Friday, May 16, 2008

Wish I Could Celebrate

As we all now know by now, California has allowed marriage rights for families headed by same-sex couples, or, more accurately, is scheduled to in 30 days.

I'm waiting for the counter attack, rather than celebrating. A couple things on the mind:

1. In November CA will vote on amending their constitution to take away the equal rights protection that caused this ruling. IIRC, the amendment would also take away domestic partner benefits, something gays in Ca already have. This could be one step forward, two steps back.

2. If only the Governator had signed the bill passed by the majority of the legislator allowing marriage... That way it would more have the people's stamp of approval, than a court ruling. You want people to do right, but you also want people to want to do right. Darn you Arnold. I'm happy you support it now, but you had an historic opportunity.

3. And the court, and it's close decision... I can hear the cackle of "activist judges," rallying the opposition to the polls. In the Ca Constitution it says you must treat people equally, and that means you can't take or keep rights and responsibilities from me, my husband, or our children, just because one of us has a particular anatomy. The judges don't just make this stuff up. It's there in law; put there by the people, even if they didn't understand the, IMHO laudable, ramifications of the ideal of equal treatment under the law.

4. Time is of the essence. In the paper an opponent says, arguing to wait until the voters vote, it does no one good "for anyone" to have legal marriage for our families for a couple months, when the whole thing could be overturned. Liar. They know. They know as soon as the first gay couple takes their family to the court house and finally gets legal equality for the people in their home, and people see the sky didn't fall over Hollywood, they know that will take away a lot of their anti-gay numbers. They don't want the people to vote after they see what they are voting on. They want them to vote on fear, knowing their issue will slowly die as it did with the Ma drive to amend their constitution after equal rights were given.

Anyway, a couple random thoughts.

Maybe I can celebrate in December. That's all I'll ask for from Santa.


Mr. Fob said...

Will you celebrate by moving to California? I hear Davis is a nice place to live.

Kengo Biddles said...

I wish people would lean to views similar to what Max Power suggested, and just let religions handle the marriage thing, and let the government just legalized apportioning your benefits to people you live with/care about.

Molly Sue said...

Here's a hope and a prayer for you, your husband and your beautiful children.

I don't agree with "kengo biddles" though, if all government does is "legalize" benefits to people you live with or care about, we've missed the point entirely.

Marriage, equal and open to all!

Mr. Fob said...

If I understand Kengo (and Max's) argument correctly, it's one I've made before--the government should have nothing to do with anyone's marriage, straight or gay. It's not the government's job to give anyone a stamp of approval, just to grant legal and fiscal benefits equally and fairly to all.

That said, so long as the government continues to grant the stamp of approval that comes with the term "marriage" to anyone, they damn well better give it to everyone.

Paul said...

I saw an interesting statistic last night that approximately 55% of the adult population is against gay unions/marriage/rights/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

I was surprised. That's a big number. Unfortunately it's not just the vocal/conservative/overly-righteous minority. It’s a majority. Like, a lot more than regularly participate in any organized religious faith.

All of a sudden, it’s clear why a majority of the states have been able to pass constitutional amendments restricting rights based on sexual orientation (aka definition of marriage amendments). And why California could easily follow.

I don’t know about you, but I seriously feel that if two loving adults that want to commit to each other, it’s NOT a threat to my family.

What am I loosing? The right to be judgmental? Who gave me that right anyway?

And did I get that right regardless of my sexual orientation?

As you know, my biggest gripe is why doesn’t anyone seem to get riled up by the reckless sex that’s resulting in children born to individuals that don’t seem to want to accept the responsibility of being a parent.

How many children are born each year to unmarried parents?

How many gays are born each year?

Doesn’t it seem that there are some misplaced priorities?

- - - -

(Also, I just love Mr. Fob in his war paint and Super-Man suit!)

Mr. Fob said...

Thanks, Paul. I'm ready to go to war for truth, justice, and gay marriage!

[kɹeɪ̯g̊] said...

I'm hopeful that this will stick, but it is sad that people think it is ok to treat other people with such disdain.

angryyoungwoman said...

I don't understand how it threatens anyone if people who love eachother get married. It might challenge their way of thinking--but that should be a good thing.

I'm celebrating regardless because I feel the need to celebrate every chance I get. Even small and temporary victories are still victories.

Marmoreal said...

I, too, hope you can celebrate in December...

Scot said...

Ben Will you celebrate by moving to California?

Could happen. I know we'd celebrate by getting married.... again. Will you give us a gift, since you didn't come to our last couple tries?

Kengo, I get what you're saying. It seems marriage is just such a natural human state to me, an expression of a happily intractable drive to couple up. Add to that the fact that it relates to the fair treatment of work done by homemakers, and is, in many ways, a public contract, one that should be enforceable if someone breaks the contract and harms the family, and it just gives me a headache to try to imagine untangling the state from marriage.

Thank you for the hope and prayer Molly Sue, and what Ben said.

Paul, it's hard to say. The polls are all over the place. This story, for example, says 60$% support. It's, sadly, mainly in how you ask the question. I wish I knew where the public stands, but it also seems like it's an opinion in flux.

And ditto on the mixed up priorities.

Craig, yes, sad. [sigh]

ayw "Even small and temporary victories are still victories."

I know you're right. I've been conditioned to flinch, but should enjoy it for the moment.

and thank you marmoreal.

Anonymous said...

less exciting but perhaps better in the long run is the approach by the state of washington: a bill this year added 137 rights to the already existing domestic partnership law. step by step. marriage in fact if not in name. what did that guy say about a rose--by any other name it's still a rose

Scot said...

I do agree santorio. I don't need a name as much as the ability to properly take care of my family.

Personally, I prefer "nessiage". ;-)

Trouble is, while "civil unions" may give equal state rights, currently "marriage" far more portable and recognizable to the federal government and the rest of the world. That, and separate-but-equal is an insult in which our shared government shouldn't be involved.