Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts

11 January 2010

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

*** Soapbox Alert ***

I don't talk about politics much on this blog. I'd guess that anyone who's been reading a while can figure out that I tend towards more of a liberal bent. But I don't usually feel the need to shout my political opinions to the masses.

So, I don't pull out the old soapbox very often. And you can bet that when I do, it's a topic that I'm passionate about.

If there's one "political" topic that really gets my blood boiling, it's same sex marriage. It stands out as one of the most important topics of our time because it's not about "politics" - it's about upholding one of the most fundamental principles of our government: The ideal that every person is equal under the law.

Today, the Federal Courts will hear an appeal about California's recent Prop 8, which created a legal double-standard in our constitution - one set of rules for homosexuals and one set of rules for heterosexuals.

(It actually also created a third legal class: Homosexuals with marriage rights grandfathered in because of the brief amount of time they were "legal". Hello, Alice. Welcome to the rabbit hole.)

The outcome of this historic federal case will obviously have far-reaching effects, establishing a precedent for whether or not federal Constitutional rights "outrank" state legislation to the contrary.

California has a reputation for leading the socially liberal charge. But, as I've mentioned before, our state is actually deeply divided on many such issues. The Coastal and urban Southern parts of the state do tend to be very liberal. But the Central and Northern parts of the state - especially the more rural agricultural areas - are as conservative as the rest of the bread basket states.

I have never been so hyper-aware of the fact that I am a speck of blue in a sea of red until the political campaigns surrounding Prop 8 started hitting the streets. My "No on 8" yard sign felt like a sad and lonely little flag of defiance.

But I didn't give up hope. I had naive faith that right would prevail. I simply could not believe that our system could fail so catastrophically that a situation could be created in which citizens could strip rights from other citizens with no overwhelming cause. It was too Orwellian to be true.

And then Prop 8 passed.

And I thought, well, it will be overturned on appeal. That's why we have checks and balances built into our governance - to catch these abuses of power and right these wrongs. Surely it cannot be "legal" to uphold such a clear "separate but equal" end-run around equal rights?

And then Prop 8 was upheld.

Today, I want to have faith that reasonable people taking a unbiased look at the facts will have no choice but to conclude that Prop 8 is a clear violation of the legal - the inalienable - rights granted by our federal constitution that all citizens are equal under that law.

The rights set forth in our Constitution seem so simple; we sometimes take them for granted now. But, for our founding fathers, it was a paradigm-changing philosophy that set their fledgling constitutional republic apart as a nation of new ideals.

We have, as a nation, not always lived up to those ideals of equality. But we've been moving the right direction - slowly but surely - throughout our history. Socially, each generation has learned to be just a little more compassionate and tolerant than the last. Legally, the precedents over the last 200 years have been building a ladder toward that high-minded ideal set forth by our founding fathers so long ago.

And today, the Courts will hear a case that could throw us back down to the bottom rung.

I have to believe that the Justices in this case will see this equal rights setback for what it is.

I'm holding onto that hope. Because the alternative is too frustrating and frightening to consider.

Because if the "majority" of voters can decide that a whole class of people can be denied equal treatment under the law - in any form - then who or what will be on the chopping block next?


They first came for the communists, 
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, 
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, 
I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak up. 



[Post title: Animal Farm by George Orwell]
 

  

28 May 2009

But I don't want to go among mad people

I'm appalled at the precedent the California Supreme Court set Tuesday: That the rights of a minority protected class can be altered or revoked by a simple majority vote.

By upholding Prop. 8 as a valid Constitutional amendment, they basically said that voters can add discrimination and inequality into our State Constitution as long as more than 50 percent of people voting want to.

What?!

To make things even more ridiculous, the Justices also ruled that the gay marriages performed before Prop. 8 was passed are still valid.

So, now we have three classes of citizens? Gays who can be married, gays who can't be married and heteros who are free to marry and divorce and commit adultery and fornicate all that they want without any legal restrictions "to protect the sanctity of marriage" because they are in the majority.

Because 51 percent of people who voted last November think gays should not have the right to marriage, that means they get to take the right away from them?! Oh, unless they've already exercised that right. Then they get to keep the privileges and responsibilities related to that right?

Again, I am reduced to a stunned, "What?!"

Substitute "gays" for, say, "Catholics" or "women" or "blacks" or "left-handed". Now substitute "marriage" for "voting" or "driver's license" or "due process" or "free education".

Maybe then you will see how disturbing and wrong this precedent is.

Fundamental rights should not be up for popular vote. Ever. Equality means that everyone is treated equally under the law unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. As soon as we start carving out certain rights for some and not for others, we put all of our rights in danger.

One of the most basic premises of our legal system is that the rights of the minority are not subject to the whims of the majority.

Until this week. When The California Supreme Court said the exact opposite.

I can't believe that people who claim to be in favor of "small government" think that the government should regulate which of it's citizens get to exercise their legal right to enter into a personal contract of their choosing.

How far down the rabbit hole do we need to fall before people realize that they are only hurting themselves by insisting on creating haves and have-nots?

Will you only realize the damage you have done when it is your rights on the chopping block?


"If everybody minded their own business,
the world would go around a great deal faster than it does."
~ The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland

25 March 2009

By any other name


Getting California out of marriage business proposed as answer to Prop. 8 war


At California's historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin briefly imagined a scenario that might solve the legal conflict over a gay marriage ban.
What if the government were to get out of the "marriage business," Ming asked, and issue civil-union licenses to both straight and gay couples?
... circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."
The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.
more ...

Can we just give everybody in California a freakin' dictionary and move on?

News Flash: The word "marriage" has more than one meaning.

Let's make it simple:

Marriage:
Definition #1: A religious or spiritual union or rite
Definition #2: A legal contract with set rights and responsibilities defined by law.

Religions of any kind are free and welcome to set any limits they see fit on Definition #1. But, in this country, no religion has any business trying to legislate Definition #2 to force others to live by their beliefs.

If you want to live in a theocracy, you might try Iran or Saudi Arabia or Israel. I'm sure those are lovely places to live. As long as you do and think and be exactly as the church/government believes you should.

06 February 2009

Don't Divorce Us

I still don't understand why people want to control who other people love and marry. Or why they think they have the right to.



"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

I hope the courts will have the courage to correct this injustice. And I hope that more people will be able to grow their compassion and embrace equality.

03 February 2009

Love and Money

Mormon Church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8

That's more money than a lot of people around here make in year.
But, no.

Preventing the legal recognition of same sex love is a higher priority for this church. Really?!?

I'm disheartened by the fear and hate that drove such a tragic waste of resources.

10 December 2008

Nothing to See Here

I can't "Call in Gay Today", but I can at least show my support for the cause. So, in honor of "Day Without a Gay" - and in support of human rights - I am "calling in gay" and taking the day off from blogging. Nothing to see here today ... 'cept that link in the picture to the left. Click it! You know you want to.

19 November 2008

Equal Protection

Some very interesting and insightful discussions going on over at the Daily Dish about the legal and constitutional implications of California's Prop 8 today.

My favorite:

"That's the point of the Equal Protection Clause. The rights of minorities aren't subject to extinction by the majority's fiat."

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

11 November 2008

06 November 2008

We Shall Be Free

This is the song I have been hearing in my head all week.



We've come so far. And yet ... not.

Californians demonstrated this week that we care more about the humane treatment of farm animals than we do about the humane treatment of human beings.

Fortunately, the battle is not over. Because so long as one of us is chained, none of us are free.

In the end, I am confident, compassion and equality will prevail. But only if we don't give up.


We Shall Be Free
Garth Brooks

This ain't comin' from no prophet
Just an ordinary man
When I close my eyes I see
The way this world shall be
When we all walk hand in hand

When the last child cries for a crust of bread
When the last man dies for just words that he said
When there's shelter over the poorest head
We shall be free

When the last thing we notice is the color of skin
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within
When the skies and the oceans are clean again
Then we shall be free

We shall be free, We shall be free
Stand straight, walk proud
'Cause we shall be free

When we're free to love anyone we choose
When this world's big enough for all different views
When we all can worship from our own kind of pew
Then we shall be free
We shall be free

We shall be free
Have a little faith, Hold out
'Cause we shall be free

And when money talks for the very last time
And nobody walks a step behind
When there's only one race and that's mankind
Then we shall be free

We shall be free, We shall be free
Stand straight, walk proud, have a little faith, hold out
We shall be free

We shall be free, We shall be free
Stand straight, have a little faith
We shall be free

03 November 2008

Celebrate

There was a "No on Prop 8" Rally in my town yesterday.

Yay! Just the idea makes me feel not-so-alone in my opposition to this attempted ban on Same Sex Marriage.

But, I couldn't attend. My children are too young to be trusted anywhere near a busy street corner unless they are being firmly held - or are tied to a lamp post. The first is not really an option for the squirmy mass of limbs that is my escape-artist 17-month-old. And people tend to frown on trussed-up 4-year-olds in public for some reason. Go figure.

So, I did not participate. But I did make it a point to drive by and honk and wave and give a "thumbs up" to those brave folks out there on the street corners with their homemade signs.

And, trust me, it IS a brave thing to do in this town. As I have mentioned before, we are little specks of Liberal Blue awash in a sea of Conservative Red here in California's Central Valley. My thumb was not the only finger being waved from a passing car.

So, we drove by a couple of times to show our support.

And my 4-year-old was fascinated by the joyful cheering and waving from the street corners as we honked and waved.

"Mommy, they are celebrating us," he said in a happy, awed tone.

"Yes, big boy, they are."

"But why are they celebrating us?" This as he waved frantically from his car seat at anyone he could see.

"I guess because we are celebrating them," I replied.

No hesitation: "Yeah, cuz everybody wants to be celebrated. It's nice. It makes you happy."

Yeah.

Everybody wants to be celebrated. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to love and be loved.


Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness: Self-evident. Unalienable.

Equality. Compassion. Love. Celebration.

Without these, where would we be?


My 4-year-old gets it.

Why don't the h8ers?

My husband and I voted NO on Prop 8.

28 October 2008

Still waiting

A while back, I asked for some rational arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.

I'm still waiting.

I still have yet to hear one - just ONE! - rational reason why Californians should pass Proposition 8 - which is an attempt to alter our State Constitution to define "marriage" as a "only between a man and woman".

I've heard lies.

I've heard misdirection.

I've heard ignorance.

I've heard fear.

But I have not heard one logical, legal argument as to why Citizen A should be allowed to enter into a legal contract with another consenting adult of his or her choice but Citizen B should be denied that same right.

Your church will not lose it's tax-exempt status. Your pastor will not be arrested for preaching about homosexuality. Your Bible will not be banned. Your kids will not be forced to learn about homosexual intercourse. Your own rights will remain unchanged.

Oh, and Prop. 8 won't "restore" marriage to any previous definition overturned by "activist judges legislating from the bench."

What it WOULD do is endanger our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights - not just for gays, but for EVERYONE.

Those judges were doing exactly what they are sworn to do: Interpret and uphold the Constitution. And the most basic premise of our State and Federal Constitutions - the very foundation of our whole Nation - is that ALL people are EQUAL under the law.

How can anyone possibly reconcile that deeply held American value of equality with the intention and consequence of this Proposition?

So, I'll say it again: Prop. 8 is thoroughly UN-American.
Proposition 8 puts discrimination INTO our Constitution. It requires the government to treat it's citizens differently under the law. And THAT undermines the very foundation of equality and civil rights we ALL enjoy as Americans.
Whether you personally approve of homosexuality or not is irrelevant. The real question we are deciding next week is whether or not the Government can pick and chose which of its citizens may have certain civil rights and which may not.
Is that really a slope you want to start travelling down?

They first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up.

Democracy is not the law of the majority but the protection of the minority.-- Albert Camus
A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.-- Justice William O. Douglas
The privacy and dignity of our citizens [are] being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen -- a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a [person’s] life. -- Justice William O. Douglas
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.-- Albert Gallatin
The first thing to learn in intercourse with others is non-interference with their own particular ways of being happy, provided those ways do not assume to interfere by violence with ours.-- William James
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.-- Thomas Jefferson
The best principles of our republic secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights. -- Thomas Jefferson
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson
The busybodies have begun to infect American society with a nasty intolerance -- a zeal to police the private lives of others and hammer them into standard forms -- A Nation of Finger Pointers.-- Lance Morrow
From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own." -- Carl Schurz
We must remember that a right lost to one is lost to all.-- William Reece Smith, Jr
The constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens.-- Wendell L. Wilkie

15 October 2008

No On Prop 8

Thanks to Dave2 at Blogography for pointing me to these great videos!

As I've said before - and will continue to proclaim from my tiny little soap box - Proposition 8 is unconstutional, unfair and downright un-American.

Vote No On Prop. 8






09 October 2008

Stars upon thars

Sometimes I feel really out of place in my little town.

I'm a non-religious, left-leaning, tree-hugging, civil-rights advocate surrounded by "god-fearing" right-wing, Christian "morals and values" conservatives.

Now, don't get me wrong: Most of the folks I know and interact with everyday are really very nice people. And, in general, there is a lot to like about our community and the people in it. But, every now and then, it is brought home to me that I am, indeed, a Plain-Bellied Sneetch in the land of the Star-Bellies.

This week, I have grown especially tired of listening to the fear-mongering, right-wing rhetoric regarding Proposition 8.

It's been in my newspaper, it's been in my mailbox, it's been in my inbox, in my office, in my grocery store, on my computer, on my streets. And I'm fed up with the manipulative misinformation.

For anyone who might not know: Prop. 8 is a measure on the November ballot here in California that attempts to make an end-run around the State Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year that denying same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. So, the people opposed to same-sex marriages decided, well, we can fix that right up ... and are proposing to change the State Constitution to reflect their "moral values" that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

It should be obvious that I'm opposed to this measure. To me, it is a simple matter of civil rights. I can respect that other people see it differently. I think they are wrong. But I can still respect their right to that opinion.

But if one more person tells me that Prop. 8 is going to hurt kids and churches and puppies ... I might scream.

If you want to support this Proposition, fine. That is your right and I encourage you to exercises it as you see fit. But base your arguments on FACTS, please, not hyperbole!

Here is what the California Legislative Analyst's Office has to say about Prop. 8 ... and the official California Voter Guide ... and Wikipedia ... and the L.A. Times ... and the San Diego Union-Tribune ... the Santa Cruz Sentinel ... the SF Chronicle ... the NY Times ... Oh, and let's don't forget what the California Supreme Court had to say on the subject (if you don't want to read the full 175 pages of legal-ese, here's a nice little summary).


Prop 8. Fiction vs. the Facts

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Fiction: Same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools.Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled that this claim by the proponents of Prop 8 is “false and misleading.” In fact, the “case” that is cited in the ad is from Massachusetts…the proponents knew what California law said, so they used another state, again to mislead voters.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.