“Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.”
As of right now (12:45am Pacific Time), it seems like 52% of Californians are voting to retain that definition.
Without a doubt, the vote on proposition 8 tonight was a victory for bigots. They’ve won. Today.
But still. From 61% to 52%. In eight years. That’s stunning.
The speed of changing opinion on equal marriage rights is awesome, and though slower than we’d like, it’s in the right direction.
They’ve won. Today. But Massachusetts isn’t going away. Neither is Connecticut. And New Jersey will probably be next, and New York. And they won’t be the last. And the skies will continue to fail to fall in those states, because there is nothing the least bit harmful about recognizing families as families. And I predict that in less than a decade, we’ll take back California too.
They’ve won. Today. But we have two states with same-sex marriage, when very recently we had none. Civil unions, which seemed like a far-out radical idea so recently, is now the moderate position.
They’ve won. Today. But they’re losing the war, and they know it. It’s only a matter of time.
* * *
In the meanwhile, however, I want — no, actually, I need — a break from hearing from the opposition on this issue. So if you’re not fully supportive of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, don’t post on this thread — or on any other “Alas” thread on queer issues — for the next week.
Trust me, it’s better for everyone that I not have to respond to you until I’ve had a little mourning time.
I am so terribly sad that Proposition 8 even had a chance, but do agree that %61 to %52 is progress. It’s not the quickest change of heart ever seen, but forward momentum is the goal nonetheless.
It was a bittersweet night. The excitement I feel at an Obama/Biden victory and what it bodes for the future is tempered by my disappointment that so many millions of Californians were willing to strip rights away from gay couples, even if it was by a slim majority.
Is it wrong that I find a little comfort in the fact that the “Yes on 8” folks had to resort to what were essentially lies in order to sway the masses? I guess I find it to be a better situation that Californians are more ignorant than bigoted.
I’m surprised by how devastated I am–all the other good news seems attenuated somehow.
It’s a little silly. I’m writing this in London. I’m content with the rights my partner and I have here. The right to marry would be nice, but I don’t feel like a second-class citizen. I’m grateful we’re going to have a decent president (though I so wish he were willing to acknowledge my equality unequivocally). And we queers have come so far, so fast. Who could have imagined this even ten years ago?
But I think of all the joyful people in California after marriage came in, the pictures of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon after their wedding. I was afraid about Proposition 8, but somehow I hadn’t realized that I’d be mourning today.
My husband and I are absolutely devastated! We will be moving out of California as soon as possible. We refuse to give our tax dollars to a state that doesnt respect us or are even willing to treat us as equal! We havent decided, but either Connecticut or Canada… Signed, Sleepless In Sacramento
If I had the money, I would immediately start organizing a petition drive to override Proposition 8 in the next election — catch them flat, while they’re still celebrating. After all, that’s what they’ve been doing to us.
I’ve never been much of an activist — more the advocate than the demonstrator type — but Illinois is considering a civil unions bill. I may start pushing for the full monty here.
I feel impotent, sad, angry and annoyed about this. Someday everything will be better, you’ll see. I’m sad about all those couples who already married and will now be “cancelled” only because those damn homophobic heterosexuals have decided their union must not be a marriage. Who are they to decide whether other people must have the right to marry or no?
One day they will suffer the same as they are making us suffer now, and we will do a referendum about whether those damn heterosexuals must have the right or not to marry, and they they will know how it feels like when others have the power to decide if you should be able to marry the person you LOVE or not.
Then those damn heterosexuals will say “it’s none of our business” but they will have what they’ve given before and they will be the hated, unnatural, sick and crazy people.
Our revenge will be big, I promise, and we wil give them what they deserve.
Jordi, from Barcelona, Catalonia.
I was feeling gracious to conservatives after Obama’s win and McCain’s heartful concession.
But with Prop 8 passing, I no longer feel that way.
I hope Obama and the Democratic congress sticks it to them. This war isn’t over.
(BTW, we recently bought land and were planning to move to California next year. Now we are wondering – why in the world would we ever leave a beautiful, progressive state like New Jersey?)
Why do you think NJ before NY?….
Democrats in NY just took the State Senate, for the first time in 40 years, and the Assembly and Governor had already promised to pass a same-sex marriage bill. And, actually, the State Senate leaders had pretty much stated that they had the votes to pass it *before* we took the Senate (but it was bottled up before the election by the Republican leadership).
That bill is easy to pass and easy to implement — it’s already largely being implemented because NY already recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state. And they don’t have to go back to the voters for two years — no recalls here. And no ballot initiatives either.
I bet it gets passed in the first month of the new legislature. (Barring real nastiness like turncoat Democrats going Republican in the State Senate.)
Ouch. It wasn’t a good night for civil rights for gay people. Not at all.
I am not saddened, but ANGRY that this bill passed. But my anger is tempered by the sure knowledge that by 2020, we’ll have five or six more states where the humanity of gays and lesbians is respected., and where their RIGHT to marry (which I believe they have, as a ‘natural’ right, as much as someone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) is honored with the full power of the law.
Fight on, brother Barry!
Pingback: Some Words on the Election… « Stuff
Thank you for the optimistic spin. Because I need today to be about what we accomplished, not what we lost.
Oh, no. Last I looked CNN was projecting it to lose narrowly, and now… crap. I’m sure you’re right that it’s just a matter of time, but… crap. I’ll need some time to mourn this too.
Heartbreaking. On a day when, for the first time in years, I feel hope that we’re not as screwed-up a nation as I thought we were, here comes this reminder that we’ve still got a long way to go to defeat bigotry.
But I appreciate your pointing out the half-full glass. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to look at this in historical context, and see how much progress has been made. Thank you; that restores my hope.
Friends who were waiting on a Prop 8 defeat won’t be getting married after all. I intend to have a question answered today: How does the state legislature unmake a constitutional amendment?
We talked politics in my classes, and one of my students claimed that “dudes doing it up the butt spreads diseases.”
Last night, one of the No on 8 organizers started crying as he gave us our last-minute strategy to try to get supporters to the polls. (Attendance at the polling places plummeted statewide as soon as Obama won Ohio.)
These fucking morons don’t seem to realize that “the gays” are actual human beings. I really think they honestly don’t realize that. I wish my bigoted student had been in the same class as my student who raised his hand and said, “I’m voting no because I want to get married.” I wish he could just see the lives he’s actually affecting. I wish they all could.
Although I am a supporter of Proposition 8, I would like to give my sympathies for the results of the vote. One of the biggest downfalls of those who share my outlook on the subject is that they fail to consider the feelings and the lives of those of which they are voting in regard to. In other words, those who are so utterly opposed to homosexuality that they do not even recognize gays and lesbians as human beings, are in error. You all are fellow Americans, fellow human beings. I am sorry to cause you pain and frustration. While I cannot agree with your way of life, I can agree with your humanity. Friends, please keep working toward your cause, that is what makes this nation great–people can stand up for what they believe in. Carry on!
[I let this one through, but let me reiterate: Prop 8 supporters should NOT post on this or any other queer-rights related “Alas” thread for a week. –Amp]
I want to start a ballot initiative for California to not recognize Mormon marriages.
Let them see how they like it.
—Myca
Dan,
I intend to have a question answered today: How does the state legislature unmake a constitutional amendment?
They can’t, just like the CA legislature couldn’t pass same-sex marriage over the existing statutory ban on it. (This is why the governator refused to sign that bill.) What we have to do is a long, slow, steady campaign of information about what having same-sex marriage in the state actually would entail:
No, your kids’ sex-ed class won’t change;
No, your church can refuse to marry homosexuals just like it refuses to marry people who aren’t members of the church;
No, having same-sex marriage doesn’t change people’s right to speak against it any more than having interracial marriages didn’t change people’s right to speak against them.
At least CA’s moronic method of amending its constitution (which requires no more of a majority than for passing a statute, which pretty much obviates the whole point of a constitution, i.e. a bulwark against popular passions) means that once equality proponents reach 51%, they can reverse Prop. 8 and write into the constitution that the right of sex equality includes the right to marry regardless of one’s sex or that of one’s chosen spouse.
Alternatively, the CA Supreme Court could do the exact same thing it did in Perez v. Sharp: say that the federal constitution forbids discrimination in who can marry. Perez v. Sharp overruled California’s ban on miscegenation, and did so 6 years before Brown v. Board, and almost 30 years before the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia stated that the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to recognize marriages based on the race of the spouses. We could have the sex equivalent of Perez, where the CA supreme court says that the federal constitution bars discrimination not only on the basis of race, but also on the basis of sex.
However, I think this would be politically unwise of the CA Supreme Court, even though my reading of the U.S. Constitution does bar sex discrimination in marriage. In Perez, the court’s decision overruled only a statute, not the state constitution. I think we are better off taking the course of action we have seen in NY. While the NY Court of Appeals decision in Hernandez v. Robles bugged the hell out of me, it has left a space for incremental moves forward: first the governor said out-of-state same-sex marriages would be recognized, and now the Dems control the state senate and can legislate same-sex marriage. That Dem control, incidentally, was made possible in large part through homosexuals and homosexual-friendly organizations donating their time, money and effort to getting Democrats elected to the state legislature. It might work best, in the states still remaining that haven’t amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, to make a legislative drive instead of fighting it through the courts.
this makes me furious, not only because i strive to be a straight ally to gay people, but because it is ridiculous to enshrine discrimination in a constitution–i would argue unconstitutional on its face.
also, more importantly, because it never fails to infuriate me when someone’s religious beliefs are brought in to what should be a legal, civil matter resolved by a legal, civil process.
nobody seems to get that if civil gay marriages were recognized, no one would be forcing them to be performed in their church if they didn’t want to. but it’s really not about that. it’s about tearing down the separation between church and state, and that shit makes me lose my mind.
Myca,
I know you’re joking, but just to clarify because my brother-in-law asked a similar question last night: the existing marriage statutes have very few limitations on who can marry: it has to be a male and a female, who aren’t related already, who are of legal age (or have parental permission). The CA supreme court decision got rid of the male-female restriction, and in response, Prop. 8 constitutionalizes that restriction. There’s no such thing in the law as a “Mormon marriage” or a “Catholic marriage.” The most that could be done would be to say that a marriage performed by a Mormon clergyman would not be recognized as a marriage — and even that almost certainly violates the federal 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion — in which case the Mormons would just go to City Hall for a legal marriage the day before their religious wedding.
Yes, PG … it wouldn’t pass in the first place, and if it did, it would be unconstitutional, but I really want these motherfuckers to know what it’s like to have their basic rights threatened.
No, I wouldn’t seriously do it.
—Myca
“I was feeling gracious to conservatives after Obama’s win and McCain’s heartful concession.
But with Prop 8 passing, I no longer feel that way.”
I don’t think we can land this solely on shoulders of the conservatives; exit polls show support for the measure at 70-30 among African-Americans. They made up about 10% of the votes cast and if they trended closer to Democrat numbers in general (35-65), Prop 8 would have had a decent chance at passing, probably by a couple of percentage points. That is a glaring and important part of the electorate we need to convince.
I am pissed to holy hell that my freshly minted CA marriage has been possibly invalidated, let alone all the other gays who haven’t yet had the opportunity to want to get married. I went to bed unhappy last night.
It is also instructive to note that while the voters may have shifted resolutely from the horrible policies of Bush administration, the attitude of the electorate still remains stacked against us.
I am still in denial that Prop. 8 will pass. As I write, only 95% of the precints in CA has been counted but it doesn’t looked good. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope that a gay-friendly presidency and Congress will do something to address the inequities faced by its LGBTQ citizens and residents. America has shown the courage to face up to its discriminatory history by electing Obama. I can only hope he will have to courage to stand up for us.
I’m so very upset and disheartened.
And enraged.
Enraged that the constitution of a state can be amended by a simple majority vote. If nothing else, it should be a 2/3 vote. To amend the United States Constitution it takes 2/3 House, 2/3 Senate, and THEN 33 of the 50 states need to ratify it. And you’re telling me, in California, 51% of people can make a change as significant as this?
Yes, we lowered the numbers in people, and essentially we could create another ballot initiative to revoke the previous amendment, but unfortunately it might end up taking another $80million….
I have lost my faith in California, and it’s going to take some time to gather it back to me again. It is a sad day for all Californians that we have decided to subtract from peoples rights, and to go to the Constitution to do so. When a Constitution is meant to PROTECT rights. A religious agenda has been pushed, and won. And it infuriates me that it only took 52% of the population to do.
Well, I thought this was an uphill battle from the beginning to defeat it because even though the margin of victory is less than for Prop. 22, the strategies haven’t changed. They blitz radio and tv in the last month or so with lies preying on people’s fears and ignorance. Having a rational discussion with people who supported it is almost impossible b/c religion, God, abomination, hell and brimstone quickly get drawn into it. This tactic unfortunately works every time. I’m hoping it hasn’t on Prop. 4.
On the local board, the celebratory thread (all in CAPS of course) are just hideous in their ignorance and bigotry. It’s disappointing but more work needs to be done b/c it didn’t fail in many if any more counties than its predecessors did. You can’t underestimate the inland valleys and northern part of the state.
Michael, you have some facts wrong – although a correction tends to support your point. To propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, either
a) A resolution for a specific amendment must pass 2/3 of each of the two houses of Congress,
or
b) A resolution to hold a Constitutional Convention must be enacted by 2/3 of the States.
To pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 3/4 of the States must approve it. That would be 38 states, not 33.
So the barrier to amending the U.S. Constitution is even higher than you think.
[Ron: Thanks for emailing me, letting me know you left this comment by mistake. I appreciate it. I’m leaving it up, since it’s just a dry legal point, but please don’t post in this thread again. Thanks. –Amp]
i am so, so sorry. this is such a disappointment. i really thought cali would swing the other way on this.
A simple majority isn’t 51%, but 50% plus 1. As in one single vote. Which makes the fact that rights can be taken away based on a simple majority even more hideous.
I am just disgusted. I would have been blissfully happy with the results of everything else except for this. I loathe that my state, supposedly full of happy hippie liberals (i.e. “fruits, nuts, and flakes”), has done this. I hate that we’re all about hatred now. If California can’t allow it…well, I wanna cry. Connecticut and Mass can do it, but not here? Really?
This is sweet. From a commenter on Pandagon:
Over at John Scalzi’s place, someone pointed out that when you combine the CA Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage with Prop 8, you invalidate all marriages made in California:
1. The name of the legal union between two persons of the same sex has to be the same as the name of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. The name of the legal union between two person of the same sex cannot be marriage.
3. Ergo, the name of the legal union between a man and a woman cannot be marriage.
I’m deeply saddened that prop 8 passed. It’s not fair at all… human judgment with the mask of religion is pretty much the reason *in my opinion*. I’m not gay but very supportive, I’ve been on the front lines in my closed minded town with all of my friends. Not all heteros are against you. However, one thing does not make any sense…. If all the dems are really on your side, how could it have passed? Some are such hypocrites. We all need to beware. And we all need to give a little credit to the other side because I know a lot of republicans that voted against it.
The problem is really religion. Sure, there are plenty of rational arguments against Prop 8, but how can you argue rationally against something which is inherently irrational? And there are plenty of moral arguments against Prop 8, but how can you argue morally against someone who judges your morality (and the worth of your argument) by whether or not you agree with their point of view?
that really sucks. i neve thought it would pass. I am SO happy that i live in Massachusetts, and encourage all of you California folks to move out here.
I’m with you, Myca. I desperately want there to be some way to reflect these bigots’ poison back onto them.
On the bright (well, somewhat less dim) side, the Mormons only acheived this result by spending massive amounts of money. We can try to repeal 8 in Every. Single. Election. from now on. At some point, they’re going to get tired of spending money (or maybe we can bankrupt the fuckers), and anyway the momentum is on our side.
Mandolin,
I have been thinking this exact thought for the past week or so. If the California constitution still says that we must give equal rights to all, then if the right to marry another person is denied to a California resident, then it must be denied to all residents. The state can only grant civil unions. Let churches do the marrying and leave the legal stuff for the state. I would love to see this lawsuit filed ASAP.
It’s rather astonishing that state constitutional amendments pass by a simple majority over there, but that means we’ll be fighting this next year and every year until it’s gone, right?
What do these people want? Hasn’t Massachusetts managed to stumble along without sinking into a pit of fire or turning into a Massachusetts-shaped pillar of salt? These people don’t even have the excuse of fear of the unknown any more. They voted to take away their own neighbors’ marriages. Absolutely heartless.
I’m in Connecticut, and I’m very, very relieved that the attempt to force a Constitutional Convention (backed by our local Prop 8-equivalent folks) failed here. People will probably be getting married here starting next week. It’s a silver lining, at least. Folks are welcome to come move here; it’s cold in the winter, but the leaves are spectacular.
But more than that, I think not only as Californians, but as American citizens, as humans who exist in this world, we have all understood at some point in our lives the meaning of being “different” and the majority abusing that detail to keep you apart. And not just based on one’s skin color, disability, sexual orientation… but also the way they dressed in high school, the funny sound of their name, the way they walked, the music they listened to, their taste in literature, their lack of athleticism, the style of their hair, their choice of friends, their family… In any possible way that a person could be singled out. All of us, we are not so different from one another.
I’m sad that the majority of Californian citizens have forgotten their experiences and trials.
I’m proud of what the minority of voters have tried to do, and I’m proud that we have our President. But California turned its back on us all today, and that’s not something people will forget. We should know better. We should do better. Prop 8 should not have happened. But it doesn’t stop here. While today will go down as a sad day in history, but make no mistake : We, The People, will continue to fight.
“Yes we can”
This will probably get deleted by Amp, and I wouldn’t blame him for doing so, but I just couldn’t let this go.
FUCK YOU, YOU DISGUSTING FILTHY EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING, CHASE, I HEARTILY LOOK FORWARD TO A WORLD WITHOUT YOUR PUTREFYING ILK!!
You vote to take away my civil rights, and then you have the audacity to come and offer SYMPATHIES?!
Fuck You, you hateful little shit.
Seriously, it is a good thing you’re not in my physical vicinity right now.
I am reminded why I no longer comment here that wankers like this are not summarily deleted.
Mandolin, that is just pure awesomeness. Let’s hope someone runs with it.
I was in and out this morning, hitting the snooze button on the local (Colorado, conservative) talk radio. It was a pretty blissful way to snooze some time away: “President Elect Obama”, “Colorado went blue”, “Amendment 48 failed”. Until they said that Prop 8 had passed and I came straight out of bed in horror. I spent the drive into work hoping I’d heard it wrong.
I know that it’s progress to be down to only 52%. But that’s just not good enough.
Sarah, I’m leaving your comment up, because I really sympathize with it.
Just fyi, we’ve summarily deleted a bunch of homophobes from this thread already. A lot of people falsely assume that the comments they see are all the comments we get; that’s not at all true.
With regard to how Prop. 8 will fit into the state constitution as it was interpreted in In Re Marriage, there’s already been a lawsuit filed that says Prop. 8 is a revision of the state constitution (which can be done only by legislature, not by referendum), not merely an amendment.
While prop. 8 was a step backwards for equality, legal gay marriage (and divorce!) is inevitable. Support for gay marriage is completely generational. As the older and less gay tolerant generation of voters passes on, they will be replaced by a newer a much more gay friendly generation. I would still predict that gay marriage will be fully legal in California within 5 years.
Also it’s been reported the No on Prop. 8 campaign didn’t have its act together early in the game, which was probably a deciding factor.
I’ve wiped about 16 comments this morning. Highlights included people telling us we were going to hell, calling Amp a sissy, and some generally nasty epithets and gloating over our mourning.
Make that 17. The latest informing us that the commenter is a heterosexual, who wants us to consider a heteroseuxal perspective, and informs us that we are to “stay away from his shit.”
Well, I’m in a heterosexual marriage too, but presumably my perspective and that of my husband don’t count. Too bad I can’t get that guy to stay away from *my* shit, such as *my* fucking marriage which he and voters like him have devalued with their temper tantrum.
As for Mandolin’s point about not being able to call heterosexual marriage “marriage”: I was under the impression that the CA Supreme Court was interpreting the constitution — if the constitution is amended, their interpretation will have to change too. Or am I missing something? Please tell me I’m missing something?
Murphy: yeah, usually–if a court case is based on a statute or the constitution and then said statute or constitution gets amended, then that case is pretty much defunct. However, although that is the general rule, in this instance i do not know enough about the CA legal scene or the history of the gay marriage fight in the courts to know what is up for certain. I think PG is in california and may know…?
I’d like to second your post, Sarah.
—Myca
“I want to start a ballot initiative for California to not recognize Mormon marriages.
Let them see how they like it.
—Myca”
Um…this already happened…Mormons were disenfranchised for polygamy…and why are you only pointing out Mormons, I believe the Roman Catholics are in on this as well…
Yeah, Sarah was right — I should have deleted that comment. Apologies to all.
(Just deleted another three homophobic comments — the prop 8 people are sure gracious in victory, aren’t they?)
I’m actually not barred in CA, so I’m guessing here more than usual, but I would say that Sailorman is correct. In Re Marriage Cases goes through the history of same-sex marriage litigation and law (beginning at page 23), and specifically says that “Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.”
To draw an analogy, when Congress first tried to pass a federal income tax, the Supreme Court said this was unconstitutional (violation of “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”) and struck it down.
So the country passed the 16th Amendment (“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”) and we’ve been bedeviled by the socialism of a progressive income tax ever since.
Clearly the 16th Amendment is a later “correction” of Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 4. And Prop. 8, as (poorly) written, would seem to be a “correction” of the CA constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, limiting that provision insofar as it commands that same-sex unions carry the same name as opposite-sex ones.
In my opinion, a better amendment and one that would more nearly approximate the goal of those who claim that they’re not opposed to SSM as such, just to “judges rewriting the constitution,” would have been, “No part of the California Constitution shall be interpreted to require recognition of marriages except those between a man and a woman.” That would match neatly to what the supreme court decision did, and would say to the court, “No, you can’t do that.”
I’m torn up over a few results of propositions ca voted on yesterday. It’s shameful to see this progressive state which I loved so much a few days ago get so regressive while voting in President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama (I only include his middle name because it shows how much was overcome in this election.)
To combine that with the hatred shown in prop 8 and others really tears my heart. I’m not, as some have said they are, moving out though. My vote will be needed to fix this to make it the state it should be.
What really killed me about prop 8 was the rollercoaster ride… with low turnouts in republican orange county I thought we had a strong chance. I’m beating myself up about this. I should have phone banked more, I should have sent out more emails. I’ve gotta go find out what the next step is so I can start helping earlier.
But I’m still gonna nurse the anger a bit, thanks amp for making this a safe place for a bit. Oh and if you voted yes on 8… you helped put an indelible mark of bigotry on our state constitution, there’s no eraser in the constitution. You put hatred and divisiveness into what should be a greatly honored document.
Regarding the passing of propostion 8.
How sad that bigotry and unfounded fear can still prevail in this country.
How sad that the people who supported this law do not understand that they’ve set a precedence for the demise of their own rights.
How sad that the supporters of this bill believe that it is their right to define what commitment two people in love can make to one another.
How sad that behind the mask of their loving God, lies the face of hate, cruelty, and the fierce determination to propogate ignorance.
I never let myself think it would pass. In the back of my mind, I knew, logically, that it was fifty-fifty. But I NEVER thought it would actually happen. I thought this morning I would awake to a world better than this one. My heart was just broken today by 52% of the voting population of California. And you know, I KNOW some of those voters aren’t motivated by hate or prejudice. They’re anti-court types, or they were swayed by the malicious false-information campaigns mounted by the Yes-on-8 side. Those are the ones we have to win over…and furthermore, we CAN win them over. REPEAL 8 IN ’10! I put all my hope for this election into California–not even Barack was as important to me as crushing Prop 8. When they passed it I broke down in tears in my closet (not symbolically, I was just getting a shirt and was overcome). I don’t cry, EVER…but this just shocked me. And I’m not gay, I don’t live in California, and I don’t even technically believe in the institution of marriage. What I do believe in, unequivocally, is EQUALITY; and nothing will ever change that. The world moves to equilibrium. “It will come, citizens, that day when all shall be concord, harmony, light, joy and life; IT WILL COME.” (It’s from Les Miserables…liberte, egalite, fraternite, and alla that.) I believe it…but it took me a long time today to bring myself to believe it again. This isn’t the end. We’ll fight this. LOVE IS STRONGER THAN HATRED. George, Brad, Ellen, Portia, all 18,000 of you–WE ARE ON YOUR SIDE FOREVER AND ANON.
Thank you Amp, for this site, and for the safe space. I went full out for this campaign – phone banking, visibility, GOTV, donations, the works. Hell, I pinned a bumper sticker to my jersey when I rode my bike to work. And I will go full out for the next phase, whatever it may be. But tonight I am bruised and so sad.
At the least I take some comfort that in my heavily Yes-on-8 neighborhood a handful of neighborhood teenagers have made their way to our door in the last 2 months to say, shyly, that they liked our sign. If (as is likely) some number of them, or their friends, discover they are gay, they at least know they have an ally.
Perhaps I will be able to keep doors open to their parents as well, though at the moment this requires more spiritual generosity than I can muster.
Another straight white church-going suburban mom for equality.
I’d really like to see that happen. Of course, it wouldn’t actually harm or inconvenience anyone, because, as many conservatives said to me over the past month, “Civil unions provide exactly the same legal protections as marriage.”
I feel as though I need to apologize for all of the bigot heterosexuals and religious nuts that have come out of the wood work to take away a right that all people deserve to have. I find it ironic how so many california residents were ready for a change and voted Obama into office however denied the gay community the right to marry? I don’t think that california is really as liberal as it says it is. I know I will never stop advocating for the gay community. I feel all of you deserve to have the same rights that myself and my husband have cherised for the past 8 years.
Just a little info I came across while trying to figure out what exactly the new constitutional challenge was:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/11/lawsuit_of_the_day_aclu_to_sue.php#comments
and the actual petition can be seen here:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html
From the comment thread:
Our time will come…and we all know it!
It’s disappointing, but you know what, as MH and Amperson wrote, these bans will be non-existent in a few years. I’m a little angry, but not particularly furious at the positive support on Prop 8, cuz I know it’ll change. It’s a sure thing. I don’t even think it’ll take too long. The younger generation tend to be more open-minded, and as someone was mentioning, it’s mostly religions who oppose gay marriage. Most of us aren’t that religious, and even some who are don’t believe in marriages being destroyed (as a few have written in this post). I’d say give it another 5 years, tops, and California will take us back.
A friend of mine who did a little research on his own a few years ago, once told me, that for every 10 people you see, at least 1 of them isn’t straight. They can be bi, or totally gay, or transexual, or simply just queer. If you take it into perspective, that’s A LOT of us. There’s no way we can be suppressed so easily. When more of us start showing ourselves, more of them will come out.
Here’s my unofficial prediction: By 2020, at least 20 states will have approved of gay marriage. Our time will come!
Pingback: links for 2008-11-06 « gilest
Please place that directly under the Alas a Blog banner for all to see.
My friend Sarah in Chicago wrote:
This.
And why I rarely even read here any more (y’all who know me and my history here know those to whom I refer).
But some last thoughts.
My
partnerwife and I have been together for just over 16 years.This past August we were legally married in California, at her parents’ home. My mother officiated.
55 family and friends attended.
9 attendees were under 18.
One of those was a 16 year old boy who had come out to his parents in the Spring.
I cannot express how angry and devastated I am at Prop 8’s win, and at the results from across the nation. Not just for my wife and me, but for this young man as well. He was beaming during our reception. He thanked me for inviting him, for showing him that being gay doesn’t mean being marginalized, for showing him that he’s normal, too, and can live a normal life if he chooses.
Guess what message he just got – from his home state of California, from Arizona, from Florida.
Fuck this noise.
Fuck the knuckle-draggers who have posted on this blog time and time and time again that I, my wife, that young man, that people like us are pederasts, that we don’t belong as scoutmasters, that *allowing* us to marry will lead the country inevitably to bestiality, that we are deviant, that we are immoral. That we do not belong.
Fuck the knuckle-draggers who start their posts with things like, “Well, I don’t know how the Supreme Court arrives at decisions but . . . ” and then opinions for endless posts about how wrong courts are when they arrive at decisions these posters don’t like. Who start their posts with things like, “Marriage has always been [X] therefore anything not [X] deserves all the derision and lack of legal protection it gets” and then who turn around and argue that facts showing the opposite are mere chimeras.
I appreciate my allies on this site, and I hope that you understand my very deep and shaking and soul-anguished anger at this time. My pain when I read those comments. The wounds those comments, those posters’ derision, cause.
I now can’t see through my tears . . .
So sorry about your loss, Bonnie. And California’s loss, and this nation’s loss. I hope that in the time between Prop. 8’s passage, and getting it UNPASSED and your rights reinstated, your family continues to flourish despite the people who think it shouldn’t exist.
Bonnie,
I’m sorry. I’m so very, very sorry about the bigotry and the just plain damn meanness exhibited both by California voters and the slimeballs who show up on tihs site to gloat.
If it’s of any use for you to know, Robert has finally left for good.
PG, thank you.
And Mandolin, thank you as well. You’ve been a good friend through some of the bad times.
I cannot believe that Proposition 8 passed. I am saddened to say that I moved to the East coast a few years ago and could not support the No on Prop 8 stance.
I love California for most of its faults (no colors in the Fall), but the fact that this passed disgusts me.
For all of you who can no longer be married, I am very sorry. Just know that you have supporters who are out of state as well as in state.
@Sailorman, re: Constitutional revisions: That’s potentially great news. Thanks.
One thing I’ve been noticing is that all my straight friends and colleagues keep saying they were so SHOCKED to hear Prop8 passed. I’m getting really annoyed with this, but am having a hard time articulating the reason. I think it comes down to this: I know homophobia exists because I encounter it every day. I even encounter it from well-meaning straight friends who would never think of themselves as anti-gay. There’s a reason I rushed to get married in CA this summer — I could not put any faith in a popular vote to protect my rights. Straight people, since they don’t have to think about it, can convince themselves that it’s not that big an issue and be somehow shocked by reality.
Yes, the majority of voters in CA hate me enough to want to deny me what was the most beautiful day of my life. Hell, 60+ percent hate me that much almost everywhere else. I’ve known that for a while. So while I was devastated when Prop 8 passed, I wasn’t shocked.
I don’t want to come across as bitter, and I don’t want to hurt any straight allies, but I have to get this off my chest. I’m hoping someone can help me tease out the idea a little more.
In response to Murphy.
I understand your frustration from what you’ve written. If I may… My “shock” stems more from the fact that the religious right continues to gain so much power and have so much influence over the rights of others who are “not like them.” Their fear is obvious. Their deviousness is in plain site. Still we end up with laws like Prop 8 passing. My shock is that there are so many lemmings anxious to follow them over the cliff and into the sea.
My point is that, it is not mine or anyone elses business whether you are straight or gay. It is not mine or anyone elses business if you worship God, the Goddess, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It IS all of our business that we all continue to have the right to choose, and the right to “pursue happiness” whatever we determine that to be. The people that passed this proposition bring us one step closer to facism, and I’m betting that most of them don’t even realize it, because they’re too preoccupied with their fear of their “loving” God.
William —
Just to point out that the lemming population is decreasing. Eight years ago they passed Prop 22 with something like 61 or 62% of the vote. They’ve lost 10% of the voting population in 8 years. That’s pretty encouraging.
My partner of 18 years and I decided against traveling from Hawaii to California to get married precisely because we could not endure the rage we knew we would feel to not have our marriage accepted/respected in Hawaii, in the rest of the USA and the world at large–let alone how traumatically painful and enraging it would be to have California itself overturn the marriage.
No marriage for me till we can all have our marriages respected. But I appreciate and mourn with those brave (or naive) pioneers who did get married in CA during the windows of opportunity to do so. We were at the San Diego Pride Parade and wept to see the couples marching with signs that on one side said the years they’d been together and on the other side the recent date of their marriage.
I’ve also thought a lot about the very people that TOOK AWAY marriage rights from gays and lesbians voted to treat farm animals more humanely. Gee, what does that say about their concepts related to humane/humanity???
Pingback: Five Links That Are Actually Important, 11/9/08 « Our Descent Into Madness
Murphy–I was ‘shocked’ because I was in denial. I will freely admit that. Of COURSE I know homophobia exists. I had the great pleasure (sarcasm of course) to hear my own grandmother tell me to my face that the reason she was voting Yes on 8 was because she was uncomfortable around anything involving gay people. Because when she saw gay couples kissing at their weddings on telly, she thought it was ‘disgusting’. I won’t even bother mentioning how terrible that was to hear. So yes, I know it exists. I know it’s widespread. I have seen it, been hurt by it. But I just didn’t–COULD NOT–allow myself to believe it would prevail. I realise now how naive I was. THAT was the shock, to me. That I’d let myself believe in something worthwhile, let myself hope for what I believed in, and it had been destroyed in front of me. It’s not shock at homophobia, it’s shock that it permeates through 5.5 million people in that state. It’s shock because I had not wanted to think (for my own peace of mind) about how much injustice there is in the world. Okay, so now I know, my head was in the sand…I won’t make the same mistake again. But it WAS a shock when it first happened.
Teri, that’s because those “straight” people aren’t really straight. They have twisted minds =D
Guys there is a great LGBT civil rights organization called the Empowering Spirits Foundation. They are very creative in how they approach this hot issue, in that they engage in service oriented activities in communities typically opposed to equal rights to foster thought and change for LGBT equality.
A friend of mine told me about it and I thought it was a great, positive approach to the issue. We had so much fun at the last event and it was great to converse with others on the other side of the table in a way that wasn’t confrontational.
Anyway, this can be such a heated issue and I thought this was a unique approach.
Why is it so wrong to ban gay marriage when there are age requirements, bans on marriages between close blood relatives, and for health reasons? These “acceptable” bans on marriage (which no one is screaming or raising a big fuss about) seem to be due to the fact that bloodlines may be unprotected and the fact that the species will not be able to perpetuate or for health reasons – some of which are the same reasons why gay marriage has been banned.
If all these gay marriages are purely for love and/or to publicly declare the love between two individuals, why is it so commonly accepted that two close blood relatives can not get married for the same reasons? What if the two close blood relatives fell in love without the knowledge of being close blood relatives? Would everyone stand up for them and make laws to overturn a tradition which is centuries old?
I am just wondering. I just don’t see the benefit of all this fuss. Society has definitely changed and so has the reasons why people get married. Is marriage still needed to declare love when the divorce rate itself is above 60%?
To me, marriage (like many other ideals) is still needed to provide an ideal/guide for people to strive for. Marriage should be for those who love, want to have a family (procreate), and protect the bloodline and property of the involved families. To do it for just one of the reasons ruins the ideal and changes what marriage is. As a society or as an individual, ideals are needed to strive for, despite never really being able to attain sometimes. If we were to set our goals low we would most likely end up low. If you want to change the ideal and create something different, then do something different. A BLT sandwich without the Bacon is not a BLT. Let this ideal stand for all that it can be, not what you want it to be.
Because at the most basic level, what marriage does is take someone who is not a close relation, and legally makes them a close relative. Marriage is about turning unrelated people into a family. It’s therefore inapplicable to people who are already close relatives.
What if the two close blood relatives fell in love without the knowledge of being close blood relatives?
No one is saying that any two people who are in love should be able to marry (for example, no one thinks that a 5 year old and a 50 year old can marry, not even if they love each other very much). So that’s a complete straw man argument on your part.
Have you ever read a sophisticated argument in favor of ending the ban on same-sex marriage?
By the way, the divorce rate has never been over 60%. And it’s currently under 50%.
First of all, many same-sex couples do have children (via adoption, sperm donation, or other means). So why shouldn’t their children get the benefits of marriage?
Second of all, childbearing has never been a requirement for marriage. That’s why infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
In 44 states, same-sex couples who are raising children aren’t allowed to get legally married, and in all 50 states, childless and infertile opposite-sex couples can get legally married. It is therefore irrational to claim that having children is a requirement for legal marriage; it obviously is not a requirement, anywhere in the US. (And, I suspect, anywhere in the world.)
Please be more specific. How has marriage in Canada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc., been ruined? What does “ruined” marriage look like? Last I checked, Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country; it therefore seems that same-sex marriage is compatible with a very successful marriage culture.
Please try to remember that I am just wondering (your straw man argument point).
I wonder because the Equal Protection Clause is the basis for the argument against proposition 8 in going to the US Supreme Court, yet you (and so many others) so clearly and adamantly promote discrimination in regards to marriage. This is clearly illustrated by what you wrote in your response. You wrote that age discrimination is acceptable as indicated in your thoughts that, “no one thinks that a 5 year old and a 50 year old can marry.” I am sure it seems “right” to judge and place such bans when you choose ages of huge disparity and with one being 5. However, I am sure there are some who would disagree if you made the ages more reasonable. It is obvious why you chose 5 and 50. It makes a stronger point to think in such a way, however lets consider 15 and 22. Would “no one” think it is acceptable to discriminate against a 15 year old and a 22 year who want to get married?
Also, your argument that “Marriage is about turning unrelated people into a family. It’s therefore inapplicable to people who are already close relatives,” is invalid. Marriage is not simply about turning unrelated people into a family. Marriage is about turning two people in love into their own personal family. Consider, two blood related siblings each marrying one of two blood related siblings. If marriage was “about turning unrelated people into a family” then does it negate the reason for getting married away from the second man and woman after their siblings get married to their partner’s sibling? Obviously I don’t think you feel this way. As I am sure you would agree, marriage is about two people starting a new family (even if they are already related). This is also evident by the fact that cousins are allowed to get married in certain circumstances despite being related already.
In terms of procreation, I specifically chose the word “want” for the very reason someone may bring up such an argument as you did. It is obvious that procreating does not make a marriage legitimate.
You are correct that the divorce rate is not recorded at 60%. I was simply using the projected rate which is about 50% and including separations and/or extremely unhappy couples who would get divorced if there were not any negative ramifications.
Please help me see your side.
Here is an interesting article written from the daughter of lesbian parents.
http://www.thesmartlychicago.com/?p=249
A somewhat unique perspective on this issue. I am surprised the chidren of gay parents are not more vocal….
When two people get married, it is because they love each other.
They want to be together in a bond that makes them one with each other forever.
It is a wonderful thing to have such a bond.
It is special.
It is love.
When a man and a woman get married, no one blinks an eye.
If two men or two women do the same, then many people do not approve.
They claim that it is not right or that it soils the real meaning of marriage.
What is the real meaning of marriage?
The answer to that question is in line one of this article.
It is because they love each other.
Does it matter if the couple is gay or straight?
Should it matter?
No!
After all, why should it.
Gays want their equal rights and among those equal rights is the right to be married.
I agree with wanting equal rights.
We are all people which means we are all the same.
It does not matter if someone is gay, white, black, a man, a woman, tall, short, young, old or whatever.
We all want our equal rights.
That is our right.
However, we need to go beyond equal rights when it comes to gay marriage.
Society needs to understand that any marriage is not about the right to be married.
It is about wanting to be married as a loving couple.
Love is not something that should be decided on by voters.
It is not a court issue either.
It should not be an issue at all.
Marriage is between two people in love.
It is not between two people, the voters, the courts and anyone else who has an opinion.
Gay marriage does not bring down the meaning of marriage.
It makes the true meaning of marriage even better.
That is what love does.
It makes things better.
Society has come a long way in the last fifty years in terms of equality, but we still have a long way to go.
It is a shame that love is something that needs to be fought for.
I am not gay, but I am the same as you as you are to me.
May love conquer all.
George Vreeland Hill