*puts on Atticus specs* Time for a diatribe

[yourlostmuse]

Click to view

Okay. I'm pretty sure just about everybody who knows me knows my stance on the matter of gay marriage and civil rights in general. I will go on about them, at length, if provoked. I am a like a big, hibernating wolverine of gay rights that, when prodded, will turn its fabulous, toothy fury upon he who has dared prod. Or something. I don't know - maybe the analogy breaks down. However, if you've spent any amount of time around me, I'm sure at one point or another I've gone off about gay rights, health care or some other issue that liberal hippie commies like me go on about.

A friend of mine recently posted a very ignorant, very hurtful video they have since taken down. I spoke to them about it and while I think there may have been a bit of a misunderstanding about the point they were attempting to make with it, it sort of brought my concerns on the issue of gay marriage, particularly those surrounding Prop 8, to a point.

I have had it with people who are complaining about how they feel the will of the people on the matter has been overturned by Judge Walker. The civil rights of minorities are not to be held hostage by the whims of the majority. Any minority is by definition at a disadvantage when it comes to civil rights granted at the ballot box. Very rarely have rights been granted to minorities in this manner because the majority is almost always reluctant to step down from a position of power. Historically, rights to minorities have, with rare exception, had to be granted by the courts - this is part of the reason the courts exist. ‘Popular’ does not equal ‘Right’. While there are indeed frivolous lawsuits, I don’t see how the one concerning Prop 8 is - quite the contrary if anything.

I'm tired of hearing people crow about how Judge Walker is gay. What evidence of this do they have? Has he admitted as much? And even if he is, why does that preclude him from presiding over the case? Would they say the same if it was a female judge presiding over a case regarding women’s rights or an African American judge presiding over a case about African American rights? That would be ridiculous. One could just as easily argue the reverse bias concerning a judge that was straight. Keep in mind in 1987, Walker’s nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan was opposed by 12 House Democrats led by then Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco on the grounds that they perceived him to be insensitive to gays and the poor. He was later appointed in 1989 by George H. W. Bush. If you haven’t read his decision on the Prop 8 case, I recommend you do. It can be found here: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

I do not have the acumen to say decisively one way or another, but when it comes to gays and lesbians suing churches over denials of marriage ceremonies, because many churches receive tax exempt status from the government, it really is a complex matter best settled in court. These people have a right to be heard out and given a fair trial on the matter with those who have the expertise and resources to make that judgment call.

I am frustrated by those who say civil unions and domestic partnerships should be enough. Separate is not and can never be equal. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are not equal to marriage, and a good article illustrating the differences can be found here: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

I can only roll my eyes at those who say allowing same sex marriage will somehow limit their freedom of speech. No one is taking away anyone's right to free speech. You can say whatever you like. The Constitution protects the most heinous hate speech and the most air-headed hippy horse shit. But on that same token, people can say whatever they want in response to it.

I'm weary of the wafflers. If you say that you don’t have a problem with homosexuals yet you don’t believe they have the right to marry, then you clearly do have a problem. I am tired of people trying to have it both ways saying they believe in civil unions/domestic partnerships but not gay marriage. They are cowards. If you believe homosexuals should not be allowed the same rights and protections of marriage as heterosexuals then you are saying that you believe their love and commitment to one another is somehow inferior. When you exclude gays and lesbians from the right to be married, you do change the nature of marriage, and not in a good way. Marriage ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege - something that is much flimsier and more difficult to defend. Allowing same sex partners to marry can only strengthen marriage as an institution.

I believe our first President put it quite succinctly when he said:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.

And that’s the whole ballgame. If you deny the civil rights of any minority, you diminish liberty and reduce civil rights for everyone to the mere conditional indulgence of a ruling class.