It turns out that this election did turn out to be the most important election in history. It proved, or showcased on a national level anyway, that Democracy does not work.
No. I am not talking about Barack Obama becoming the first non-100%-white man elected as president. That is a seminal moment in its own right. What I am talking about are the three, maybe more but I remember seeing three, propositions or ballot initiatives banning gay marriage or defining marriage as man-woman being passed. In California, the ballot initiative was in response to the State Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that not allowing gays to marry was unconstitutional. Some 12,000 couples have been married in California courts since the decision, including (Heeelllloooo) George Takai and Ellen Degeneres. Lead pipe lock to stay legal, right? Supreme Court say so. Not quite.
The Prop 8 measure that was voted in by a 52-48 was a campaign run primarily by two special interest groups, Mormons (WhAT?) and the Knights of Columbus, to amend the CA state constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman. I can understand that some people are a little uneasy about gays marrying and possibly adopting kids. I won't be mean about what they believe. I believe some things that others might think are crazy, like leaving people alone to live their lives when nobody else is affected. What enrages me is the shortsightedness and lack of American spirit anyone who voted for this ban exhibit. Again, I am not speaking to personal feelings. We have always been taught that all people are equal under the law in this country. No group can have rights withheld, or extra rights bestowed, because of who they are. I thought that in a year that we finally shed the 'only white guys finish first' stigma, in the presidency anyway, we might move forward.
We live in a country where personal feelings, religious and the like, are NOT a matter of law. I think it is in our Constitution, or at least was at some point. The law is supposed to be the protector of the little guy. The billionaire owner of a company cannot smack around employees and pinch their female employes nips. Children are protected from exploitation in a number of areas. Women and minorities are no longer stripped of full citizenship by archaic and un-American laws. Apparently, these principles do not apply to everyone equally. All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. This ban on gay marriage is nothing but an attempt to inject religious beliefs into law. Please do not throw the 'state's rights' argument at me on this one. THE CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land and I think in this case would have the final say.
What I fail to understand is why religious people are threatened by this. Signs posted on lawns and cars sported the slogan "Restore Tradiational Marriage." Wha? How does allowing two committed people have the LEGAL benefits of everyone else diminish marriage? First off, traditional marriage is not the lovey dovey version we have now. Traditional marriage was a power and land grab arrangement. Sometimes it was used to end wars, too. What we have today is relatively new so that 'tradition' argument really proves history means nothing to people. If your argument in favor of 'tradition' is the ceremony in the church with your priest and the blessing of your God I have good news for you. This has NOTHING to do with that. The only building involved in these marriages would be the state house, a decidedly secular edifice.
The restoration of tradition also reveals another fatal flaw in the understanding of the citizenry of this country, and perhaps the world. Not everythign is a zero sum game. Giving rights or benefits to another group or person does not mean your rights are diminished. As many people thing that a trade imbalance, say with China, is a bad thing they also exhibit the 'zero sum' mentality. China makes cheap plastic things more cheaply than us so we pay them to do it. We both benefit. They get money to raise their standard of living and we get cheap products to decrease our expenditures on such trifles. Win freakin Win. Nobody loses. Nobody loses if two men or two women are allowed to marry.
Maybe it all hinges on the word 'marriage.' I know I have heard a lot about using the term 'marriage' instead of 'civil union.' I have even made the argument that if 'marriage' is such a hot button issue, then get the state out of marriage altogether. Now, the state will not get out of marriage, we all know that so let's rename the arrangement. Currently you have marriage licenses which must be obtained to have any rights as a married couple. Then you can choose to have a ceremony in your house of worship, be it Muslim, Jew, Christian, Wiccan, whatever. What if we changed the 'marriage license' to a 'domestic contract.' I also say that we can remove all barriers to a domestic contract. Any two people should be able to enter into a domestic contract. I would even allow more than two, but I am just nuts. A domestic contract allows any two people to enter into a mutually beneficial arrangement in the eyes of the law. Benefits can be shared, beneficiaries of an estate are more binding, etc. Everything that a current 'marriage' affords a couple. We therefore get rid of the hang up over marriage. A couple can get married ina church with or without this contract but they get none of the legal benefits without it. Seperation of church and state, I think they call it. Now, to justify my 'any two people or more' statement I offer this: two spinster/male spinster friends never marry and are not a 'couple' but share everything. When one dies, there are no rights for the other. They should have the ability to have a legal contract between the two to protect their assets and control their estates. Why not? Also, in many jurisdictions in this country there are restrictions on who can live in residence together. They actually evict people or force them to sell property because an unmarried couple moves in together with kids. People have their reasons for marrying or not marrying. Why should they be discriminated against and not allowed to own property and provide for their family because of that?
I know this is long and probably rambling. I will cut it off here. I cannot say how truly disappointed I am with this Prop 8 being voted in. The slim margin only enrages me more. Democracy failed because the system can be used to inflict damage upon minorities. There was an add run against Prop 8, narrated by Samuel L. "I have had it with these Mother Fuckin' Yes on Prop 8's on this Mother Fuckin' lawn' Jackson, which ran clippings of the various discriminitory laws in California's history. How can somebody not be offended by that history and then vote for more of the same? Sometimes I think voters just get it wrong all the time. They are a leading, negative correlating indicator to what is right.
Vote YES on personal Freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've already written my reaction to this Prop 8 bullshit. So I'm just going to copy and paste:
In public, in front of strangers, I will rarely tell people what I think of religion, and even more so what I think of religion and politics. But this time I just can't help it.
Yesterday, those of us in California voted on Prop 8, a proposition to overturn gay marriage in the state. We also voted on a proposition to end crating for livestock like chickens. Guess which one passed and which one failed? Sadly it seems us California people care more for the rights of animals than we do for our fellow humans.
Now, the Christians and Mormons will tell you that Prop 8 was raised to uphold the tradition of marriage. But that is a blatant lie that ignores most of human history. You see, marriage was and always has been, first and foremost, a legal contract, joining families and basically moving property (in the form of women) from one owner to another.
Yes, marriage has evolved since then, but there are two distinct types of marriages: the legal ones, done in city halls, and those done in a house of worship. I wouldn't think to tell a religious group they had to marry two people, so why do they feel the need to influence the state on who they can and cannot legally join? If religious groups don't want to marry certain people, they have every right not to, but they sure as hell DO NOT have any right to tell the state and the population who can and cannot sign legal contracts between each other.
This is discrimination, pure and simple, cloaked in the veil of religious bullshit.
That's fine if you want to believe in a religion that defines marriage between a man and a woman (I'm not here to argue that), but please be wise enough to see that by preventing those people from marrying on the state level, you are taking their LEGAL rights away: the legal right to shared property, the legal right to hospital visits, the legal right to beneficiaries, the legal right to show the most fundamental commitment to each other.
But, at least the chickens will have the right to see the sky before they're thrown in the slaughterhouse.
Melissa, where do you think our law came from though?! It is from old English law and where did that come from? The Bible no less. You can't just artificially separate law from all religion or convitions! And yes, it does affect other people in its ramifications. Civil unions should work fine.
Post a Comment