Leave a comment

Comments 12

wutendeskind May 26 2009, 21:08:02 UTC
I agree with you. I just wish we hadn't taken these backwards steps in November.

Let's not forget DOMA on the list of Legislation that Annoys Me.

Reply

phaballa May 26 2009, 21:16:16 UTC
Christ, DOMA. That shit needs to go away right now. DADT is more pressing to me what with people getting fired and such, but DOMA needs to be fully repealed, right now.

And yes, I wish Prop 8 hadn't passed. If it had been defeated, it would've been the people upholding the court's decision, and that likely would've been the end of it. But instead I foresee many referendum in California to come. And probably in Iowa, too. It's going to be a long, boring fight, but I have every confidence that GLBT will gain full equality in every way within my lifetime.

Reply


glendaglamazon May 26 2009, 22:10:09 UTC
I completely agree with you, and I think a lot of the blame rests on the people who wanted to see Prop 8 defeated but were disorganized about getting their message out where it mattered. Frankly, I think this ruling is good for the cause of equality in the long run, because it is my firm belief that people need to have the conversation about what this vote means, and we need to actually open up the discussion with those who aren't certain whether they're comfortable with this issue. It's been a huge wave since Prop 8 passed, and it will only continue now ( ... )

Reply

phaballa May 26 2009, 23:59:52 UTC
I definitely think this will be a wake up call to those who've been sort of waiting around hoping that the courts would take the matter out of their hands. It's not going to work that way with this issue. Constitutional bans are passed by vote, and they need to be overturned by a vote for any real, lasting change.

I think convincing people will be a lot easier than we think. It's like you said--Americans really understand the concept of equality. And most of them, if you can frame this as an issue of civil rights and not as one about religion or any of that, I think most people can be convinced. We just have to push people into opening their minds up a little.

I mean, if John McCain's daughter can be pro-gay marriage...

Reply


jedirita May 27 2009, 01:19:23 UTC
I disagree. People do not have the right to pass discriminatory laws. They do not have the right to pass a law saying black people may not marry white people. Likewise, they do not have the right to abridge the rights of gays.

It will come. Sooner rather than later. But meanwhile there's going to be a lot of bullshit. (Actually, the bullshit will continue even after it finally comes. I just read an article today that in Mississippi they still somehow manage to have segregated senior proms. Literally. A prom exclusively for white kids, and another prom for everyone else and any white kids who want to show up. WTF?!?!?!)

And yes, Obama: you better get on with it, or I'm telling your mama on you. Use your cred now. Change the fuck outta shit!

Reply

phaballa May 27 2009, 01:37:00 UTC
BUT the question before the court was a lot narrower than that. It wasn't looking at the content of Prop 8, but whether or not passing propositions by referendum is legal. In California, the right of the people to create/alter/revise their Constitutions is inherent and can't be disputed, as is their right to govern themselves. So yes, they can pass propositions if they have enough votes, regardless of content ( ... )

Reply

jedirita May 27 2009, 04:00:59 UTC
Yeah, that's the subtletly of this particular case that I don't quite follow.

In the end, though, you cannot amend your constitution to do something unconstitutional. Eventually it's going to come down to that, it's just a matter of time.

Reply

phaballa May 27 2009, 04:54:27 UTC
I finally read the court's opinion, and basically what they're saying is that Prop 8 did absolutely nothing. It didn't change anyone's rights or take anyone's rights away. All prop 8 did was to take the word "marriage" and apply it to a narrow group of people. Gay people can still get married and still have all the benefits of marriage, it's just not called "marriage" in California, unless you managed to get married between the court's decision last year and Prop 8. Because they decided there was nothing in the language of Prop 8 indicating it would be retroactive ( ... )

Reply


zelda_zee May 27 2009, 05:31:15 UTC
Thanks for this perspective. I always appreciate your take on political matters and often - though I suppose not always - agree with you.

I've lived in CA and I believe the initiative system there is out of control and leads to lots of very bad legislation. Nonetheless, it is the law and the court had to uphold that. No surprise there.

We will have gay marriage in all states eventually. I just wish it didn't make me feel so weary to envision the never-ending battle it's going to take to get there. I'm neither gay nor on the front lines of this issue, and if I feel that way, I can't imagine how the people whose lives are more directly impacted than mine is must feel.

Reply

phaballa May 27 2009, 13:15:46 UTC
Yeah, I mean... I think in the Court's opinion, they make it pretty clear they feel the same way about the initiative system and the apparent ease with which the constitution can be amended. There are parts of this ruling that are actually victories, if not the victories we were looking for. The Court ruled that Prop 8 didn't ban gay marriage, it just narrowed the scope of the WORD marriage to apply to only one group of people. That's why the 18,000 gay marriages are still valid. Because gays still have the rights of marriage in California; Prop 8 just made the word 'marriage' inapplicable to non-straights. Oh, and because the court decided that there was nothing indicating Prop 8 should be retroactive. Haha. Well, obviously Prop 8ers were trying to ban the institution of gay marriage, not just the word, but the Court was like, "No, we don't think so. We are going to take this very literally."

I guess what we were hoping for was the Court to decide that Prop 8 DID ban gay marriage, and thus constituted a revision of the ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up