Proposition 8 Trial: Who's Persecuting Who Here?
I've caught flickers of news from the ongoing Proposition 8 trial, and what I see makes me smirk. I'm cautiously optimistic about the trial as a whole. Part of this is because the anti-equality side is doing their usual pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed American bullcrap that makes me want to go into full vulgarian mode. I won't - but I will mock them without the cussing they roundly deserve.
So! The San Francisco Chronicle brings to my attention that there is a question of whether the trial shall be broadcast on conventional TV and on YouTube. Myself, I think that this is a perfect high-profile high-interest trial to arouse people's civic involvement, to get people to care a bit about the matters of how we run this show. Passivity is the enemy of democracy. But the Supreme Court, including deserving-of-fleas-in-his-unmentionables Antonin Scalia, thinks otherwise. So a matter of public interest is not as public as it ought to be (although if you take a gander at #prop8 on Twitter, I see that the good fight against passivity goes on). That is one thing.
What particularly draws my attention is this little gem: The federal appeals court in San Francisco approved a pilot program last month allowing cameras at selected civil, nonjury trials, a project clearly designed for the Prop. 8 trial. Walker approved the telecast over the objections of the ballot measure's sponsors, who said their witnesses could face harassment and might refuse to testify. The sponsors appealed to the Supreme Court.
Struggle with your memories, readers, no doubt as sieve-like as mine, and recall the history of this little quibble between folks saying "I'm not harming anyone and I have a right to exist" and folks saying "No you don't." Let us collectively search for an instance where, for example, a person was intimidated and perhaps assaulted simply for their position in that argument. Maybe an instance where someone's position in that argument was used to portray them as a dangerous, pedophilic, cats-and-dogs-living-together menace to society? Maybe an instance where someone was tied to a fence in Wyoming and beaten to death because of their position in that argument?
But readers, search those brains as you will, I don't think you will find an instance where the zeitgeist of America decided that by gosh those Christians must go, those heteros must go, those wedding-makers must go. When it comes to facing harassment and danger for asserting your right to exist, the anti-equality side of this case, the Proposition 8 bankrollers and rabble-rousers and demagogues, have no credibility at all. The situation is just now developing where such blatant enmity to basic civil rights earns you exile from polite company, and it's long overdue - and they cannot bear that tiny burden of suffering others to exist, to live and love and get along quietly. And then they have the nerve to whine, to those who have seen persecution, that they fear retaliation. They fear scorn, and they'll have our scorn, but retaliation? We will retaliate by living happy lives, I hope, by existing for ourselves and for our own happiness, and by befuddling everyone who more or less sincerely expects that the Homosexual Lifestyle leads to the collapse of society.
It's just such a clusterfuck of pathological human tendencies. Take for example Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam:On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters. Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.
Again - retribution! O what retribution we have in store for Mr. Tam. We will live in the same community as him! We will defiantly pay our taxes that help to pave roads he drives on and schools that educate his children! We will foster a culture of equality that will benefit everyone! Oh yes, Mr. Tam, you must fear our retribution deeply, we queers, we dangerous sorcerers and witches with rites of "egalitarianism" and "equal protection under the law."
On the other hand, the "unwanted publicity" and "more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected" parts? I totally sympathize with those. Those are great difficulties even for people who are prepared for them, and I bet Mr. Tam wasn't particularly well-prepared. I recommend that he seek a support group. Unfortunately, he may have a difficult time finding a support group for people suffering "unwanted publicity" for matters "time-consuming and intrusive into personal life" without also finding a group that contains us queers - the involuntarily outed, the fired-without-recourse, the ostracized-for-existing. This too is our retribution for Mr. Tam - that he might see the damage actually done to our communities by the long, long, tediously long string of people insisting that we have no right to exist, that they can regulate our normal human activities, that they can by hatred and exclusion and brute force sever us from our common humanity and not have to acknowledge that we are all humble homo sapiens, all trying to live a satisfying life, and only in the very rarest cases antagonizing the people that we have to live with here on Earth.
Life is too short to waste hating others. There is one side in this trial that says "let us enact our hate!" and another side that says "get over yourselves and let's all get on with the interesting business of life."
Life is far, far too short to waste hating others.
So! The San Francisco Chronicle brings to my attention that there is a question of whether the trial shall be broadcast on conventional TV and on YouTube. Myself, I think that this is a perfect high-profile high-interest trial to arouse people's civic involvement, to get people to care a bit about the matters of how we run this show. Passivity is the enemy of democracy. But the Supreme Court, including deserving-of-fleas-in-his-unmentionables Antonin Scalia, thinks otherwise. So a matter of public interest is not as public as it ought to be (although if you take a gander at #prop8 on Twitter, I see that the good fight against passivity goes on). That is one thing.
What particularly draws my attention is this little gem: The federal appeals court in San Francisco approved a pilot program last month allowing cameras at selected civil, nonjury trials, a project clearly designed for the Prop. 8 trial. Walker approved the telecast over the objections of the ballot measure's sponsors, who said their witnesses could face harassment and might refuse to testify. The sponsors appealed to the Supreme Court.
Struggle with your memories, readers, no doubt as sieve-like as mine, and recall the history of this little quibble between folks saying "I'm not harming anyone and I have a right to exist" and folks saying "No you don't." Let us collectively search for an instance where, for example, a person was intimidated and perhaps assaulted simply for their position in that argument. Maybe an instance where someone's position in that argument was used to portray them as a dangerous, pedophilic, cats-and-dogs-living-together menace to society? Maybe an instance where someone was tied to a fence in Wyoming and beaten to death because of their position in that argument?
But readers, search those brains as you will, I don't think you will find an instance where the zeitgeist of America decided that by gosh those Christians must go, those heteros must go, those wedding-makers must go. When it comes to facing harassment and danger for asserting your right to exist, the anti-equality side of this case, the Proposition 8 bankrollers and rabble-rousers and demagogues, have no credibility at all. The situation is just now developing where such blatant enmity to basic civil rights earns you exile from polite company, and it's long overdue - and they cannot bear that tiny burden of suffering others to exist, to live and love and get along quietly. And then they have the nerve to whine, to those who have seen persecution, that they fear retaliation. They fear scorn, and they'll have our scorn, but retaliation? We will retaliate by living happy lives, I hope, by existing for ourselves and for our own happiness, and by befuddling everyone who more or less sincerely expects that the Homosexual Lifestyle leads to the collapse of society.
It's just such a clusterfuck of pathological human tendencies. Take for example Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam:On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters. Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.
Again - retribution! O what retribution we have in store for Mr. Tam. We will live in the same community as him! We will defiantly pay our taxes that help to pave roads he drives on and schools that educate his children! We will foster a culture of equality that will benefit everyone! Oh yes, Mr. Tam, you must fear our retribution deeply, we queers, we dangerous sorcerers and witches with rites of "egalitarianism" and "equal protection under the law."
On the other hand, the "unwanted publicity" and "more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected" parts? I totally sympathize with those. Those are great difficulties even for people who are prepared for them, and I bet Mr. Tam wasn't particularly well-prepared. I recommend that he seek a support group. Unfortunately, he may have a difficult time finding a support group for people suffering "unwanted publicity" for matters "time-consuming and intrusive into personal life" without also finding a group that contains us queers - the involuntarily outed, the fired-without-recourse, the ostracized-for-existing. This too is our retribution for Mr. Tam - that he might see the damage actually done to our communities by the long, long, tediously long string of people insisting that we have no right to exist, that they can regulate our normal human activities, that they can by hatred and exclusion and brute force sever us from our common humanity and not have to acknowledge that we are all humble homo sapiens, all trying to live a satisfying life, and only in the very rarest cases antagonizing the people that we have to live with here on Earth.
Life is too short to waste hating others. There is one side in this trial that says "let us enact our hate!" and another side that says "get over yourselves and let's all get on with the interesting business of life."
Life is far, far too short to waste hating others.