Proposition 8

[jinxed_wood]

And California has just passed a law that has whittled away at the civil liberties of one in ten (approx) of its citizens. That is so disappointing.

ETA: Florida too, although they're calling it Proposition 2, and Arizona, I don't know what they're calling it.

Comments

[janetlin]

I have never in my life been ashamed to be a Californian, until now.

[jinxed_wood]

My commiserations. Apparently, the marriages that occurred before yesterday still stand as legal, but all those couples who didn't make the deadline are supposed to suck it up and accept their lot in life? That old phrase, no taxation without representation comes to mind. How about no taxation without equality and civil liberties? Hit them where it hurts, in their pockets.

[janetlin]

Yeah, no. Hopefully by the end of these four years of "hope and change" - if not sooner - people pull their heads out of their asses. Gosh, the Bush administration has turned me into such a liberal...

[jinxed_wood]

Growing up in a country where I had to literally march on the streets in order to gain the right to use a condom pretty much guaranteed I became one!

Homosexuality only became decriminalised in 1993 in Ireland and this year they're drafting the first legislation on same-sex unions.

And it was only in the nineties that women began to gain any real rights too (the right to divorce and have access to contraceptives, for one thing, although we still don't have the right to an abortion)

That's why this sort of thing makes me so angry. People claw at a system to make progressive changes and then have it snatched away again - Just Like That.

Scary is what it is.

[glory_jean]

What I don't understand is that this is supposed to be a constitutional amendment. As far as I know you need 2/3, not simple majority, to change the constitution. I predict a lengthy court battle.

[jinxed_wood]

Voting regulations with regards to American constitutional law is outside my realm of knowledge, I'm afraid! It's a simple majority vote here!

[glory_jean]

Ah, I finally found it, for the state legislature it's 2/3 to pass an amendment, when put to the voters it's simple maj.

Don't forget that in addition to the US constitution there are also 50 state constitutions to deal with. That's why Florida and Mass. were talked about. States are sovereign within their own borders as long as nothing they do conflicts with the national constitution. From what little I can gather it seems to be somewhat analogous to the way England/Ireland/Scotland function together within the UK.

[bastun_ie]

*cough* Northern Ireland *cough*

[beccadg]

Ugh, ugh, ugh. I take it all three initiatives have been called then? I keep telling myself watching the bans go up (those are hardly the first ones that have been passed in this country, my state has one on the books) that the claiming of their basic civil rights by oppressed minorities in this country is a slow process. I mean with Obama's election there's been lots of talk about how hard a presidency like his was to imagine in the 50's when the struggles against segregation were under way. The bans are appallingly wrong, but they're reactions from scared people who realize that change has started, and it is coming. I like to believe I will see the bans repealed/broken sooner rather than later. Martin Luther King Jr might not have lived to see Barack Obama elected, but Obama is the President Elect. I like to believe I will see every homosexual in this country free to marry just like their heterosexual counterparts. There have been bans against interracial marriages that have come down.

[jinxed_wood]

Hopefully, the reactive surge will die down and people will start thinking with calmer heads. It would be a shame if these bans aren't repealed

[beccadg]

Hopefully, the reactive surge will die down and people will start thinking with calmer heads.

I hope the reactive surge will die down sooner rather than later. I haven't forgotten how good I felt hearing a man from the Deep South at the Republican National Convention say while he didn't believe in "gay marriage" he did believe in gay "civil unions". While a "civil union" isn't a marriage, it's "separate but equal" segregation at its finest, it is a step in the right direction. It is an acknowledgment that gays should be allowed to form legal unions and have the rights of legal unions under the law.

It would be a shame if these bans aren't repealed.

I believe one day they will be repealed. I only wonder how long it will take for there to be enough people who agree that gays have the right to marry like everyone else for the bans to be repealed.

[pat_t]

I'm finding it hard to understand why this is having such a hard time passing. I just don't get it - why do people have such opposition to two people loving one another and marrying just because they are the same sex? I've heard it said that it erodes traditional marriages. How? How can it affect anyone else's marriage? *shakes head sadly*

[jinxed_wood]

I think one should call a spade a spade; this is really about fear of other, pure and simple. To say that a same sex marriages somehow tampers or violates with values of a traditional marriage is nonsensical at best.

It reminds me of the arguments that went on here, during the constitutional repeal of the anti-divorce laws. At one point, one of the politicians just exploded and went: For christ's sake, it's not going to be bloody compulsory, you know!

[kerravonsen]

I think it's too simplistic to say that it's about "fear of other". To those who (pauses to word this carefully) sincerely believe the Old Testament when it calls homosexuality an abomination, it is utterly appalling that such an abomination is encouraged in any way, and they will say and do anything and use any argument to stop this. That isn't fear of Other, that's sincere moral belief. You may consider them to be sincerely wrongheaded, but that doesn't solve anything.

[beccadg]

...pauses to word this carefully...

As you were careful of your wording I'll attempt to be careful with mine.

That isn't fear of Other, that's sincere moral belief.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. An ability to say one is motivated by a moral belief doesn't negate one's true motivation being fear of Other. Indeed someone holding a belief that something is morally wrong can be a strong source of fear of Other as they have defined that Other as being morally wrong.

You may consider them to be sincerely wrongheaded...

I believe them to be "sincerely wronghead," and I believe them to be scared of Other. I believe to describe it as "utterly appalling that such an abomination is encouraged in any way," and to be willing to "say and do anything and use any argument" shows clearly their motivation and guiding principal is fear not moral rectitude. I believe when someone is prepared to "say and do anything" and "use any argument" they aren't being guided by high morals. They're being ruled by irrational fears.

...but