Way to Rain on my Parade, California

Last Tuesday, history was made. My college campus exploded; hundreds of students converged in Harvard Yard and began taking literal victory laps around the Yard. Groups shouted, "Yes we can! Yes we did!" Among the undergraduate community, there was great excitement and a real sense of optimism for the future. Change wasn't just a theoretical concept, but rather an actual possibility. This was more than just a presidential election--it was proof that the unlikely really can happen, and we can help make it happen. All night long, students were celebrating in the streets of Harvard Square, cheering and shouting, cars honking their horns in support.

We canvassed, we voted, we campaigned...we helped make this possible.

And then the news came in that California passed Proposition 8. I am horrified at 52% of California's voters. How could you?

Marriage is a civil right. Yes, you might say, but I am a religious person and the Bible says marriage should only be between a man and a woman. My response: So what? We (and by we, I mean, you, me, and American society as a whole) don't believe everything the Bible says. If we are going to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because the Bible says so, then really, we should be rethinking our views on evolution, the capacity for a man to be swallowed by a fish and then re-emerge alive, the concept of a burning bush, not to mention the question of where the hell did Abel's wife come from anyway?

Maybe we shouldn't take everything the Bible says literally. Yes, the Bible is very important and contains many lessons that we can learn from. It's also true that the Bible was written during a different time period, and this is something we must acknowledge. For example, the Bible condones slavery, a practice that, over time, we have grown to realize is intrinsically wrong. Why can't we do the same with regards to marriage? Let this be a country where change is possible and discrimination is unacceptable.

 

Comments

[larstein]

Marriage has been in a constant state of modification since it became a way to control tribal gene pools thousands of years ago. Originally, marriage (the type found in the Bible) had nothing to do with love, was simply a business deal between families, the bride + dowry being the price paid for buying into a family that could offer prestige and security. It's why the rich and powerful (King Solomon, etc.) accepted polygamy as a "natural" state of affairs. Mixed race marriage, a 19th century European/American invention, was considered a form of pollution to the purity of the white race, and was the law of the land in many states even up to the 1960s. The argument about it being exclusive to a man and woman is simply a hold over from the old days when it was primarily about perpetuating racial or class lines, having nothing particularly at all to do with love. The gay argument, the romantic model which goes back to the Renaissance, is that marriage should be about the spiritual bonding between two people who want to explore the depth and breadth of what love offers. With the world over-populated as it is, the gay argument is an evolutionary advance over the old model of marriage, now indefensible except as a mask for bigotry and delusional thinking.

[cgoodie]

Very well said...can't believe we even need this dialogue in this country of all places.

[CaliforniaMichael]

Is anyone else having trouble trying to figure out what Bserius is attempting to say? The "Yes on 8" side has trotted out so many idiotic "reasons" for voting the way they did...marriage is sort of like driving a car or practicing law???? my guess is that the "prerequisites" he's referring to are that
a couple must be of the opposite sex to marry. I think....I have yet to see a single serious argument advanced by the anti-gay marriage side. This is not surprising as what they really mean---and a few are honest enough to say so----is that they just don't like gay people. Period.

[VikingQuest]

Nope, no clue.

Like I said, some of the crazy things the few in the gay community have been doing over the past few years has lead to the pain of many on this issue.

[BSERIUS]

Oh , Now it is the "Anti Gay Side".....Same as protesters using the N word....The vast majority of those who voted for Prop 8 are not anti gay, same as the vast majority who voted for McCain are not racist... But keep up the name calling......Yes , most Americans vote this moral issue (not a civil rights issue) based on the PREREQUISITE that marriage is between two consenting of age heterosexuals.

[cgoodie]

Seriously, Bserius, how can it hurt you or your family or your community. It's only a prerequisite because some bible thumping group lobbied to make it so.

[lizr]

Huh? Is there a coherent argument in here somewhere?

[equalground]

I have defended the rights of gays for years. I am third generation active in the civil rights effort. and, I choose to disagree with you, particularly that I am dishonest and don't like people, gay or not gay. Why did you vote No on Prop 8? What were your reasons? Be careful - Saying I am hateful and a bigot is not a sufficient reason.

[cgoodie]

equalground - To whom are you directing your question?

[cgoodie]

Well, gosh darn it, if you give them the right to marry, what next???? Adopt a homeless child?? OMG....Run for President? ;>)

[BSERIUS]

Marriage is not a civil right ... It has prerequisites such as driving, practicing law or playing major league baseball... The first amendment actually supports a vote such as this.52 % , approx the same margin of victory Obama had , voted for Prop 8 . African,Asian,Hispanic and Euro(white) America voted their conscience .

[cgoodie]

what test did you have to pass to get married????

[VikingQuest]

I could care less either way about gay marriage.

All I know is it can't help the cause for that community to parade down the street in leather thongs with makeup on or invading people's churches on Sundays.

[cgoodie]

Outrageous injustice calls for outrageous means. But I agree...that thong is a visual I could live without.

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

You know, we tried to play it straight, pun partially intended, and we lost. The No on Prop. 8 campaign wouldn't even put gay people in its ads. The No on Prop. 8 talking points barely mentioned same-sex marriage; they were all about how CA laws should not be used to discriminate against anyone. We tried to play it safe. And we lost. So I say, let a thousand thongs bloom!

Not that I really want to see 'em either. But still.

[Meils]

Thanks for the post.... very straightforward and undeniably true!! Imagine how those of us feel that are forced to 'accept' this ruling knowing it's full implications! The Supreme Court of CA will most likely overturn Prop 8.... you cannot restructure or revise the concept of 'equal protection under the law' through a simple majority vote and the CA legislature will not vote by 2/3 majority to delete that concept from the state constitution..... not to mention this rogue, unjust vote takes the constitutional authority of the Judicial branch to protect 'suspect' minority classes from the injustice of the majority away which is also illegal. Our system of government is truly broken when laws like these are allowed to be placed on the ballot in the first place..... everyone loses by these petty, childish actions which seem to come mostly from religious organizations.

[equalground]

Meils - First blog that has mentioned the "suspect" minority class. Do you know what the tests are for this class and how the CA Supreme Court applied the test?

[M1]

I do....and it goes like this....the governmental regulation/law or action can not disctiminate against a minority group unless it can prove a compelling interest to do so and the law is narrowly tailored....meaning the law actually advances it asserted interest and does not regulate in a manner that is more discriminatory than is needed to achieve its asserted compelling interest.

Plus, marriage is a fundamental right.....and the government can not take away a fundamental right from any citizen (no special minority classification is needed) without showing a compelling interest to do so ect...same as above.

So, given that marriage is both a fundamental right and the group the right was taken from has been given protected minority statuts from the CA Supreme Court makes this situation all the more unconstitutional.

I believe placing prop 8 on the ballot itself was unconstitutional. If the Court does not invalidate prop 8 it wil invalidate the court and the rule of law itself because we Gays understand the law and will know that any other ruling than to invalidate it is unjust.
Failure to do so wil leave me feeling that I am no longer bound to the same social contract (the constitution) that we have all agreed to.