On the Fight for Marriage Equality in California

I'm as upset about the outcome of Proposition 8 as anyone else is, but I don't think that it is the signature issue of our times.

The President-elect's plans for what to do with detainees, once he closes Guantanamo Bay, how to handle military tribunals, whether to incarcerate indefinitely without charges, should be of more concern, as well as ongoing infractions to the First and Fourth Amendments.

Forgive me if this seems cynical, but I've never been a big fan of marriage -- gay or straight -- and I'd rather see people take to the streets of Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and San Francisco over waterboarding, warrantless electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency, or the fact that the federal reserve is refusing to make public the names of those who received close to $2 trillion of taxpayer money in what Bloomberg describes as "emergency loans."

I'd like to see people take to the streets about the abstinence-only requirement that has accompanied the granting of federal funds to state, and international, clinics that provide much-needed contraception, and HIV/AIDS research.

It would also be nice to see people take to the streets about the implied selective survival policy initiated by the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party in making drugs needed to treat HIV/AIDS unaffordable to the vast majority of those who suffer from the disease worldwide.

It's good to see people doing their civic duty by exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, but there are many who would like to see other elements of the First Amendment protected by the elimination of so-called "public indecency" FCC fines.

Yes, everyone should have the right to marry, and to get divorced, regardless of sexual orientation, but this is a time when there ought to be more concern about who's getting sacked than who they're in the sack with.

More importantly, renegers need not apply; once a right is granted to someone, it must never be rescinded. This goes for Roe v. Wade, too, of course.

But, we need to get our priorities in order. Please, please, please let's get about the business of working to restore our tattered Constitution, to end mercenary, irrelevant wars, to challenge the designation of "unlawful enemy combatant" as pretext to defy habeas corpus, stop the insidious practice of extraordinary rendition, and frame the debate such that human rights are the issue, not the rights of one sex, or another, to tie the knot.

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[Speakupper]

"I'd like to see people take to the streets about the abstinence-only requirement that has accompanied the granting of federal funds to state, and international, clinics that provide much-needed contraception, and HIV/AIDS research."

Great. Why don't you amend your article to include the links to the organizations you have created (or know about) to get that done? When's the rally? Where is it? How do people get involved? I find it interesting that you wonder why people aren't organizing around your priorities but don't give the thousands of people who may read your words a way to do so.

One of the great things about living in a democracy is that each of us is free to determine our own priroites. We don't have or need a Prioritizer-in-Chief to tell us what should matter most to us.

Marriage equality protesters are taking direct action in defense of the constitution and their lives, as they see fit. People who care have gotten off their collective behinds in an attempt to organize like minded people, express outrage, heighten awareness, find community and make a difference.

Those wiith other priorities are free to do the same.

One person's response to injustice may be to get organized and take to the streets, another person's response may be to write up a wishlist. More power to all of us.

http://www.noonprop8.com
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385
http://jointheimpact.com/

[bbbtmenw]

This is about civil rights, not just gay marriage.

I disagree that gay civil rights are less important than the other issues mentioned. They all involve human civil rights.

I say Gay Civil Rights are equally or more important because it is a constitutional issue, it is about mistreatment, and it is about starting to treat citizens of the U.S. equally at "home", so that we can realize that we need to do it elsewhere as well.

The same people who think it is alright for us to torture, treat others without basic human rights, and stomp all over the constitution, are the same group that believe Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, and Transgender people are second class citizens and should not receive equal protection under the law, including gay marriage.

Those who oppose gay marriage may have done themselves a disservice with helping Prop 8 pass, because the Gay, and related, community is now looking for federally recognized and equal civil rights across the entire country. It was the last straw in a twelve year smear by conservative republicans during each election cycle.

Prop 8 for me has been about civil rights. This issue made my previous fellow employer feel that it was alright to not only pass out a Pro Prop 8 petition at work and take my rights away, but to mistreat me and make it an extremely hostile work environment.

This is about CIVIL RIGHTS. Marriages need to be recognized federally and equally.

[CEKChuck]

Wow, ok so I donated about 2 to 1 to Obama/No on 8. I expect Obama to address the issues that you presented, most likely in either a progressive or moderate fashion. I protested against the war, and we all saw how effective that was; Bush basically said "I don't care what you think". I now channel money to causes I find worthy.

I don't think we take to the streets because we think it will be particularly effective in changing things; I think they might have an influence (both positive and negative) on public opinion, but the real work is in the courts, in the churches, in our workplaces, in our families, in our neighborhoods. But they are effective in allowing us to voice our collective frustration and stand up for ourselves.

Diminishing our duty to stand up for our own civil rights by saying it's only a matter of "who's in the sack with who" is condescending and shrill.

[sarge]

You didn't know that Obama has never advocated for gay "marriage", but has instead been arguing for equal treatment under the law?

Civil unions that enjoy all of the legal rights of married couples is as far as Obama has ever gone. He's a pragmatist, not a perfect progressive/ideologue.

I wonder how far McCain/Palin would push the issue.

[CEKChuck]

Yes, I fully knew Obama's position on gay marriage. I am not a one issue voter. I support Obama on > 99% of his positions, and will continue to do so. I do not agree with him on this issue, and do not believe pragmatism is the right approach to Civil Rights. "Loving vs. Virginia" was not a pragmatic decision, nor one that supported the will of the majority. It was a decision of incredible moral courage in the face of significant opposition by the majority in many states.

In his response to the gay community during the Presidential Forum on Gay Rights Obama even said that he would have favored a pragmatic approach to facing down anti-miscegenation laws. I would have disagreed with him then, and I disagree with him now. I don't think it is a natural extension to imply that because I disagree with him on this issue that I would prefer McCain/Palin. Surely there are or will be issues that you disagree with him on that you will fight for, without it meaning that you are going to abandon supporting him.

I think Obama has the potential to be a great President. Roosevelt was a great President, and even did great things to advance Civil Rights for African Americans. But he was not great when it came to facing down anti-lynching laws; he was pragmatic and politically nuanced. It took Eleanor's moral courageousness to eventually push him into taking the right stand.

[antaeus]

" . . . this is a time when there ought to be more concern about who's getting sacked than who they're in the sack with." Ha ha. Word play's fun, isn't it?

But seriously, your breezy dismissal of this issue set aside a purported concern for the issue of HIV is bizarre. At best it shows a want of critical thinking. Encouraging stable, long-term same-sex relationships would indeed reduce the spread of HIV--not eliminate, but reduce.

[raker]

How I detest the fake argument that Problem X is unworthy of our attention because Problem Y is so much more serious. Virtually any problem can be trivialized and rationalized away like this. Civil rights for gay people is important and worthy of our passion and activism, even though there are lots of awful things in the world.

[antaeus]

Hey, you've gotta give Stahl credit for offering an honest prioritization. Now we know how she really feels about gays and lesbians.

[Jayne Lyn Stahl - Huffpost Blogger]

In the opening sentences of the article, it's clear that the auhor is as upset about the fact that Prop. 8 passed as anyone else is, but doesn't think that it is "the signature issue of our times." Logic 101: this doesn't mean that I endorse discrimination against gays and lesbians.

To the contrary, the post suggests that the person who wrote is is deeply concerned with human rights, and wonders where all the protestors were when usurious pharmaceutical companies were allowed to make it possible for a minority of the world's population to have access to HIV/AIDS cocktails.

I also wonder why no one took to the street when, for the past 8 years, the Bush administration made abstinence-only education a prerequisite for granting federal funds to clinics, and sex education programs both domestically, and globally. Maybe people think gay marriage is more important than gay survival.

FYI, hate crimes against Hispanics, not gays, make up 61% of all hate crimes. Where are protestors of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, forced deportation, and splitting up of "illegal immigrant" families? Why aren't people taking to the streets against illegal sweatshops that exploit undocumented workers, pay them a fraction of the minimum wage, or the hate crime stabbing death of a Latino teenager in New Jersey, last week.

There's plenty of outrage to go around. The passing of Prop. 8 is an outrage which will be addressed as unconstitutional in the courts. Your outrage can be better spent.

[rainbowblue]

That's it, I've had it with the bloggers on this site! There are probably a lot of gays, myself included, who really don't care about the marriage aspect of gay marriage. What was really at stake in the vote was recognition that gays are fellow citizens and humans. What you just said was the equivilent of saying in the 60's that we need to care more about Vietnam than making sure black school children can intergrate into white schools.

Straight people listen up, this is a fight for dignity and humanity--not about a joint tax return. Looking back, the Civil Rights movement was about the dignity and humanity of African Americans, not about an all important victory in gaining the right to drink from a "white" drinking fountain.

I'm tired of blogs here telling gays to run a campaign like Obama. Guess what we can't, his campaign was about flowery and vague speeches. This blog is evidence enough that the mass electorate still doesn't respond to anything we say. We know striaght people either hate us or just don't care enough to fight. If they did, Dems would be planning on pushing through a whole package of gay rights, but they won't because "it would make them unpopular".

[Lemeritus]

Well said, rainbowblue.

I think it bears noting that gays have been steadfast (and on the streets) in their support of all civil rights, against the war, against Gitmo, in favor of Obama... wherever there was any issue touched upon in Ms. Stahl's piece, gays were there to lend their help, their time, their money and their passion. Every single time!

What we are talking about here is simply this: can a law that minimizes the value and diminishes the rights of 1 out of 10 Americans (from every ethnicity, religion and political stripe) be tolerated? And that questions speaks, in many very important ways, to all of the other issues important to Ms. Stahl.

[M1]

What you fail to recognize is that the issue is about being equal in social ranking which effects every aspect of a persons life. TheCalif.Supreme Court has acknowledged that a Civil Union for gays religates them to second class citizenship and everyone knows about this ruling. This makes it a matter of human dignity. Also, it sets a dangerous precedent to revise a State's constitution to discriminate against one class of persons and effectively remove that discrimination from judicial power.

I thought about the very thing you have said in your article but I think we can do more than one project at a time. Even Obama said a president must need to focus on one thing at a time. So, you can go out on the street for Gitmo and the 1st A, but I am going out on the street for my civil rights and human dignity because, clearly, if I do not my human dignity will be placed on the bottom of the Agenda. Human dignity for Gays may not be the issue of your time but it is the issue of my time and will be where I spend all my time, money and resources.

Your view of not thinking marriage in general is not important misses the point entirely.

[Cindean]

So you propose that this issue get to the end of the line, where it "belongs"? I suppose the same was said about the civil rights issues of African-Americans while the Vietnam War was raging. I would hope that we are capable of moving on more than one front at a time.

I live in California and I voted against Proposition 8. I am aghast that the fear-mongering, deceptive campaign funded so significantly by the Catholic and Mormon churchgoers had its desired effect and enshrined this outrageous piece of discrimination in our constitution. It must be repealed and many of us in California will not rest until it is.

[BritPatJax]

Until there is the attitude and good heartedness in dealing with this issue as there is in the other three quarters of the world you cannot realistically call America, "The Land of the Free'.

[Raven]

How very wrong you are when you say,

"But, we need to get our priorities in order,"

as though the basic civil rights of any of our own people should not be high on the list of priorities.

Sure, it goes without saying that we have some pretty scary stuff to atone for as a country. Sure we've got to close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus. We've got to get our country back.

But if we are not willing to work to recognize the most fundamental rights of the most discriminated among us, all of that is for nothing.

So fundamental is the right to choose one's spouse that I have to admit I find it rather shocking that you would dismiss it as though it's trivial. It's not.

This is a fight for all of us. And nothing could be more important as we all get to work in returning dignity to America.

[sarge]

Prop 8 doesn't take away anyone's right to choose their mate, nor does it specifically deny any of the legal rights afforded those who are married.

Men and women are fundamentally different, are defined my different words, yet are afforded equivalent rights.

Gay unions and straight marriages are fundamentally different. What is so horrible about affording equal protection under the law, but using language to define them as different arrangements?

I've never personally advocated for that, I think gay "marriage" should be allowed, and treated no differently than the original variety. But since a compromise exists, that provides for all the legal rights of marriage (again, not my preference), then there are, in the scheme of things, bigger fish to fry, like not being a state sponsor of torture and the restoration of habeas corpus.

To put the issue of gay marriage on a par with the fundamental right to a writ of habeas corpus is absurd. They don't compare.

Again, assuming a gay couple can obtain a civil union that grants equivalent rights (not necessarily a safe assumption, I know), then the denial of the term "marriage" is a relatively minor affront to ones civil rights than is unlawful imprisonment, or torture, for example.

[Lemeritus]

sarge, your comments were both thoughtful and good-hearted. I needn't beat you over the head with the fact that separate but equal is -- inherently -- unequal.

As rainbow notes above, "a lot of gays... really don't care about the marriage aspect of gay marriage." The stick that hit the hornets' nest is one of equal rights and protection. Many argue that civil unions are equivalent to marriage in all but name; they are not in these regards (from FactCheck.org):

1. The right to federal benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
- Taxes. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to transfer assets & wealth without incurring tax penalities.
- Health insurance. Health plans governed by federal law permit the employer to choose whether extend benefits.
- Social Security survivor benefits. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits
2. Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
3. Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning. In this regard, it's important to note that many churchs will not perform weddings for same-sex partners; that is their right --others will. The impetus for many gays is to make their vows before God and "those here gathered". It's ironic that religious organizations who demonize gays for their promiscuity fail to regard or respect the appetite in the LGBT community for commitment.