Proposition 8: The Slippery Slope

I see a lot of the old, ridiculous arguments being brought up in favor of removing the rights of gay couples to marry. "Children need both parents", "It isn't natural", "I think it's gross", "What's next? People marrying their goats?", etc., etc., etc., ad naseum. So, if Proposition 8 passes (I don't think it will), I have a few other constitutional amendments I'd like to propose.

1. Only marriage between a fertile male and a fertile female is valid or recognized in California.
2. Once married, a child must be produced by a married couple within 4 years. Failure to do so results in a non-refundable child-free-fee of $1,500 paid to the State which doubles every 9 months the fertile couple remains childless.
3. Marriage is permanent and can not be revoked, annulled, dissolved, or otherwise canceled by any party at any time for any reason.
4. Eyeglasses are unnatural and shall be destroyed on sight.
   
5. Boogers are gross. It shall be a felony to knowingly or unknowingly display or cause to be displayed any booger at any time in any place for any reason.
   

Look, none of the fears of the Yes on 8 Campaign have come true in California. Not a single, solitary one. No church nor religious leader has been sued (successfully or unsuccessfully) for refusing to perform any marriage--much less a same-sex marriage--that they don't want to. Churches have been free to not marry anybody they so chose; the failure of Proposition 8 to pass will simply not change that.

I welcome your comments, as always.

Proposition 8: The Will of the People

A lot has been made of "The Will of the People" being overturned regarding Proposition 8 and 2000's Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in California's 2000 presidential primary. It tried to add section 308.5 to the California Family Code. Section 308.5 was one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Careful readers will note that it's the same sentence proposed by Proposition 8.

As you may know, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that this law was a violation of the State's Constitution. Thereby giving rise to the oft-uttered "The courts overruled the will of the people!!!"

Here's the thing. Yes; the court did overrule the will of the people. Because, sometimes, the Will of the People is wrong.

It was the "Will of the People" to keep slavery legal in the South. It was the "Will of the People" to deny women the right to vote. It was the "Will of the People" to keep Blacks "Separate but Equal" for segregation. It was the "Will of the People" to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany.

The "Will of the People" can be wrong.

To think that the so-called "Will of the People" is always right is patently ridiculous.

Supporters of Proposition 8 frequently call the Justices who overturned Proposition 22 "activist liberal judges." What they don't tell you (or just plain don't know or outright lie about) is Proposition 22 was overturned by a Supreme court consisting of 7 justices; 6 of whom were appointed by Republicans. And, I'm sure I don't need to say that the current batch of Republicans is usually against allowing Same-Sex Marriage. So, to call these justices "liberal" is hypocritical at best and patently ignorant at worst. (To be fair, I haven't bothered to find out the Justices' decisions to find out their past opinion record.)

And, is being an "activist judge" so wrong? I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" who ruled that Segregation was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" that ruled to give women the right to vote.

It appears that to be an "Activist Judge" all you have to do is make a decision that someone doesn't like. WHAMMO! You're an Activist Judge and you're EVIL! Unless, of course, you make a decision that someone agrees with; then you're a wise and learned judge.

I welcome your comments.

(I realize that comparing the rights of any two consenting adults to get married to the Holocaust is a bit extreme but that was the point. It speaks to the "Slippery Slope" arguments that are used to oppose same-sex marriage. "If we allow two women to marry each other, what's next? A man marrying his goldfish!!!????")

Proposition 8: Of Family and Email

Over the weekend, I got this message from a friend. I've posted it here with both his permission and his endorsement.

Hello,

Yes, not my traditional “howdy” or “what’s up?” or “how’re you?” but “hello”. I’m mad…hell, I’m furious!...and I’m going to do something about it!

Everyone receiving this email knows me personally. For some reason I consider you family or friend or somewhere in between. That includes a certain level of respect for each other and appreciation for our rights as human beings. It’s with this in mind that I write this email.

If anyone reading this email votes “yes” on Prop 8, then please do NOT EVER speak to me again!

Yes, I mean that!

I don’t care what my connection to you is, because if you support Prop 8, you are not welcome in my house or my life EVER again. Period. I don’t care why you vote that way, because in the final analysis it’s a vote that says I’m somehow inferior to you and not deserving of the same basic human rights and privileges you enjoy. That’s bigoted and discriminatory and I will NOT have ANYONE in my life that feels that way!

This is NOT a religious issue, because our country’s founding principles are a separation of Church and State. This is NOT a personal issue, because what I do with the man I love has NOTHING to do with you personally. This is NOT a social issue, as allowing me to form a publically-recognized committed-union with someone I want to spend my life with in NO WAY weakens your marriage. And if you think it does, then your marriage is a pretty crappy sham…

Don’t tell me to calm down, either! >8-(

How would you expect your Black friends to react to your affirmation of some KKK creed? How would your Jewish friends react to you denying the historicity of the Holocaust? How would your female friends respond to being told they are patently inferior and not deserving of equal rights?

THIS is the social movement of our times, no less important or controversial than the Woman’s Suffrage movements of the 1920s or the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. If you missed out on your chance to DO THE RIGHT THING in the past, then here’s your chance in the present! Support equal rights for all, not just those who look and pray the way you do.

VOTE NO on PROP 8!

And yes, I absolutely mean and will stand by EVERYTHING I’ve written here.

Hugs,
David

p.s. – if you want more info…believe me, I’ve a ton. This entire campaign is based on lies and intentional misinterpretations! No Church can be sued any more than it can today (i.e. the Catholic Church will be no more required to perform gay marriages than they are required to marry divorcees today). And comparing polygamous marriage or under-age or sibling marriage as anything related to gay marriage in this proposition is somewhere between an intentional disingenuine straw man argument and a bold-faced LIE. It’s like condemning all people of faith because some zealots blow up buildings…!

I've heard from David since he sent his message went out; his loving family is still voting Yes on Proposition 8. It's ridiculous beyond any measure how his family, who says they love David, still want to deny him and others the rights they themselves enjoy simply because of whom David may want to marry. And in the process cause the so-called loving ties to be severed.

Is "tradition" so strong, so engraved, so entrenched that it is worth alienating those who you say you love?

While I may not be prepared to sever ties with family and friends on this issue I definitely understand the depth of his emotion.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8 in California. Or, vote No on Arizona's Proposition 102 and Florida's Proposition 2.

Like with all these postings, I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: Of Field Trips and Indoctrination

The "Yes on 8" campaign has recently taken issue with a field trip taken by a San Francisco Public School First Grade class to City Hall. See their side of the story ( http://tinyurl.com/49ec7n ) for their take on it. (Sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it; I simply do not want to drive traffic to their site.)

What they do not tell you in that story is:

• The field trip was the idea of a students parent.
  
• Like all field trips, the students needed parental permission to go.
• Only two families opted out of the field trip.

The Yes on 8 campaign tries to tell you that your children will be "indoctrinated" into thinking that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage by such trips. That your children will be educated without your consent on the subject. And that's just a lie. Permission slips are required for field trips; parents can opt out of having their children included in the health discussions that would involve any discussion of marriage. Children aren't educated in a vacuum devoid of parental involvement.

(Why is "indoctrination" bad only when it isn't what you want indoctrinated?)

The Yes on 8 Campaign's Co-Manager, Frank Schubert, said "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding." Of course they haven't. Heterosexual marriages are commonplace; there's nothing educational, remarkable or otherwise noteworthy in them. However, for the first time in California's history, same-sex couples are getting legally married. That is a very noteworthy occurrence regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter of marriage.

(According to the original story in the San Francisco Chronicle the students had a personal relationship with the person getting married! It's not like the school trotted the class off to just any marriage ceremony. It was, indeed, a teachable moment.)

In their ridiculously slanted "story" the Yes on 8 campaign trots out Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila who says,

"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will."

According to the California Secretary of State's webpage, Orange County (which is where Santa Ana is located) voted 60% for George W. Bush, Republican, in the 2004 General Election. San Francisco County voted 83% for John Kerry, Democrat. Clearly, Orange County is more conservative than San Francisco County. So, does the comparisons in school boards really hold up? I think not.

Surely, Ms. Avila knows that a field trip requires the parent's permission. And surely, she also knows that a parent can opt out

Asolutely nothing is preventing parents from taking an active role in the education of their children. Ms. Avila seems to ignore the facts and react only on her fears.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: "Valid" Marriages And Fear

If Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") passes you can bet that there will be legal challenges to the legally performed same-sex marriages being currently performed in California. I'd wager that those challenges would take on the tone of:

"Well, it's in the constitution that your marriage isn't valid. So, the state should deny your benefits and privileges. I don't care if your marriage was performed in August 2008; the constitution says it isn't valid, so bugger off."

Though, I doubt they'd use the word "bugger".

Do you really want to have children dragged through the courts being told that the two people they call parents no longer have a valid marriage? Do you want children to have to be told in school that, yes, some same-sex marriages are legal but some aren't? Do you want to have to explain to your children the horrors of why same-sex marriage is illegal? Please. Think of the children.

Yes, I'm using a "fear" tactic to oppose Proposition 8; the same type of fear tactic that supporters use. I'm doing it to make a point. The "Yes on 8" seems to be solely based on fear; fear of what will happen to the children. However, they ignorantly don't realize that none of the fears they keep saying will happen are happening.

See, Gay Marriage is ALREADY LEGAL in California. And not ONE of the supposed "fears" the supporters bring up is happening.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8. It's for the children of this litigious society.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: The Mormons' Hypocrisy

The Mormon church, for some bizarre reason, is vehemently against governments giving the same rights and privileges offered to gay couples as are offered to straight couples. I'm, of course, referring to Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") here in California. (I have another post which details a number of difficulties with that seemingly simple sentence.)

However, the Mormons must have to do a number of strangely contorted mental gymnastics to get around what their own scripture says. Specifically, Doctrine and Covenants 134:9, which reads:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

How is the Mormon's use of their buildings, satellite networks (also this page from the Mormon Times) in any way not mingling their "religious influence with civil government"?? And before you say that there are no churches that support gay marriage you might want to check what the Metropolitan Community Church or the Universal Unitarian churches say on the issue. Surely, there are other "religious societies" which support same-sex marriage, or Marriage Equality.

On the positive side of things, there are a (probably small) number of Mormons who oppose Proposition 8. People in this and similar groups (such as these reasonable folks) risk being excommunicated from, disfellowshipped from, or otherwise punished by the church for publicly going against their church leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants may call it "mingling religious influence"; I call it a downright totalitarian abuse of power.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8 in California

Next month, voters of California will either attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution or keep discrimination out of it. Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") I think it is badly written, ambiguous, divisive, and on the wrong side of history.

First, it's nearly impossible to legally define "man" and "woman". It can't be done by mere appearance; there are many masculine-appearing women and feminine-appearing men. It can't be defined by which sex one self-identifies with; what's to stop someone from saying they feel like a man just to get married to her lesbian partner? It can't be done by inspecting genitalia; there are many pre-operative transsexuals and there are many female impersonators who have implants to heighten the illusion as well as other concerns. It can't be defined by who can and can't bear children or who does or does not produce sperm; does a woman who's had a hysterectomy suddenly become male or does a man who's been castrated suddenly become female? And, finally, it can't be decided by looking at chromosomes; women born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have XY chromosomes but in all other respects are female.

As a result, the proposed "amendment" is ambiguous in to whom it applies.

Besides, I can't think of *ANY* previous constitutional amendments that are specifically designed to *ELIMINATE* rights of a certain group.

Supporters of Prop 8 say that gay couples can have "domestic partnerships"; that's the same "separate but equal" argument used in segregation. There are many automatic rights and benefits granted by the government in a marriage but require a skilled lawyer for a domestic partnership--if they're even available to that domestic partnership. Separate is hardly *EVER* equal and it isn't in this case either.

Take, for example, the requirement that a domestic partnership requires the two people to live together. There is no such requirement for a marriage. And that's just one example.

Finally, Proposition 8 is on the "wrong side of history." Supporters claim that Proposition 8 only maintains "traditional" marriage. It was 'traditional' to deny women the right to vote. It was 'traditional' to keep slaves. It was 'traditional' to deny inter-racial marriage. Those traditions were wrong--they still are--and so is this 'tradition' of governments only offering certain benefits to heterosexual couples.

Prop 8 should be defeated. If they really want to "protect marriage" they should outlaw divorce.

I welcome your comments.