How Proposition 8 Kept Me From Getting Laid
Two a.m., Wednesday, November 5. We've been celebrating, and your humble narrator stands outside a Hollywood bar beside a filmmaker friend and a bearded reality TV show winner who looks like Tom Hanks at about minute 80 of Cast Away. We're talking to two girls, both of them lovely and charming, and right now I'm thinking I've got at least a 66% chance of getting in a serious make-out session in honor of our President-elect... when suddenly one of the girls bursts into tears.
Now I'm used to girls storming off in an indignant huff. And slaps to the face? Old news. But tears -- at least at this early of a stage in the relationship -- are a new and rather unpleasant experience.
The sobbing girl apologizes, telling us she is a lesbian (chances of a make-out sesh now plummet to 33%) and that these are not tears of joy over Obama's election, but tears of sorrow over that night's passage of Proposition 8. For those of you who have been living inside the cave Dick Cheney will likely disappear back into in a puff of green smoke on January 20, Proposition 8 officially amended the California state constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, overturning the California Supreme Court's previous decision that same-sex marriage is as fundamental a right as mixed-sex marriage. So this girl is devastated at the thought that, as it stands, she will never be able to marry her girlfriend, who's currently inside paying the check.
Now, as I see it, there are four problems with this.
Problem One: Separation of church and state.
Based on the donations made in its favor, the influence of religious organizations upon the passage of Proposition 8 is undeniable, with significant contributions coming from the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, among others. Freedom of religion is, of course, guaranteed by the First Amendment; the ability of religious organizations to impose their beliefs on the law, however, is not.
Go back to Reynolds v. United States, in which George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, argued that his right to marry Amelia Jane Schofield and Mary Ann Tuddenham was protected due to his religious duty. The irony that the same Mormon religion that battled for the rights of the polygamous was at the forefront of Prop 8 aside, the key is that the Supreme Court ruled against Reynolds, stating that the law of the land superseded the mores of a religion.
Specifically, they quoted a letter from a guy who knew a thing or two about citizens' rights, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." Basically, what TJ was saying is that while your religion may be of the opinion that Spiderman Underoos ought be worn over one's eyes at all times, the government has an obligation to make sure that opinion does not carry over to the action of one blindly mowing down pedestrians with the church van in a soft cotton haze.
As it stands, the United States Constitution has an obligation to its citizens to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Until somebody provides any empirical evidence, other than vague moral condemnation or passages from religious texts, to prove otherwise, I have yet to see how homosexual marriage threatens any of those duties, at least any more so than handguns... or, oh, heterosexual marriage.
Problem Two: Separate is not equal.
You probably learned that maxim in your high school American history class. Yet many continue to point to the fact that California and a handful of other states provide domestic partnerships or civil unions to homosexual couples, thereby granting rights "equivalent" to those guaranteed in the federal definition of marriage. That fallacy disappears when we realize that even in those states where civil unions are legal and give more or less equivalent rights, other states are under no obligation to recognize those rights. Which is kind of like saying that while Alabama will protect your freedom of speech, if you cross the border into Tennessee arguing that Dancing With the Stars is the greatest show on TV, a cop who prefers Wheel of Fortune is allowed to shoot you in the face.
So, on a legal level, the distinction between civil unions and marriage should be eliminated, and a single term should apply to both. This means either all couples, homosexual or heterosexual, should be allowed to "marry," or all couples should be recognized by the government as having entered a "civil union." Given that the rite of marriage seems to have its origins in the church, I'd suggest letting it remain in their domain -- after all, there is no state equivalent of baptism (a judge dumps Poland Spring on you when you get a passport?) or Eucharist (though free booze is always highly encouraged) -- and keeping the rights guaranteed by the state and federal governments distinct from religious ceremony.
Problem Three: The people have spoken.
The majority of Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, it's true. But when it comes to issues of equality, America's history has proven that sometimes the desires of the majority are not always in line with the virtues this country prides itself on. At several points in our past, a majority considered that the decimation of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the inability of women to own land were all pretty wonderful. Now we look at those times in the same way we look back on the craze surrounding Ricky Martin's "Livin' La Vida Loca" -- a mixture of embarrassment and dread that something like that could ever happen again.
Problem Four: Now how am I supposed to get laid?
So we're back outside the bar now, and I'm giving up on any possibility of making out. Because the second girl -- the one who's not gay -- is obligated to comfort her tear-streaked friend, along with the girlfriend who's just returned from paying the bill.
Typical.
She takes a rain check on some late night grub (and, presumably, breakfast the morning-after). Reality TV Friend calls it a night. Filmmaker Friend joins your humble narrator on a journey to Canter's Deli, a 24-hour joint where, incidentally, a gay man pays for our drunk's breakfast of champions: eggs, bacon, hash browns, and coffee.
Let's just say I have yet to have a Mormon treat me to a meal.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Inter-racial marriages make me very nervous and sad: all those poor kids having no idea whether they're black or white, Asian or Polynesian and so forth.
Since marriage isn't a civil right (as argued by posters to this site), we should ban marriages outside of one's race in order to save the poor children of those marriage from the pain of identity confusion.
Right?
.
The thing that gets me over and over again is the insistence on the part of so many of those who voted against the idea of gay marriage that they're not bigots. I'd like to remind them that bigots are not automatically illiterate hate-filled thugs, nor do they necessarily have to hate the objects of their bigotry. All that's required is an arbitrary sense of division and the feeling that your side is superior. To all you women who voted for Prop 8, congratulations! You have achieved parity with Anthony Comstock! To all you blacks and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8--well, I don't have to say it, do I? Just remember that the more righteous you feel about this puts you closer to George Wallace than Martin Luther King. And I'd like to remind all you church-going citizens out there who enshrined your sincere beliefs into law that what is good in your beliefs will be discarded along with what is bad when, inevitably, history and the next generation catches up with you and sees you for the hypocrites you are. Don't take my word for it; read the red-letter New Testament.
A close friend and I recently started a grassroots site www.OurVoi
PLEASE take a moment, go to the site, and post YOUR story. The more voices we have the louder our message will be. . .
www.OurVoi
Thanks!
Brian Lasofsky
stop the presses...
some sort of magical diety.....
Homosexuality is not an option - it is a genetic tendency that is beyond a person's control.
Very unfortunate that the 20th century has been so harsh on gays - the catholic church and the republican party have made gay bashing a blood sport. Such hypocrisy! Especially since so many members of the clergy are gay men!
If you can't join them, beat them?
An informational brochure about what churches can and cannot do in politics is located at http://pro
Seems to me that the supporters of Prop. 8 are angry with the wrong people. They should direct their anger at four members of the Supreme Court of California who convinced them that marriage was a right. Marriage isn't a right. Never has been. Polygamists can't marry more than one spouse, brother cannot marry brother, brother cannot marry sister, etc. There are actual legal limits to who can and cannot marry. What the voters of California did was to simply define the word "marriage", which added the gay community to the list of those who cannot marry.
This is not a civil rights issue, as the 70% of blacks and 65% of hispanics who voted for Prop. 8 made clear. The California Supreme Court granted rights where none existed. The voters of California corrected them.
"civil rights" is not a term only applied to issues of race, as you seem to imply. or did we forget the women's suffrage movement?
I imply nothing. Don't attempt to read into my post things that are not there.
That said, can you address the fact that there are existing legal limits to who can and cannot marry, then explain why the voters of California cannot further define limits?
If the people can vote to take away rights, then rights mean nothing.
If you're in a minority group, then Prop 8 should make you very, very afraid.
By the standards of Prop 8, there would be no problem with any sort of discriminatory measure placed into the Constitution.
You obviously did not read my post or I would not have to repeat myself. Again, nobody voted to take away rights. There is no right to marry, as I've already proven. There are already legal limits on who can and cannot marry. All the California voter did was define the term "marriage", which added the gay community to the list of who cannot marry.
Nothing could more clearly reveal your self-importance than your insistence that someone read your post. The US Constitution clearly states that rights not granted to the national government are reserved to the States and the citizens. It also clearly states that the enumeration of certain rights cannot be interpreted to mean that other rights do not exist. While the state government of any state may license marriage, there is no legal basis to argue that state government can prohibit a marriage which does not threaten the legitimate interests of that state. Gay marriage threatens no one, let alone the state government of California, although it is clear that some people FEEL threatened by it. Before you can allege a threat, you must prove that there is a potential harm. You didn't.
Your bare, unsupported statement that marriage isn't a right has no bearing on the argument, because you adduced no evidence or argument to support it. It is only your opinion. I don't have any interest in it, and neither does the law. As far as having to keep typing the same things over and over, that was your choice. Your totally inadequate and factually incorrect opinion doesn't improve because you keep reiterating it.
Wow, you certainly typed a lot to say absolutely nothing relevant to my post.
So the very fact that the Constitutions which apply to CA (federal and state) BOTH say that everyone will have the rights that everyone else has, means never mind there's no gay marriage???
"There are actual legal limits to who can and cannot marry. What the voters of California did was to simply define the word "marriage", which added the gay community to the list of those who cannot marry."
Marriage isn't a right.
What we need is a mass migration. Get all the racists, homophobes, anti-semites and just plain idiots to move to some state - Say Alaska. We can even take up a collection to provide them with boots, earmuffs, parkas and hunting rifles.
Let them ban everything they want and even encourage them to secede from the union. Palin could then become President in 2010 rather than waiting for 2012.
Those of us who stay behind can then amend our Constitution to provide equal rights for everyone regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Of course that could be difficult since we couldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 90's but with the bigots all gone we might have a shot.
That's got my vote... Who do I make out the check to?
Don't many of them live there already?
Ah so freedom is only for those who agree with you. All others will be moved elsewhere. I see.
I did not support or vote for Prop 8, and agree with much of what you said, but one argument circulating, which you repeated, is driving me crazy. It is not a violation of "church and state" for the Mormon Church or any church to participate (within reason) in the political process. The phrase "church and state" does not appear in the consitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws respecting religion, or from establishing a state religion. It does not say that a church cannot express itself on a political issue.
I will take you to dinner if you can get all commentators on this issue to quit saying the Mormon Church somehow violated the consitution on this. I might not agree with what they did, but they had the right to do it.
You are correct.
The First Amendment does not prohibit them from doing so.
What they are in danger of violating is laws and regulations which govern their status as tax-exempt organizations.
They probably have done so.
They should therefore lose that tax-expemt status which would do two things.
Make them and their property and income streams subject to taxation.
Make donations to them no longer qualify as charitable gifts and thus prevent donors from claiming a tax deduction for such donations.
People are already filing complaints regarding the Mormon Church with the IRS. Personally, I don't think ANY administration, certainly not Bush, nor even Obama will touch that one. Bush, we know would rather go after the NAACP. Obama will likely not have the stomach for taking on any organized religious entity.
What, specifically, are the regulations which govern tax exempt status? The mormon church (as an organization) didn't fund the push for the proposition, it's members did. Taking a position on a proposition is a bit different that pushing a position for a party or a candidate. I don't believe they have done either. Could the tax exempt guidlines actually put them at risk? That would seem remarkable to me if it did. Wouldn't that put any non-profit in jeapordy of losing it's tax exempt status if took any position on any matter of public policy?
Perhaps it does. More likely is folks are just angry and searching for retribution.
This is my second pet peeve on this issue. The LDS/Mormon Church only loses its tax-exempt status if it 1) Endorses a particular CANDIDATE or 2) it is expends a SUBSTANTIAL portion of its resources on influencing legislation. The Mormon Church did neither of these things. This is why the calls to strip the LDS Church of its tax exempt status are a waste of time.
What I really wish would happen? We would try to find some common ground on this issue. I really think it is there. Yes we can.
I am willing to go 1/2 with you on paying for that dinner. Driving me nuts too.
Also, it bears noting that people keep saying that the "Mormon Church" gave millions to the campaign, and should thus lose tax exempt status. Again, not true. Members of the church donated millions. A much different situation.
And what do you think was the motivation for all those members of the same church to give all that money? Influence from the pulpit and mobilization by the organization of the church, I'll betcha. Nuff said.
However, I do believe that if churches are going to participate and manipulate the politcal process, then they need to lose their tax-exempt status.
See Alexis C. Jolly's Profile
Perhaps not a direct violation, and certainly members of the church ought to exercise their civic duties.
I was, however, making reference to this letter from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:
http://new
I do not see your point. My point is that there is noting in the consitution that would prohibit a church from issuing a letter like the one you reference. A church speaking out in this way might cause heart burn for a number of reasons, but it is not a violation of the prinicple of separation of church and state.
This is a states rights issue. California should not allow outside financing of state propositions. I don't care what goes on in Utah, but California is for Californians, if you don't live, stay the hell out of our proposition financing. This should become state law.
I was blown away to find out that the Mormon "church" gave $15 Million to help pass prop.8. Here is a church that espoused polygamy just 100 years ago. A church which has sects that are fundamentalists, that practice sexual abuse against minors (FLDS) , shouldn't they have used the money to clean up their own back yard? Who are the Mormons to say what should define marriage? What a crock of s*h*i*t!!!!
The Mormon Church did not give money. Individual Mormons did. There is a big difference.
I did not support Prop 8, but people have to get their facts strtaight.
I understand what you're saying, but two points work against you. First, although I'm not Mormon, I was taught that my Church "is" the congregation of worshippers (i.e. the people/members of the Church) so in a way, the Mormon church did give the money. Secondly and more importantly the members gave the money at the direction of the Church. In any other context when one does something at the direction of another when that another has a position of power or influence over the actual actor, most reasonable people (and the law generally) would hold that other person just as responsible for the offending actions.
That being said, even though on a real, practial level you and I both know that the Mormon Church (as well as other religious institutions) did give money to pass Prop 8 under the guise of instructing their flock, the technicality will rule the day and most likely neither the IRS nor any court will penalize them.
The church didn't give any money to prop 8. Its members did.
Just by your name, highway 61, I'm a fan. Even if you are a liberal. :)
I'm going to see His Bobness for the second time this year at the end of the month. :)
A fine point. I have a hard time seeing the difference.
I’m tired of waiting for equality and I’m angry. I’m angry at all the lies that conservatives push about the GLBT community. I in a way, I don’t even care about marriage! I’ve been “living in sin” with my partner for the last 14 years without state or church sanction, and we’re doing just fine, thank you. Even better than most heteros I know!
But I’m angry, and I feel like taking to the streets and demanding something be done. I’m tired of playing nice. Where does it get us?
Write Democrat politicians in Washington that may represent you and let them know that they may no longer take your vote for granted, starting with the 2010 election. No civil unions, no vote. Don't expect Congress to support gay marriages. They are still too afraid of offending the religious types, of whom there are still many in this country.
You should not be waiting for Equality..
If you are truly tired of playing nice, then see my post PLEASE DO NOT WAIT
http://gay
Unless you enjoy being TAXED as a SUB-American.
Do proponents think they can redefine the common useage of other terms we hold dear like, "father" or "mother"? Without going into the biology lesson, by definition a woman can never be a "father" but could certainly be a parent. As an opponent (with an open mind) I'd suggest that to get traction on the core civil rights issue that attempting to redefine the language of a people is frought with peril.
I suggest that rather than using the words "gay marriage" that proponents would be better served to change course and, as the article suggets, fight for a redefinition of existing LEGAL MARRIAGES to "Civil unions" with all participants being called "life partners". Doing so would leave the terms, marriage, husband and wife in tact and allow others the ability to show their pride in THEIR CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE by their choice of terms. I can not support "gay marriage" but I can support civil union for ALL. If all that is sought is the right be have a life with your selected partner, I urge you to change direction to avoid a long devisive fight.
Not an option....
"Let's just say I have yet to have a Mormon treat me to a meal."
you would have to eat at Denny's or some cheap Buffet.
And they probably wouldn't pay for your beer or coffee.
I am from Massachusetts. We legalized gay marriage a few years back. It has had absolutely zero impact on the cultural fabric of our state. Marraige rates and divorce rates have not changed what so ever as a result. Church officials have not been forced to marry gay couples. Our children have not all spontaneously become drag queens. No one has attempted to marry a dog or a turtle. We have not changed our state anthem to be sung to the tune of ABBA's "Dancing Queen." God has not brought neither flood nor famine upon us.
What the heck are people so afraid of?
Wonderful post.
The same goes for Canada, Belgium, Holland and Spain
What the heck are people afraid of? Simple. They're afraid of not having anyone to look down upon, and consider as less than themselves, thereby making themselves feel in some way superior, and therefore happy. We gay folk have become the last acceptable whipping post. What are all those sad, dysfunctional people to do once we have finally won our equality?
I used to live in Amsterdam and still visit their frequently. And let me tell you....tol
If it can happen SOMEWHERE, it can happen ANYWHERE. Civil rights for any group in this country have been hard to come by. Remember women suffragests were actively campaigning for almost a hundred years before they got the vote. This is a disappointing set back but I really do believe that we will see national gay marriage within my lifetime.
gee, what a wonderful example of sexual freedom and tolerance. Isnt amsterdam the sex capital of the world? I would think they would be glad just to have any kind of marriage in the land of free for all.
Go for it guys. Dig your grave deeper by pointing to AMSTERDAM as your shining hope for the future. I am sure that will warm us fundy types even more.
Holland also has the LOWEST rate of teen pregnancies in the world. Including aborted pregnancies. They also have one of the lowest rates of STDs of any country in the world.
Turns out when you educate people about sex and don't encourage them to supress their natural desires, they actually are much more responsible about it.
Oh God forbid we end up like Amsterdam. They only have one of the lowest rates of poverty and crime of any major city in the entire world. Lowest teen pregnancy rate in the WORLD. One of the lowest divorce rates in Europe (although their marriage rate is normal). One of the most highly ranked school systems in the world. One of the cleanest major cities in the world. One of the lowest rates of homelessness in the world. Booming economy. Low unemployment rate.
and while on the subject of Netherlands as the beacon of tolerance, isnt it also the first country to actually legalize polyamorous weddings? Dont believe me?
http://www
and here is someone wondering if New Jersey laws can actually permit such relationships.
http://pol
Only a question of time...whe
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
