A Bittersweet Victory
As thrilled as I am about the results of the presidential election, the passage of Prop 8 in California last night was a major setback for the country. I can't imagine how disappointing and disheartening a development that was for all of the married couples in California who have been stripped of their existing rights--and by such a narrow margin. It's a tragedy.
I'm confident that within the next decade, gay marriage will be a reality in most parts of this country--including California--but that's cold comfort to those who woke up this morning with less rights than they had last night. Over at the National Review, Maggie Gallagher is gloating:
For those of you in California, the rest of us share in your disappointment and look forward to the day (which will hopefully come soon) when this injustice is corrected.
I'm confident that within the next decade, gay marriage will be a reality in most parts of this country--including California--but that's cold comfort to those who woke up this morning with less rights than they had last night. Over at the National Review, Maggie Gallagher is gloating:
All victories are temporary in a fallen world. But this one is sweet.I find it monstrous that someone could take such pleasure in nullifying the marriages of thousands of loving couples who are doing nothing but trying to live their lives in peace. History will not look kindly on bigots like Gallagher.
For those of you in California, the rest of us share in your disappointment and look forward to the day (which will hopefully come soon) when this injustice is corrected.
UPDATE: As a number of commenters and emailers have pointed out, Jerry Brown has made clear that existing marriages in California will not be affected by the passage of Prop 8. That's good news. There may also be non-frivolous legal grounds to challenge the measure. It's still a tragedy, though.
posted by A.L. at 2:00 PM
22 Comments:
And, don't forget the devastation to all of the divorce attorneys that won't be getting that great business...
But, all joking aside. I am quite disappointed by the loss of marriage rights in my state. The Yes on 8 campaign played on the "they'll be teaching gay marriage to our kids in schools" shtick was ridiculous but, I think that kind of misleading advertising may have made the difference in the vote.
The comments of the Yes folks are horrible, and show their true motivation. I have a no on 8 sticker on my convertible. Driving to work today, someone with a Yes sticker pulled up and said (verbatim): "So how does it feel to lose? This is twice we've beaten you. Just wanted to rub it in."
All about the children, suuuuuuure.
That said, I worked the polls in Santa Monica yesterday, and the number of people who said that of course they would vote no on such a horrible thing was inspiring.
Still, it's devastating, not least because it's taking back something we already had.
Also:
California actually has two methods for changing its state constitution. Amendments, for relatively minor changes, can be made by majority vote. But revisions, which create major changes, require a 2/3 majority. It’s hard to imagine that removing a constitutional right from an entire group of people could be construed as a minor change. So unless the California Supreme Court loses its nerve, it should rule that Prop 8 required a 2/3 majority in order to revise the state constitution, and that failing to do so means the right to marry remains.
AL, I agree with you. But if the LGBT community was the right to legal marriage, they have to do a better job making their case.
I just looked at a California map showing where the YES votes came from. It was most of the map.
On the other had, it didn't pass by much. I think changing demographics will make this a clean win in a few years.
It just seems wrong that California voters can take away rights by majority vote. It would as if the Bill of Rights were up for an up or down majority rules vote.
Prop 22 passed 8 years ago with 61%. Prop passed with 52%. That means more than 1% of the electorate switches on this issue per year (Nate Silver would rip me a new for a conclusion like that based on 2 data points, but fuck it, they're all I've got.) That means in 2 years, a majority will approve of marriage equality.
It is a sad day when bigotry trumps equality. No one, not even the majority should have the right to trample the rights of a minority.
Secretary of State Jerry Brown has said that Prop 8 can't be retroactive, so existing marriages will be valid. Sure hope he sticks to that. The campaign to repeal this travesty should start right...about...now.
and thanks for so passionately sticking up for the innocent marrieds in california who are being yanked all over the place by all the idiots who are just so much holier and more righteous than they are. you are speaking for so many. i know it's no comfort to the victims, but just as we saw last night, all things are possible. this too shall pass.
History will not look kindly on bigots like Gallagher.
Indeed - and seeing how mercilessly history has already condemned race and gender bigots, I find it incredible that Gallagher and so many others are so eager to relegate themselves to be forever regarded in the same light as Joe McCarthy and George Wallace.
It just seems wrong that California voters can take away rights by majority vote.
How on earth can that be? I remember voting on many CA issues that did require 67%. How can changing the freaking constitution fall into the 51% category? To change the US constitution requires what? 2/3rds of every single state? That bar is set incredibly high, as it should be.
CA is a disgrace.
At least we have compassion for chickens.
The passage of Prop 8 was the only sour note in an otherwiser wonderful night. As an African-American i think AA's and Hispanics need to come to grips with their role in the passage of Prop 8. Cultural upbringing is a lame excuse to bigotry of any kind. Its also hypocritical if you've ever seen the guy in the black church choir who's usually leading it!!!
I can't imagine how disappointing and disheartening a development that was for all of the married couples in California who have been stripped of their existing rights--and by such a narrow margin. It's a tragedy.
Think about this: those "rights" were created by four black-robed tyrants, not by the people. What the people in California did provide was a legislature that statutorily gave all the privileges of marriage to same-sex couples in civil unions in California without calling it marriage. But no "rights", not in an American or Constitutional sense, were stripped.
I'm confident that within the next decade, gay marriage will be a reality in most parts of this country--including California--but that's cold comfort to those who woke up this morning with less rights than they had last night.
Here's how a true conservative (moi) sees this. Had the vote gone the other way and Proposition 8 failed, then anybody calling themselves a conservative who would have made a legal challenge wouldn't be a conservative but a liberal, because that would be usurping the will of the people who would have voted against this measure.
There may come a day when the American people decide at the ballot box that marriage can be redefined for gay couples (although I would vote against it), provided it doesn't violate the First Amendment's guarantee to the free exercise of religion. But the American people aren't ready for it yet. Give them time, and sell it if you want them to be for it.
For the no voters who use the bible for their argument against same sex marriage I ask: What other parts of Leviticus are you going to fight for? Are we as a society going to start stoning people for adultery and such? Either the bible is 100% and you can't pick and choose or you can not possibly know which pieces to pick so any pick has an equal chance of being wrong. If you don't believe in same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. It's that simple.
You can’t blame California voters. They may have been unable to understand the subtle distinctions drawn by our new president. You see, he has explained that he is against gay marriage, seeing as how God has decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman. But he was also against Proposition 8, seeing as how constitutions should never be amended to take away “rights.”
Some Californians may have been confused by this. They might have thought, how can it be wrong to amend a constitution to take away a right that should never have existed in the first place? Obama wouldn’t be against a constitutional amendment to take away the “right” to engage in racial discrimination, would he? If God is against gay marriage, why should we vote for it?
Fortunately, our new educational system will undoubtedly indoctrinate (I mean, educate) the populace so as to avoid these types of misunderstandings in the future. Given that President-elect Obama’s intellect is so vastly superior to that of the average American, it is only natural that the latter will sometimes be unable to grasp how the former can make two apparently inconsistent statements, while at the same time both statements are infallibly true. In time, the citizenry will learn to take this on faith.
Believe it or not, Skelley, I actually know a guy here at work who does favor stoning gays and adulterers. He's from Tennessee and says that such advocacy is common in his home state.
No nullifying. Jerry Brown says he'll defend the validity of the 18,000 marriages already on the books.
Winston Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
That's what I think happened here. We elected Obama because the possibility of more Bush was too terrible to contemplate. But it didn't carry- we attacked gays in three states and sent Bachmann, Chambliss, McConnell and their ilk back to Congress.
We've got a lot of work left to do.
I don't think government should be in the business of defining marriage, gay or straight. And I don't think deep legal government-sanctioned personal partnerships should be based on sex (gay or straight).
One or another church should define marriage however they feel like it. And personal binding contracts between people should not have anything to do with sex one way or another. Why shouldn't two non-insestuous sisters who share a household not have all the priveledges of a legal partnership (priveledges now, for some reason, based on heter-sexual intamacy)?
So, in a way, in a reasonable society prop 8 would be irrelevant. Even the existence of the vote implies too much mixing of church and state.
-Andy
I'm from Tennessee, born and raised here and still living here and I have never heard anyone around me advocating stoning. We certainly have our share of nut jobs but that's one I haven't heard.
In AZ prop 102 passed as well. What struck me about their commercials
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4mESCgtgc
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5LBg4w7iaI )
was the wording IIRC "marriage is for one man and one woman, for the purpose of having a family and passing life onto the next generation"
I thought that was pretty stupid, beyond the whole stupid-for-hating-gay-people part of it, because it could be said it implied that if you weren't planning to procreate, you also should not have the right to marry.
I wish the anti-prop 102ers had made that wording an issue, had attacked that wording with a vengeance.
It would be a good way, imo, to demonstrate that these pro-prop102'ers might just try to come after straight folks' rights next.
Doesn't seem too far fetched to think that the bible-based-breeding-brigade - B4*" will next want to make sure that everyone getting the benefits of marriage is planning to have babies.
There should have been a commercial:
Prop 102 proponents think marriage is only for people planning families. They say ~ "marriage is for one man and one woman, for the purpose of having a family and passing life onto the next generation" ~ So please help us send the message that marriage isn't just about having kids, and the right to marry should be for everyone."
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheapest wow gold
warhammer gold
warhammer powerleveling
war gold
war powerleveling
war power leveling
rose online zulie
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home