With the overturning of California's Proposition 8, the U.S. enters a new era in basic civil rights. As delightful as it has been to see homophobes falling over themselves to find justifications for their political stance that might read as anything other than transparent bigotry, it is even more delightful to see them lose their argument in a court of law. I applaud the ruling as I applaud all individuals courageous enough to seek out love in a world of fear and commit to a lasting relationship in a world of temptation. I've been told I'm a hopeless romantic.
Naturally, the most steadfast of the opponents to same-sex marriage have accused the gay judge who ruled against Prop 8 of being biased. I suppose that is true, to some degree; after all, who is not slightly biased in favor of his own rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Still, the venom spouted toward this man is yet another indication of the level of bigotry at work in the struggle of the extreme right to keep homosexuality closeted, dismissed and subjugated beneath the heel of a heterocentric world view.
I think the recent history of homophobia bears a bit of review. Only in the past few years have arguments against gay marriage hinged on the idea that same-sex couples somehow damaged the sanctity of marriage. This was obviously a drummed up argument. Had the forces of conservatism really be interested in protecting marriage as an institution, surely they would have campaigned just as strongly to outlaw divorce. And unanticipated weight gain. Let us not forget that the same groups who now oppose gay marriage, not so long ago railed against homosexuals for their promiscuity. Let me put forth a simple theory: You can't please bigots.
If they will rail against promiscuity and will object to monogamy, one has to assume that it is not the nature of the relationships they object to, but rather the nature of the relations.
Now a blow has been struck against the Christian Right in its self-righteous battle against some people's monogamy, its legal struggle to institutionalize discrimination. Will it turn the other cheek? Probably not. I suspect that this small, vociferous minority will continue to rant, to rage, to carry hateful signs laden with offensive epithets. Meanwhile, happy couples, knowing that the legal system does not bow to the prejudice of the few, will take joyously to their marital beds and turn other cheeks of their own. Science tells us that sexual preference is less about choice than it is about chemistry, wiring and quite probably genetics. Spirituality tells us that decency and kindness are a lifestyle choice.
Because I firmly believe in a separation of church and state, I cannot in good conscience seek to have hatred and cruelty legally banned. I can only hope that those with whom I disagree can find enough love and support in their own lives to feel comfortable allowing others to live by their own choices. Perhaps in order to do that, all they need is permission to love whom they will, as they will.
I think I've been misdiagnosed. A romantic, yes. But most definitely hopeful.
Follow Dylan Brody on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanbrody
Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph. D.: Prop 8, Judge Walker and the Biblical View of Marriage Equality
I have listened to fundamentalist radio for years. And for years heard their screeds about "the promiscuous gay life style", as if being gay and being promiscuous were synonymous.
Then, once the gay community said "You're right. Marriage is better" -- well, look at the fire storm (all the while claiming that they "hate the sin but love the sinner" - NOT.)
Keep getting the word out about this flip flop. It won't change a single bigot because they are impervious to their own hypocrisy, but it might clarify the thinking of the rational middle.
BTW: I'm 60+ straight mother of 2. LGBT's folks DO have a lot of support out here!
Something you conveniently forget is that this is the second vote that has been overturned by one man. The people are not with you or this issue. It seems you have no compelling argument for homosexual marriage.
It seems your post to me earlier on another thread was either deleted or still in limbo somewhere, so I'll reply here. Your comments demand correction.
Nowhere did I say marriage was a constitutional right. I said it was a fundamental right. There is a difference. A constitutional right would be one that is granted by the Constitution. A fundamental right is universal and ubiquitous.
Further, you claim that therefore "it IS left up to each state to vote on the issue " while intentionally, or naively, ignoring the 14th amendment prohibiting states from discrimination. Your argument, referring to the other post, is folly.
The folly spills over to here I see. The people don't have to be with the protection of the rights of the individual, but they can't do anything about it short of an amendment, and if you're so bigoted as to push for an amendment to crush the rights of other Americans, you are anti-American.
You may have personal bigoted reasons for seeding to destroy the lives of others, but you certainly don't have a shred of compelling legal or factual arguments. You're just whining.
This is the simple truth and good to see in print. First, marginalize them, and then point to the symptoms of marginalization to underline the marginalization. Vicious cycle of ruined lives and outrageous lies. Hush, hush!
After gay liberation began, the pamphleteers of the right (the FRC especially) attempted to kick gay people to the gutter and then call out that they were in the gutter. They used any number of made-up statistics and this continues to a lesser degree today (see the Tom Emmer and MN GOP backed You Can Run But You Cannot Hide "ministry's" outrageous citation of non-existent facts).
Once the marriage drive began things turned a bit and we have at last arrived at the real truth about the religious Right's intentions towards gay people--that they are both violent, anti-social, and in a pinch, genocidal. They simply wish us out of existence.
Short of our obliteration, they'll resort to any distortion of truth and morality that suits their actual purposes (see atrocity, gaybashing, verbal assault, school bullying, etcetera).
Indeed it doesn't matter if the hate doesn't even agree with itself, never mind the truth. The only point is that it's anti-gay. I heard it best put once: If the government gave out surplus ice cream, they'd try to make sure gay people didn't get any.
The issue with the Christian Right is they always look for someone else to blame (things never go wrong and/or change because of me mentality) and you can never use logic with people who do not face reponsibility or the truth. Look at Prop 8 Ruling - according to the Christian Right, they didn't lose because of a laughably weak case, they lost because of a "biased gay judge". As this goes to the Supreme Court - I do not believe it will be a 5-4 - I think it will be at least 7-2 and possibly (If Olson hits all the "Right" notes - Pun Intended) could be 9-0 - you can clearly see in Walkers Ruling there are points where he is talking directly to Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas. The Christian Right will then blame it on 9 "Activist" Judges and why? Because currently there are no "Christians" on The Surpeme Court - Six are Catholic (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor and Thomas) and Three are Jewish (Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan). They will say that it is a travesty that there isn't any Christian Justice on the Supreme Court and imposing their "secular" views on a country "Founded by a Christian God". The Republicans Presidential Candidates will have to turn the rhetoric from "I will appoint Conservative Judges" (remember McCain saying that all the time) to "I will appoint only Conservative Christian Judges who follow the rule
On this decision, Roberts, of all people, would be the wild card, given his history of working pro bono for a LGBT rights group seeking to invalidate a Colorady Consutional amendment banning antidiscrimination laws.
I'll say it again... if you are truly consumed by hatred of gays and everything they do, everything they are, hate the very fact that they exist, there really is no better way to inflict pain and suffering upon them than to allow them to get married.
As for the "sanctity of marriage" argument from the reicht-wing, I agree completely... and I think the left is missing a golden opportunity here. They need to find a dozen or so liberal senators who have never been divorced and propose... well, call it the Crusade for Marriage bill, or something conservs can really sink their teeth into...a constitutional amendment outlawing both divorce and gay marriage. Throw down the gaultlet!! You want to prevent gays from marrying because you want the institution to "remain sacred" (whatever that means) ? Fine. This new amendment will define marriage as an institution that exists between one man and one woman, FOR LIFE. The new law will nullify all existing divorces. Any divorced person shall immediately be considered married to their original spouse; if that spouse is deceased, the relationship will resume with the next living spouse in chronological order of marriage (I'm talking to you, Newt and Rush). All property and children divided in the divorce will be henceforth assumed to be part of the resumed marriage and shared equally. Have at it.
Thanks for the reponse...keep up the good writing.
Let's face it, their quality control went offline about 3 years before the site went online.
I've signed the petition for the ban on divorce in California. I'm hoping the CA Supremes make it retroactive, since the Prop H8 people were so pissed off about the CA Supremes not doing so re: Prop H8.
Could the private life of Maggie Gallagher, that vile Jersey cow who speaks for the National Organization for Marriage, stand up to the scrutiny that Judge Vaughn Walker has been subjected to?
What about Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper? They've certainly become public figures through the angry, homophobic activities of Westboro Baptist Church. Why isn't the mainstream media doing reports on THEIR family history?
Is George Rekers the only closeted homosexual man who worked for Focus on the Family? Why isn't an investigation being done on them?
These are just the most visible people. There are plenty of other haters and hypocrites who should be exposed to the world. I'll bet if the spotlight was turned on THEIR personal lives they'd run for cover like ants whose hill has been kicked over by a toddler.
Yeah, Dylan, you're a romantic, and God bless you for it. But these culture wars are just exactly that --- WARS. Once you're in 'em, the only way out is to win, even if that means destroying the other side. We gay people didn't ask to be a part of this war; it was declared upon us by these bigots. Excuse me if I say, "Take no prisoners."
I'd like nothing better than for everyone to get together and just talk this out over ice water and Jell-o (so the Mormons will feel comfortable) and fabulous quiche, but it's gone on too long and too far for that to happen at this point. I'm glad to see more of the gay and gay-friendly folks get off their complacent asses and speak out. If that had happened in more numbers before Prop 8 was voted on, we wouldn't have gone through this court case.
One suggested anthem for the people fighting the good fight after this first Prop 8 victory in court:
My Boyfriend's Back
He went away and you hung around
And bothered me, every night
And when I wouldn't go out with you
You said things that weren't very nice
My boyfriend's back and you're gonna be in trouble
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend's back)
You see him comin' better cut out on the double
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend's back)
You been spreading lies that I was untrue
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend's back)
So look out now cause he's comin' after you
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend's back)
(Hey, he knows that you been tryin')
(And he knows that you been lyin') ,,,
Yes. We need to fight this war with every available resource.
Do not take prisoners. If you take prisoners, you have to feed them, cloth them, shelter them... sounds awfully like an "entitlement" program to me, and that's just socialism in disguise. Not to mention having to reschedule your day to let those pesky Red Cross inspectors in, and those interfering busy-bodies at the UN.
However, I would like to point out that the US has already okayed, at top levels, germ warfare, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and torture. In fact, those were okayed by Republican leaders, so it must be okay for us to use as well.
Also, an opinion from the Bush administration Justice Department clearly stated that there are no *real* civilians in such a conflict, so everyone is pretty much fair game. Hey, they made the rules, we have to follow them.
The real point is to find and destroy the WMDs (Weapons of Mass Discrimination). We know they are out there.
THAT'S sick. And I've never had THAT much free time.
TTFN! :)
=^..^=
On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently procreative relationship, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.
From Margaret Somerville, "The case against "Same-sex marriage". A Brief Submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, April 29, 2003.â€
I agree that it is interesting: his opinion is flawed in that it never addresses head-on what constitutes the reality of marriage.The opinion treats the inherent procreative potential of heterosexual intercourse as an accident, as something that is not distinctive, or as something that does not indicate a specific kind of relationship.
It will be interesting to see how this plays with SCOTUS.
SS couples can never procreate naturally between them.
You are correct in your assessment of both states: Historic precedent is on the side of "heterocentrists," who hold marriage to be an institution by God ordered, by Christ endorsed, by the Holy Spirit instructed, and declared by inspiration to be honorable in the sight of all men. By definition, proponents of marriage should eschew divorce, with the exception of infidelity--provision for which is also prescribed by the Trinity mentioned above.
The outrage against the legal allowance of same-sex couplings is that it lowers to that debased level the heterosexual marriage as defined and observed since the begining of time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, and I wouldn't want to watch. I just don't want you to deign to call it by the same name I use to describe the relationship husbands and wives call marriage.
As they used to say: "Many happy returns of the day!"
In addition, Judge Walker's arguments are only weakened when he steps waste deep into theself-contradiction when he claims that "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States." On one hand he claims that religion has no say on civil matters yet on the other he relies on philosophies of love to prop up his attack against Proposition 8.
Judges use religious beliefs and world views everyday to make sound decisions. It is expected and normal. Religion has a roll to play. Philosophy has it's proper place in the court room. Civil laws should be synchronous with the same universal laws that govern religion and philosophy. No, priests, pastors and rabbis shouldn't be judges, but judges should have pastors, priests, and rabbi's. Certainly, Judge Walker is taking his spiritual director under advisement. Unfortunely his spiritual bias is out of sync with our constitution and social norms.
Religion does not equal love. Explain how atheists love then.
He derived the finding from the trial, and listed the evidence that supported that finding. There may be other evidence that discounts it; however, it is not in the trial evidence, despite all the opportunity the proponents had to enter it. If you have a problem with that finding, your argument is with the proponents, not Judge Walker.
Because, quite frankly, I don't see why you would want to stand in my bedroom anyway.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I profoundly and sincerely apologize for how my fellow "christians" have acted towards you (plural) and can say only that bigotry towards gays is NOT a reflectoin of Christ's teachings; it is a perversion of them.
Many people (they can be found on this site, every day) vehemently hate the christian religion, and label it bigoted, hypocritical, and the cause of more suffering than any government that has ever existed. It is with sorrow that i have to admit, they are correct in their criticism. If only christians would act more like Christ, this would indeed by a more beautiful world. Until then, I can only apologize and say, once again: We are not all as they are.
Fanned, my brother.
The truth is Christ was a social activist.
As I like to say, "Christ threw the moneychangers out of the Temple. Christians ordained them."