Gays in a Cage

What? Does the voting public of this great state of California, who correctly voted to pass Proposition 2 -- which legislated to give caged chickens more room in their cages -- have to actually see the cage that gay people have been put in all theses years to get it? Does it take actual physical evidence of the cage to understand the cruelty of being called "not equal" by Proposition 8? If being in a cage will do the trick -- if that will be the image that our fellow citizens need to see on their television screens to move them to action -- then we will do it. I will call some of my brilliant, gay, Californian, tax-paying citizen designer friends and ask them to design and build a giant cage. Then, I will ask some of my politically savvy, gay, Californian, tax-paying citizen fundraising friends to raise the money. Then, they will call the always charitable, gay, Californian, tax-paying citizen friends who support any worthwhile humanitarian cause in this state and country. Then, I will call 100 to 200 of my successful, tax-paying, Californian gay brothers and sisters to take time off from their jobs as doctors and lawyers and accountants and writers and waiters and nurses and -- I should stop there -- because the list of careers and jobs performed every day by gay citizens to keep California running would go on forever. So -- if that's what it takes -- I'm sure we would all agree to take time off from our busy lives to meet at the Pacific Design Center and cram ourselves into that giant cage. We will poke our heads out of the barbwire. We will stay there in front of the TV cameras until this image makes it clear that it is unnatural and quite frankly cruel to do anything like that to animals or your fellow citizens. We will do it -- if that's what it takes -- because leading our lives with dignity and privacy as vital tax-paying members of society doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Proposition 2 -- Yes: 63.2 % ... No: 36.8 %
Proposition 8 -- Yes: 52.5 % ... No: 47.5%

Comments

[PSM42]

Prop 8 will be crushed on the next vote, IMO. Because if offends progressives in general. And California has the most progressive of any state in the country. Plus there is the Obama campaign example and CA is also the most wired in the country. Mobilize that lot and the LDS had better keep a very very low profile, IMO. The LDS tax status, chickens, cages and other distractions notwithstanding.

[vivwolsk]

Dear Mr. King,
I always appreciate your comments and insights. I am very optimistic about the future as bad as it sometimes looks.

Best wishes, Vivien Wolsk

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

from the LA Times:

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continue to march outside churches across California.


By Michael Rothfeld and Victoria Kim
2:26 PM PST, November 9, 2008
Reporting from Sacramento and Pasadena -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

[Lust4Lost]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why our government is involved in the marriage business in the first place.

Marriage is a sacrament, pure and simple, it is not something that is of any concern to government bureaucrats.

Why are our tax dollars being used to sustain the marriage bureaucracy?

My wife and I were married in a church. That is what is meaningful to us, not the fact that we had to watch our tax dollars being used to pay a bureaucrats salary (not to mention office space, vacation pay, health benefits and pension) to stamp a US government approved marriage “license”.

Get government out of the marriage business and get them focused on the real business of governing. We have millions of poor, underfed, homeless and uninsured in our nation. Our borders lack real security. Our military men and women lack care and benefits. Yet no politician has the guts required to stand up and make fundamental change to our bloated bureaucracies and free up the wasted capital. It is truly shameful.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Then YOU have to do the work required to amend the federal statute. You have to convince your state and/or federal legislatures to put forth legislation that either eliminates the word "marriage" from the statute or changes it to "civil union".

Conservatives are already on this with the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) where they are trying to get the stature to define marriage between a man and a woman. Get your horn blowing to take the word marriage out of the statute and replace it with something you deem more appropriate.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Sadly, this is not a legal issue of rights but a definition of the word marriage.

The legal defition of the word marriage is not defined in the federal statuate 8 U.S.C.A. § 1151(b), .

In fact, it is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words (like marriage) should be interpreted as taking their ORDINARY, CONTEMPORARY, COMMON meaning.

(The court in Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), held that Congress did not intend that homosexual marriages would confer "spouse" status under § 1151(b). The court observed that the term "marriage" ORDINARILY contemplated a relationship between a man and a woman, and the term "spouse" COMMONLY referred to one of the parties in a marital relationship so defined. Congress had not indicated an intent to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, the court declared, and in the absence of such a congressional directive, it would be INAPPROPRIATE for the court to expand the meaning of the term "spouse" for immigration purposes. This has extended to non-immigration purposes.)

So.... to get homosexuals the right to marry we need to change the ORDINARY, CONTEMPORARY, COMMON meaning of the word. That means people outside the homosexual community have to agree on the definition. They need to be educated and convinced that marriage should mean ANY TWO people. That is best managed by achieving this goal state by state.

[slemay]

When did the government ever sanctify anything? I thought that was God's job, usually through the church.

My view: civil unions for everyone--men and women, men and men, women and women--at city hall. If you want to sanctify the union, see the clergyman.

The major task--get government out of our bedrooms.

[Future1]

I am sad and ashamed to be a Californian. I say this because we are a blue state and most of us have democratic beliefs. Although I am a straight male I do believe all humans, "not just Americans" have the right to chose who they love and commit to. Yes We Can argue that marriage is sacred, but is it the word marriage more sacred than LOVE?!!! Who are we to decide what one can do and can't? It is bitter sweet. we may have won the fight but we haven't won the war! NO ON 8!!!!!!!

Obama/Biden 08

[Lust4Lost]

the easy solution to this is to remove government from the marriage business. how many billions of our tax dollars are spent yearly as we willingly allow the government into our homes and bedrooms.

government sanctioned marriage of any kind (straight or gay) creates two classes of citizens, those married and those single.

this is an incredibly simple solution yet we are so rooted in tradition and incapable of thinking outside the box we end up digging deeper holes on a constant basis

[MarkInEugene]

We all have our likes and dislikes in life, and some of the things we like are not legal because they harm ourselves or others. Broadly speaking that's what law is based on. Homosexuality does not harm others and homosexuals would obviously agree that it does not harm them.

If human beings are taught to fear and hate homosexuals as they very often are, particularly among religious groups, there is going to be an attempt to suppress it. Fear and disgust of homosexuality is the root causes of all activity to suppress it.

Now imagine if you will, a thousand years in the future, humankind is traveling the galaxy and comes across an alien world of alien cultures and alien reproductive habits. If in those thousand years we have not learned to conquer our fear of homosexuality, how will we ever be able to face the shock of alien cultures on distant planets?

We are only being provincial, paranoid, and feeble to succumb to the fear that is behind homophobia. Future generations already show signs of courage and tolerance. The embarrassing truth is older generations steeped in homophobia are in positions of authority to continue the assault on gays and lesbians.

[wembles]

national day of protest! november 15th.
http://www.jointheimpact.com/

[Osprey3]

Can you spell COURT CHALLENGE?
Amendment 14 of U.S. Constitution- Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The majority of citizens in California (or the U.S.A.) do not have the right to deprive any minority of their civil rights!

[VoxCanaille]

I like this amendment.. Could it not be argued from this; that marriage gives property rights, and thus these have just been taken from citizens, and is therefore illegal? I know its also the equal protection clause, but a multi-pronged attack seems like the wise thing to do.

[ReadyNow]

California Gays already have civil union which gives them everything marraige does - except the name - Marriage. Not being able to say you aren't "married" doesn't cost you anything.

[AbbieXHoffman]

I am a total supported of gays rights to be married, but you're barking up the wrong legal tree here. The real point of law to be debated is the definition of the word "marriage", not equal protection of law. Sounds crazy, but it's true.

Currently, gays in many states can get civil unions allowing them the same rights as married couples. So there is no denying of rights there. It appears what gays want is the community respect that comes with the word marriage.

As the law stands, the supreme court (following past precedent of like issues like the right for women and blacks to vote and abolition) has left it up to the legislatures (or people) to decide the definition of the word marriage. That means the definition gets decided locally in the communities at the state level. That is exactly how abolition and suffrage rights were passed...state by state.

Therefore, the only things left to do are:

1. Convince all people in each state that gays have the right to be married. Daunting, I know.
2. Amend the union law to remove the word marriage and have EVERYONE, including heterosexuals, have a civil unions. No one gets "married" under the law, we all get a civil union. Marriage is then left to couples religion.

I suspect gays would opt for number 1, because number 2 doesn't get them the respect they want and they likely know most heterosexuals would not go for it.

[azbernie]

WHERE IS DR. RUTH WHEN YOU NEED HER.
SHE COULD SET YOU RIGHT.
AZ BERNIE

[madzippy]

List of Prop 8 supporters: Boycott accordingly.

http://www.afterellen.com/node/39787

[azbernie]

I WAS BORN A HETEROSEXUAL:

BUT, I STILL THINK THAT GAYS HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO BE MARRIED. THE KEY IS "EQUAL". PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT PERVERSION THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. BUT, FACT IS: THERE HAS BEEN SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR CENTURIES. FOR GOOD REASON. THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS NOTHING MORE. AND AS FAR AS PERVERSION; AS IF SODOMY DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE HETEROSEXUAL POPULUS. OR THE CHURCH. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES. MARRIAGE IS A UNION. LET THE ALMIGHTY BE OUR JUDGE.
AZ BERNIE

[hiprogloho]

This is not a joking matter. And you don't have to cage yourself like farm animals. The secret to paying your dues to achieve your rights is to be as tolerant of the straight majority as you would expect them to be of you. And that means asking your showbiz mogul friends to present a fair and balanced media that portrays a realistic demographic of America instead of an exclusive gay friendly agenda. It may not change the heterosexual definition of marriage or millennia of straight tradition, but it will get you the equal civil union rights that you deserve. So go for it!

[terentz]

Your post says it all, I don't have any 'showbiz' friends -- Prop 8 was more about class resentment than anything else. The yes on 8 vote was overwhelmingly old, low-income and religious -- a demographic that will be out-voted in 10 years as the 'old' chunk dies off and 'religious' chunk grows less and less. A certain percentage of poor and middle-income voters like yourself will always hate us, because hate rooted in class-resentment -- as embodied by your pitiful comment about our purported 'showbiz' friends -- is really all that lower income voters have to motivate themselves. They know that they're trapped at the bottom of this society, and they have to take it out on somebody; so it might as well be 'the Gays'.

But 'Straight tradition'? Not really; even in your victory, after a fear campaign featuring children, your side only won by four percent. And the long-term demographics are against you. So enjoy your moment; because time is on our side. If Prop 8 isn't struck down by the California courts within 5 years, it will overturned by the voters within 10 years -- I hope you live to see it. And I hope by then, you're doing better in life,or at least don't blame gays and 'showbiz' people -- i.e. economically successful people who are better off than you -- if you aren't.

[FearlessFreep]

"Prop 8 was more about class resentment than anything else."

Like antisemitism a century ago, homophobia is "the socialism of fools."