Rant on Prop 8 rants

[muckefuck]

It's important for me to say at the outset that this post is not directed at any one individual or group of individuals in particular. This is something that's been getting on my tits for weeks now and I've finally reached the tipping point.

As a lot of you know, same-sex marriage is not my thing. As I mature in my relationship with monshu, I realise more and more every day how valuable it would be to have many of the protections which married couples get in a fell swoop, but what I'd really rather see are more legal alternatives appear than simply have the one-size-fits-all provisions of an essentially heterosexual institution retrofitted for the rest of us. Still, I recognise how vitally important immediate marriage equality is too millions of you and I respect all of those who are struggling to make this a reality.

Proposition 8 is a sucky law and I'm fine with the fact that so many of you Californians are fired up about it. I honestly hope it goes down in flames on the November ballot. But as a Midwesterner, I'm really and truly sick of hearing that I should be up in arms about it. Four years ago, when ballot initiatives stripped the prospect of marriage equality from millions in other parts of the country (including my home state of Missouri), the vast majority of Californians did FUCK ALL about it. As a result, I refuse to believe that we are now facing the greatest challenge to gay rights in the history of this country simply because one of these referenda is finally taking place in a state with movie stars.

So again, more power to y'all as you rally the troops. But a little sensitivity to those of us near the heart of Jesusland would not be misplaced. Consider placing your appeals in the context of a larger nationwide struggle that is still in its early stages. You'd win even more points for continuing to stump for donations and support after the election in which your rights are secured. But, of course, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Comments

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

It's a constitutional amendment, not a law.

And yeah, I guess it's probably tedious listening to endless requests for out-of-staters to donate. Sorry about that. I suppose the basic argument is that as goes California, so goes the nation: we've already seen repercussions of the California decision in New York (recognizing out of state gender neutral marriages) and in Connecticut (grounding some of last Friday's court decision in the CA decision itself).

As for doing sweet FA about Missouri, that makes sense. Those states weren't rescinding rights that existed at the time; they were simplify making it harder to enact those rights at a future, unspecified date. I don't think the two situations are directly equivalent. Remember, rescinding rights vs. continuing the status quo + making it harder to change it in the future.

[danbearnyc.livejournal.com]

Missouri. Let me see. Clinton told Kerry to come out against gay marriage there. And Kerry did, right?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Sure, you can make that argument, but (1) few of the current advocates for channeling funds to CA seem to be doing so and (2) it cuts both ways: If those amendments hadn't passed so comfortably four years ago, would Proposition 8 even have been attempted in a liberal outlier like California?

Technically, I don't think you can rescind "rights". If there's a basic right for people of the same sex to marry (and I think you could argue that there isn't but only by arguing that there is no right to marry for anyone, thanks to that pesky "equal protection" clause), then it exists regardless of whether its recognised by statute or not. What Californians stand to lose is the free exercise of that right. But legalistic niceties aside, you do have a point about disruption of the status quo; Prop 8 would strip away privileges which are being enjoyed now rather than ones that are as yet only theoretical. This seems to be why many people perceive it as a lot more hateful than previous amendments in the same vein.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

And yet progressives constantly question how any sane homosexual could ever waver in support for the Democratic Party. With friends like these...

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

IIRC California passed an anti-marriage ballot initiative four years ago as well, losing about 60-40. The difference is simply that it wasn't a constitution amendment, I think, but I'm too lazy to research all that right now.

As far as the whole arguments about rescinding basic rights, I dunno. I've heard people far smarter than I argue it both ways - Shannon Minter comes to mind, but I can't remember which way he was arguing it. It's a mess.

[pklexton.livejournal.com]

Technically, I don't think you can rescind "rights".

Actually, that's exactly what Prop 8 seeks to do. You can try to argue argue federal equal protection against it, but that's been a loser thus far.

The marriage thing hasn't exactly been a priority for me either, and I can see how the whole thing might seem typically left coast self-obsessed from afar. But what has got me going about the whole thing is the toxicity of actually affirmatively writing discrimination into a constitution after it has been interpreted not to be there. It seems abhorrent on a whole different level. I dunno. I'll be quiet now.

[danbearnyc.livejournal.com]

The Democratic Party is not now nor has ever been pro-gay. Having said that, however, there is a slightly higher percentage of pro-gay politicians in their party.

As for Prop 8, I'm still sending my money. It's a national issue with national repercussions. I'm also sending money to Arizona and Florida.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I'm sympathetic to characterisations of this as a particularly hateful attempt to institutionalise discrimination, but amending the constitution is actually the balance of powers at play.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

As a Californian, I agree with your sentiments. This is a CA proposition, and it's our problem to deal with. If people have strong feelings about this issue (on either side), they should feel free to donate, but expecting non-Californians to give money to a cause that they will only receive indirect benefits from (unless they come to CA to get married) does seem a bit strange.

As a Californian...

[ursine1.livejournal.com]

I am still amazed that the California Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote. There are some tax measures that require a two-thirds plurality in order to pass. Again, money can often buy an electoral result.

Chuck

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I have no particular love for the Democratic Party per se, who have been abysmally devoid of leadership on this issue (along with, oh, just about every other one). But it's hard for me to overlook the fact that politicians who support LBG issues tend to be Democrats by a factor of about twenty to one. For that reason, gay support for Republicans always has and always will puzzle me (not that it will diminish my love for you :-)

Obama's position on same-sex marriage may be more nuanced than any I've seen, but I still think he's being dumb for not coming right out and supporting it openly. God knows it's not the issue that people are voting on this year.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

(unless they come to CA to get married)

I think that's the crux of it. The benefits to out-of-staters may be indirect but I think it's widely understood now just how powerful they can be. For same-sex marriage to be legal and available in one state opens the possibility of posing legal challenges to the anti-marriage provisions in every other state. Massachusetts may have had same-sex marriage for the last five years but it was not until this year that non-residents could take advantage.

I am a little less worried about Prop 8 in CA now that the 1913 law in Massachusetts has been slapped down and the opposition is struggling to collect enough signatures to put it back on the ballot, but it's still very significant as a federalist issue.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Obviously I would feel differently about California if it were the only state in the Union to have fully legalised same-sex marriage. But we already have Massachusetts, and that keeps the faith-and-trust issue alive no matter what happens elsewhere.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

What would you like the legal alternatives to look like?