tinyurl.com/5qj7sz It’s “Prop 8 : the musical” and wildly funny.
Also this one, from the same site
http://tinyurl.com/62le9v
which is the ‘save marriage, ban divorce’ counter argument.
I’m from New Zealand. A few years ago we passed the Civil Unions Bill. Any two consenting adults, gay or straight couples, can have a civil union. It’s marriage in all but the name, which sucks that gay couple can’t legally be married, but at least they can have spousal rights. And with no more paperwork than a marriage.
There is no constitutional bar or equivalent big legal problem to overcome to gay marriage either, so for the time being, until homophobes get their heads out of their @r$&$ it will do.
So far society hasn’t broken down, and considering male homosexuality was only legally allowed in 1986, we are catching up, (we inherited our laws from the UK, what with Queen Victoria not believing lesbianism was possible)
Anyway, I don’t really have a point, but just watned to get the Prop 8 link out.