Leelanau Whippersnapper

I’m linking below to a 45 minute Bill Moyers Journal TV show on PBS that is a must see for those of you who may not know the background, details, and importance of the recent Poposition 8 trial that took place in California last month.  Closing arguments have not been scheduled however they will be very soon.  In the video, Olson and Boyes lay out the case, why it matters, what the legal issues actually are and they provide detailed information on why this case is so strong.  They are also presented with some tough questions that many supporters of discrimination ask, you can see them defend the position of equality and make the case that this issue has everything to do with the Constitution and has nothing to do with religious beliefs.  It’s a long discussion but it’s worth watching.

Click THIS link to go to the Bill Moyers Journal web site to view the video.

Below is a YouTube preview of the broadcast.

Bookmark to:

Today, we saw the introduction of the Prop 8 backers first witnesses (of only 2 that have not dropped out of the case).  Prior to that, our side rested after introducing into evidence thousands of documents and other related materials that without any doubt strengthens this case in fundamental ways.

“This evidence is not just a smoking gun. It was an arsenal of incendiary devices directed at the LGBT community and voters. This is how the Prop 8 side won — through fear and lies.”

I wish I had the where-with-all to take all the testimony I’ve read over the past 2 weeks and condense it down to a few paragraphs.  Alas, I’ll let others do that for me.  The next few days will be quite interesting ans Prop 8 proponents put their witnesses up on the stand to testify.  I wish this trial could have been televised.  It is so important that what happened in California be made known to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.  I still can’t say if things will go our way when this reaches the Supreme Court but I can say that this trial is doing mountains of good for highlighting the discrimination we have faced in this country for decades.  It’s very hard to ignore, this trial changes everything.

Bookmark to:

For Me.  According to my little Google analytics software for this web site, readership has spiked fairly significantly over the past 2 weeks.  Never mind that I can’t type a sentence after consuming several cocktails.  Not sure of the reason, perhaps you are all just interested in my posts or my reactions to politics as of late…whatever.  I appreciate it.  I was going to spend some time tonight re-posting some of the highlights from the Prop 8 trial that wrapped up it’s first week in California but there is just too much to rehash here.  There are so many other writers and bloggers out there who are better than me at being succinct.  If you want to follow this trial you can visit some of these web sites for daily and informative commentary.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker – the most informative site.  Featuring twitter feeds from bloggers, commentary, and legal analysis.

LGBT POV – daily updates, commentary, and analysis

American Foundation for Equal Rights – this is the home page for the organization representing marriage equality in court.  See who the players are here.

Each of the links in my Favorites list on the left also provides a great deal of information and commentary.

We are obviously off for the weekend and the trial will resume again on Tuesday, January 19.  It is interesting to note that those defending Prop 8 continue to face some serious set backs.  2 more of their “expert” witnesses have withdrawn with their lawyers claiming fear of intimidation and harassment from the GLBT community.  What’s relevant here is that their testimony could never withstand cross examination.  The Marriage Equality legal team is so strong and their arguments so well supported by everything from science to sociology, that witnesses are being withdrawn because their arguments amount to nothing more than discredited science and pure bigotry towards gays and lesbians.  They’ve got about 2 “experts” left  who have not withdrawn and their case is getting weaker and weaker by the day.  Going into week 2 things will likely warp up for our side  and we will then get into the Prop 8 side where they will call witnesses and go through the same thing we just did this past week.  The commentary will be far more interesting in the coming days because it will expose just how out of touch the opposition is to reality.  They are going to have a very difficult time proving their side of this case.

I will insert here that it is WAY to early to claim any sort of victory in this case.  It is exceptionally complicated, filled with social science and psychology that the general public has a hard time understanding to begin with.  It is quite unlikely that any sort of finality will come from this trial.  It will be appealed to a higher court regardless of the outcome and it will eventually come to SCOTUS for a decision.  As I’ve said in previous posts, that could be later this year, it could be several years from now.  The point is, this is just the start.

Because I’m following this so closely, that means I’m spending a bit more time on the computer than usual.  That also means that I’ll be posting more on this blog.  Don’t get used to it. haha.  I’m sure that once summer rolls around again, I’ll find better things to do with my time than sit around on the computer on my days off re-hashing what other writers can say so much better than me.  But, for now, enjoy.

Bookmark to:

In a rather spineless move, the US Supremes ruled today that television cameras will not be permitted in the courtroom to broadcast the Prop 8 trial in California.  It was a split decision (5-4) and was decided on a technicality, not because of content.  They found that there was not sufficient time for public input (as required) and that the change in rules was not in accordance with Judicial Council policy.

That being the case, at least for this trial, we will have to rely on courtroom reporters and sketch artists.  Due to time and space, I’m not posting much detail about the proceedings of this trial but it is all very interesting.  You can read summaries and transcripts via THIS web site if you are so inclined.  The general consensus at this point is that our side is kicking major ass and proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Prop 8 passed because of fear and hatred towards gays and lesbians.  That is only one aspect of what is trying to be proven but it is an important one because it introduces gays (if successful) as a suspect class at the federal level deserving of heightened scrutiny when it comes to equal treatment.  One of the things that marriage equality hinges on is this fact.  In every state that has found in favor of marriage equality, gays are seen in state law as a suspect class (in the same way that other protected minority groups are).  As a result of that classification, courts had to rule in favor of equality.  Anyhow, some of the arguments being presented are stunning.  The witnesses yesterday were quite insightful and provided lots of information.  It was history day which outlined decades of  discriminatory treatment towards gays and lesbians since the early part of the 20th century.  Today, they dove into social differences and similarities and did a very nice job illustrating that there are actually very few differences between gay couples and straight couples in so far as what they are seeking to accomplish through marriage.  There has been much discussion of the impact that marriage has on children and why marriage directly benefits children whether they are in gay or straight households.  There has also been strong emphasis on the fact that gay families with children DO exist and they are a reality whether people like that fact or not.

You all might be completely board with  this but it is gripping to me.  I should have been a historian or law librarian or something like that, I totally get into this stuff.  This trial, in effect, is putting homosexuality on trial, not just marriage equality.  It is establishing the patterns of discrimination towards gays through the years, it is debunking the religious arguments, it is, in my opinion, going to be one of the most important trials of the decade and it has the potential to have big ramifications for equality.

I finally have a day off tomorrow so I’ll be doing lunch with the folks and then getting things straightened up around the house.  Work is draining right now, not much going on at all.

Bookmark to:

You won’t be able to escape me blogging on what is likely to be one of the most critical trials of my lifetime.  Of course, if you don’t have cable, you likely didn’t hear much of anything about this but perhaps a blurb on the network evening news.  Today began with opening statements in Schwarzenegger v. Perry.  I’ve written about this previously.  It is the trial that will decide the fate of Proposition 8 which was the voter initiative that changed California’s Constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.  That initiative passed by only 2% of the popular vote and as you will read below created a mammoth opportunity to bring this issue front and center for the entire country.  The ramifications of this trail have the potential to be huge.  A win at the state level is almost a certainty with even proponents of Prop 8 indicating that they are unlikely to win.  They would most certainly appeal the decision to SCOTUS and it would be up to the highest court in the land to hear the case.  This of course may take a very long time, maybe even years but as I said in a previous post, it deals directly with one of the most fundamental rights enumerated in our Constitution.  That of due process and equality.

You all know that I don’t write just for my audience, this blog is nearly 3 years old now and I’ve used it for a number of reasons to document the times that we are all living in.  Yes, it does have a slant towards issues that are important to me and it should, after all, I pay money each month for web space to do with whatever I want.  More importantly though, this blog is my way of being politically active, regardless of the fact that nearly all my readers share most of my views, it’s likely that I will say something or even post something from elsewhere that you had not seen before or perhaps never considered.  I consider this blog my history book, something that I can go back to in 20 years and understand what it meant to be living in 2010!

Anyhow, I’m re-posting the opening statement below for you to read.  It lays out exactly what this trial will be about, what is at stake, who is involved, and why it is important.  I will post more as time permits and as the trial develops.

Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop 8 Trial as Prepared

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 began today with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

After the opening statement David Boies gave the direct examination of Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami.

OPENING STATEMENT
(as prepared)

This case is about marriage and equality.  Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America.  It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union.  It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community.  The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”

Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.

___________________________________

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.

The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process under our Constitution.  They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships.  They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.

But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

I

MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE

Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community.  Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.

While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past.  Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated.  These changes have come from legislatures and the courts.  Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.

II

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose:  to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry.  The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.”  That is a cruel fiction.

Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying.  And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union.  Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage.  Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”

This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families.  It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.

Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals.  They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote.  Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.

III

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON

Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage.  In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry.  As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society.   And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.

The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens.  And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists.  And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children.   Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.

Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California.  The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals.  The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples.  Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination.  In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry.  Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens:  (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008,  who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination.  Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest.  All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored.  And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples.  It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

It is unconstitutional.

Bookmark to:

Well, as promised, today at 10am Pacific Time, the California Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling on the two issues facing it.  They found in an 8-1 ruling that Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that withdrew equal marriage rights in California was in fact a proper amendment.  It allowed the voter initiative defining marriage between a man and a woman to stand effectively writing discrimination (as found unconstitutional by the same court) into the California Constitution.  It also ruled in a unanimous vote that the 18,000 same sex couples who got married prior to the November election would not lose their status as legally married in California.  So, both sides got something but neither side is happy.  There are now 2 classes of gay couples.  Those who are legally married and those who are not…in the same state.  I can’t wait to see how they handle divorce.  Tonight, rather than go too much further in expressing my own disappointment in this ruling (after all, it doesn’t change anything for me since in Michigan I’m still a second class citizen regardless of what California does) I will simply post the press release from Equality California:

LOS ANGELES – Following the California Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold Prop. 8, which stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry, Equality California (EQCA) vowed to win marriage back at the ballot box. EQCA released the following statement as well as a memo to members and allies detailing its recommendations to return to the ballot in 2010.Statement from Marc Solomon, EQCA’s Marriage Director:

“Today’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot.

“Despite today’s setback, Equality California is committed to restoring the freedom to marry.  We believe, as do the majority of our members, that 2010 is the best time to return to the ballot to repeal Prop. 8. We must take full advantage of the momentum and commitment people now have to do the work required on the ground. However, we will make the final decision on when to return in collaboration with our coalition partners and allies throughout the state.

“We have already launched a mobilization campaign to reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days in places where we need the most movement-Los Angeles County, San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento, and over the coming weeks we will expand our efforts with our partners and tens of thousands of volunteers.

“We do not underestimate the challenge of implementing a strong ballot campaign. Introducing ballot language is simple; winning an affirmative referendum on the freedom to marry will be difficult and expensive. But we have confidence that we can and will prevail.

“We look forward to working with our coalition partners to make a final decision on when to return to the ballot and to putting together one powerful, winning campaign program to ensure that committed, same-sex couples are once again able to enjoy the dignity and protections that marriage provides.”

To read the entire memo detailing arguments for 2010 versus 2012, please visit www.eqca.org/2010v2012memo

This is not the end of the fight, both sides know it.  By 2012 at the latest, it’s very likely that a campaign to repeal this amendment would succeed especially considering that the current amendment passed by only a very slim margin.  As I’ve said in previous posts, it is ALWAYS 1 step forward, 2 steps back.  Gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime, it’s only a matter of time.

Bookmark to:

Alright folks, Tuesday is the day or reckoning for a major decision regarding same sex marriage.  Tomorrow by 10am the Supreme Court of California is expected to rule on the fate of Proposition 8.  Just to re-cap, this was the voter referendum that overturned gay marriage in California in November and left 18,000 legally married gay couples in legal limbo.  The questions before the court pertained to whether or not Prop 8 was a ‘revision’ to the state Constitution and thus improper because revisions require legislative action (revisions can not be made to the California constitution in the same way that ballot proposals or ballot initiatives can) and IF it was not a revision and it was legal, what then becomes of the 18,000 legal marriages that took place in California between gay couples between the day it was made legal to the day it was ended.  This decision will be all over the news on Tuesday but you can expect my reaction one way or the other to be posted here when I get home from work tomorrow night.  I thought it would be interesting for you to read something I picked up on Pam’s House Blend tonight as I read through my blogs about what might happen should the court invalidate Prop 8.  Invalidating the proposition would infuriate the vocal but shrinking minority of the population who will stop at nothing to make sure gays and lesbians are treated as second class citizens.  Could a decision in favor of gay rights start a civil war (I think not but others are not so positive).

Yes, the right wing is losing on gay rights issues. That is, very precisely, why they’re more dangerous now than they have been in the past. Their impending irrelevance is not a reason to worry less; it’s a reason to worry more. And getting Prop 8 overturned in the courts would ignite the situation, because it will hit absolutely every angry-making right-wing button there is:1. The biggest state in the country, comprising fully 1/8 of the nation’s population, will have legal gay marriage. That, right there, will be pretty much the end of the war, and they know it. The five states currently on board are worrisome, but they’re small and not considered the kind of cultural juggernaut California is.

2. Overturning Prop 8 would push every button the right wing has about Godless liberals on the coasts imposing their moral values on them. “Pushing their immorality down our throats” has always been one of rural America’s major recurring complaints, particularly among evangelicals who seriously believe that God will withdraw his special blessing from America – and possibly destroy the country — if gays can get married. (I know, I know. But they are what they are.) While the feelings about this have always run strong and deep, they’ve become much more intense since their political power began slipping away from them in 2006, and particularly since Obama took office and they lost Congress.

In this brave new world, the perverts don’t even have the basic decency to feel shame about it anymore. They don’t even know where to start with that. It makes them absolutely desperate with rage.

3. The fact that the deed was done by a bunch of California liberal activist judges who had to reverse the outcome of a statewide election — an election that every conservative church in the country had at least an emotional stake in, and often a financial stake as well — is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They hate judges. They really hate liberal judges. They really, really hate California liberal judges, and have since Earl Warren. Having judges undo what they considered to be a major moral victory for their side could push their fury from merely seething to absolutely explosive.

That’s why a positive decision for California’s gay community could create considerable negative — and potentially violent — blowback throughout the nation. Since they can’t get at California’s judges, they may decide to strike out at local gays, gay-owned businesses, gay bars, and their own local judiciary, wherever they happen to be. If I were associated with any of these things in a conservative patch of the country, I’d be spending today thinking through some serious security precautions.

In the worst case, this decision could become the catalyst for a new round of large-scale domestic terrorism from the right. As I’ve noted, everything I’m seeing points to a subculture that is gearing up for this kind of heroic last stand in defense of a lost cause. And this time, it’s not going to be just a few white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos. The new crop of right wing militants is better connected, better trained, better armed, and absolutely determined to go down fighting. And, as the SPLC keeps telling us, there may considerably more people motivated to support them than there have been in the past. It’s not unthinkable that between 15 and 20% of the country could be inclined to start — or at least support — a civil war over this.

The above is from a web site called Orcinus and is not my writing.  Credit where credit is due.  This is an important decision.  California represents 1/8 of the population of this country and is HUGELY significant in all areas of commerce and politics.  A favorable decision for gay rights in this case would not end the struggle by any stretch but it would signify the short road left towards the end of this war.  What California does, so too does this country.  You can think what you want about that statement however it has proven true again and again.  An unfavorable decision will set back this movement at least another 5 years if not longer.  As more states move to recognize gay marriage, it is simply a matter of time before people all over the country realize that the world is not going to end, the sky will not fall, your children will not suddenly turn gay, you will not explode in a fit of fire and brimstone when we ALL share the same rights and freedoms.  Gay people are everywhere and there is simply no excuse for ANY person (gay or not) to be excluded from every right, responsibility, and tenant afforded to EVERY citizen of this country.  The battle may be lost OR it may be won tomorrow but folks, the war is already over.

Bookmark to:

Picked this up on Pam’s House Blend tonight and thought I would post it here.  I’d encourage you to go read this article in full over at the Right Wing Watch web site hosted by People for the American Way.  This article clearly illustrates how religious groups have sought to distort the distinction between CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage (among other things).  To them, ALL marriages whether in a church or in a courthouse are one in the same when in fact this is not at all true.  Millions of people get married each year with no involvement what-so-ever of a church or religious organization.  Hell, many people are married by Elvis.  The biggest problem as I see it is the fact that in this country, we allow religious leaders the ability to confer BOTH the civil aspects of marriage (the certificate, the invoked benefits and responsibilities) and the religious aspects of marriage (one before God etc.).  Since gay marriage in California was voted out by a slim majority of people through Prop 8, it’s become brazenly clear to me that the government needs to get out of the marriage business all together.  I think I place myself into a growing number of people who believe that our government, in their quest to promote stable relationships between people, (something I strongly support) should offer civil unions to EVERYONE who wants one.  Gay or Straight.  This would equalize entirely all aspects of CIVIL marriage into one collective definition in so far as rights, responsibilities, and benefits conferred by the state.  Religious organizations can do what they want with marriage and as the article below suggests they would continue to be free to religiously marry whomever and however they want.  No longer would clergy have the authority to speak for the state in the matter of CIVIL marriage and no longer would any state suggest that they favor one religious interpenetration of marriage over any other.

Most of you reading my blog don’t really fit into the over-zealous category of religious fundamentalism.  If any of you do, you’ve done a great job of hiding it.  Anyhow, religious organizations are the PRIMARY stumbling block for GLBT rights in this country.  Stereotypes and general prejudices are learned anti-social behaviors that can (and often are) changed over time as people get to know other people.  Religion however is generally not something people lose over time (although that isn’t 100% true either).  People who grow up believing, tend to live their entire lives based on those beliefs and the beliefs of the religious organization that reinforces them.  It is for that reason religion can not be separated from the debate on gay rights (in particular gay marriage rights) and it is for that reason religious organizations are at the front of this culture war and why they hoot and holler as loud as they can.  Just look at the quotes in the block below.  These are individuals with deep convictions and a very public presence.  People believe what they say because they speak by the authority of their God.  It can be extremely difficult to reach people who have been blinded by their faith when that faith is consistently reinforced to the exclusion of everything else out there in the world.  I am not anti-religion or anti-christian or whatever else but from an intellectual standpoint, I can not trust a person or an organization that puts blind faith ahead of human compassion and tolerance.  It’s none of my business that you believe in God any more than it’s none of your business that I don’t.

Religious and Political Leaders Confuse or Distort the Civil and Religious Distinction During the pastor organizing calls for Proposition 8, in which Californians voted to strip same-sex couples of the constitutional right to marry, a two-fold strategy became clear. To pastors and members of conservative evangelical churches, proponents of equality were described as satanic forces who needed to be engaged in a religious war. People For the American Way Foundation’s report on one of those calls notes that one speaker predicted that if Prop. 8 failed, the God-ordained institution of marriage would be destroyed; the engine of hate crimes legislation would be fueled, ultimately leading to it being illegal to read some sections of the Bible; the floodgates would be open to gay couples suing to force churches to marry them; and the polygamists would be next. But organizers were told that in reaching beyond their religious communities the campaign strategy would be to attack activist judges and stir fears about supposed threats to children.

Contrary to the claims of Ralph Reed and Richard Land noted above, many opponents of marriage equality did insist that civil marriage law must follow what they believe God and the Bible say about marriage. Below are just a few representative samples of that kind of rhetoric:

“If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.”
– Rick Warren, pastor and author, in a video message to church members

“As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman.”
- Christian Anti-Defamation Commission demanding in June 2008 that John McCain pick as his running mate a “True Christian,” which the group defined as someone who is anti-gay and anti-choice.

“The California Supreme Court ruling not only overruled the very clear will of the people, it also proposes to overrule God’s design. These judges may think they know more about marriage than the rest of us, but I am confident they don’t know more about marriage than God. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Children need that environment to give them their best chance to fulfill their great potential. That’s not only my opinion and the opinion of most of the people in this country, it’s God’s opinion, and His opinion overrules the opinion of any judges.”
– Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission following last year’s California Supreme Court ruling that the discrimination against same-sex couples violated the state’s constitution

“It’s the height of humanist hubris to believe that man (including judges) can radically redefine that which God has created. We can never sanctify that which natural law rejects and God expressly condemns.”
– Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber

Bookmark to:

I know I tend to preach to the choir here but here is a nice video that was released today by the Courage Campaign as they work to fight the effects of Prop 8 in California.  As an update, the CA Supreme Court will hear the a case challenging Prop 8 in early March and will be asked to determine 2 things.  The significance is that in CA, once oral arguments are heard, the court then has 90 days to rule.  A fast process compared to other courts.

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU-with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars-argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government:  that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that  certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. On November 10, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the Court would overturn Proposition 8. On CNN, he said of Proposition 8’s passage, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

You might ask why I give a shit about what’s going on in California?  As a matter of history, California tends to set the rules by which other states tend to follow.  They are the trend setters, we are the trend followers.  As a state, they are also the 5th largest economy in the world.  When California speaks, people tend to listen.  Like it or not, California has huge influence not just in economics but also in the shaping of public policy which hits all corners of this country.  The past year has mobilized the gay community in ways that I’ve not seen since I came out in High School nearly 16 years ago.  Back then, it was Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that kept Gay’s in the closet in the military and it was a really hot button issue with all the same sorts of wing-nut claims and the general spewing of hatred and intolerance.  Now, that policy is all but over with the Obama administration having answered the question just like this:

Reporter:  Will Don’t ask Don’t tell be repealed during the Obama administration?

Spokesperson for Obama:  Yes.

A one word answer and a definitive statement.  The next 8 years and likely the next 20 will bring major advancements (and setbacks) in the culture wars.  It’s a fascinating time to live.

The video is a little long but it’s worth watching.

“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Bookmark to:

Ripped from here (thanks DIGG) but relevant to a previous post I’ve written regarding the passage of Prop 8 in California.  There is a whole lot of shit going on regarding that issue and it’s all very far from being over.  People all over this country are pissed and while I won’t say it’s another Stonewall because the issues are different this issue has created an unprecedented uprising in the gay community that won’t be silenced soon.

Bookmark to: