Not a good day to be gay, though.

[tencrush]

So, it looks as if all the propositions in all three states banning gay marriage will go through, including prop 8 in California. In California, apparently, you're a lot more likely to get the popular vote if you're a farm animal, than if you're a ghey. And there was me thinking that America was really heading towards being a place where people really don't care or judge who other people choose to love or fuck or spend their lives with. Them's the breaks.

I am hoping that what all of this actually is, is more a question of semantics surrounding the word "marriage" rather than bigotry, could someone help me out on that one? Because surely it's not down to a majority of people being of the opinion that two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to make an official commitment saying as much? Anyway, I am not going to let it dampen my spirits, this fight will continue to be fought and will most certainly be won, if not today, then next time or the time after that. You guys just elected a black president, dudes. I'm so proud of you, it's been ten hours and I'm still tearing up every time I watch the coverage. Tolerance and love and equality will win out in the end. And farm animals can turn around now! Who would have thought we'd ever see that day come to pass, eh? Patience.

Yeah, I'm doing really well on this whole flocking business.

Comments

[iko.livejournal.com]

I was going to post my personal views on How The World Should Work, which I think would make a large number of people happy about this issue, but I thought it may be a little too early in the morning for my ramblings.

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Yes on 8 ran a dirty dirty campaign including attempting to blackmail major NO on 8 donors; nasty, hateful and outright lying tv and radio ads claiming that if it did not pass, schools would be required to teach about same-sex marriage; bringing in a minister to speak at conservative churches who had been jailed in Europe for hate speech . . .

No on 8 has spent millions trying to undo the damage, but it is difficult to reach beyond the deceptive messages of fear and hate once they get into peoples' heads . . .

Also, the Yes campaign likely benefited from the fact that the election day is so close to a Sunday. The same thing happened when Prop 22 passed (what the State Supreme Court overturned earlier this year). It has been expected not to passed, but conservative pastors preached heavily against same sex marriage the Sunday before, and conservative church goers went out and voted for Prop 22.

For the record, this is not the position of all people of faith, including my own UU congregation which is welcoming of GLBT individuals and their families and has been active in working against Prop 8.

(I'm bi and Vice-President of our Board of Trustees, and a longtime lay leader in the congregation. Our President is also bi--and was one of the first to get a license when CA started issuing them to same-sex couples so that she could marry her partner of 16 years. Since June our minister has married a number of same sex couples, including 5 from our home congregation and preached actively against 8 from the pulpit. And we served as a local NO on 8 phone bank headquarters.)

I am devastated that it looks like 8 will pass.

BUT the silver lining in the cloud is how close the vote was, and the fact that polls showed that voters who know GLBT individuals personally, were most likely to vote no.

It would be great if everyone would recognize civil marriage as a civil right, but until that day, the best way to undo someone's irrational fear/hate of people they perceive as dangerously different is for them to get to know someone from that group on a personal level.

As a bi woman married to a straight man I have the opportunity every day to pass. It's scary to step outside that safety zone particularly when he works for a private, religious hospital that is still teaching that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder. We've continue to be very conflicted about his employment there, but it is THE major hospital in the area, and as we have a son with a disability, we cannot afford to walk away from their medical benefits at this time. Meanwhile he does what he can to subvert the system from the inside.

But back to the point, our family has made a major decision to stand up and come out of the closet on this issue, to have that dialog with our neighbors and friends, to make them aware of those personal connections, because we believe it is the only way we can combat the legacy of fear and hate that undermines true equality.

[bandgeek01.livejournal.com]

I think if the word Marriage wasn't used, there might have been a different outcome in California, but for the southern states, not a difference in the world could have made them say yes.

I too am very disappointed in my country after making such a good decision with the president, we go and do this.


nicole

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Ah, but unfortunately the US, unlike parts of Europe for example, has no tradition upon which to sell the concept of difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.

I'm all for each religion getting to define marriage in the religious sense and determining who they will and will not marry. That is the price of religious freedom.

However, the constitution is for all of us, and should protect all of us equally and offer all of us the same rights--and civil marriage is a civil right.

But without that history of understanding of civil marriage as separate and distinct, its a really hard sell -- especially to those who could care less about religious freedom except as it applies to their own beliefs.

[bandgeek01.livejournal.com]

See this is why I love letting other people talk. They explain what I feel so much better than I ever could.

Thank you :)

Nicole

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

Nicely put.

[tencrush]

I think it's very hard in a country such as America where religion is so woven into the fabric of society and politics for people to make that distinction. We still giggle a little whenever your politicians end their speeches with "God bless America", we think it's a funny, kind of backward little quirk you have, but it's not, it's a very important aspect of your society and that's something I don't think will ever change. We find it very hard to understand over here. But you're right, it's a civil matter and a civil right, I think a large part of the population is just never really going to understand that.

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

As a historian (and an Americanist (history of US) to boot), I totally understand where the "God bless" language comes from in terms of our history.

However, understanding it intellectually is a different thing from really "getting it." Not being either Christian or theist, nor subscribing to the concept of America as possessing some special "divine" favored status as a nation, I remained bemused about the ways that it lingers until I did some reading about the rise of biblical literalism in the US.

The best I can do is point to the fact that the same Americans who often espouse these ideas most vociferously are those who are biblically-based Christians, and who see themselves as a population under siege from a rapidly changing postmodern world.

Anyone interested in challenging their viewpoint is best served by understanding where it comes from.

A great resource is Marcus J. Borg's _Reading the Bible Again for the First Time_, which lays out the roots of the clash of viewpoints.

On the one hand there is a literalistic, biblically-based Christianity (which is a far older way of looking at Christianity) and is doctrinal, literalistic, moralistic, patriarchal and focused on the after-life. This is what is often seen as "traditional" Christianity by both conservatives (who tend to embrace it) and liberals (who tend to reject it).

On the other hand, there is the more recent viewpoint on Christianity which still looks to the Bible as a sacred text, but does not read it literally. Rather it insists on the importance of historical context and reading metaphorically. In this viewpoint, the Bible is not absolute, but revered for timeless values and the life of Jesus as metaphor for how to live.

This is an interpretation which has been taught in many mainline Protestant seminaries for most of a century, and is increasingly common among lay members of mainline churches. (Sorry for the use of "mainline" --an established term in studies of history of American religion, but a poor word--and I'm having trouble finding another less-condescending sounding word to referring to a group of big establish denominations that do not fall into the categories listed in the prior example.)

4 key areas of thought and culture have shaped historical/metaphorical use of the Bible over the last 100 years:

1. awareness of religious pluralism and rejection of the exclusivistic claims of Christian tradition

2. awareness of historical and cultural relativity -- an understanding that how people think is pervasively shaped by the time and place they live in, their social and economic class

3. modernity--awareness of and acceptance of scientific ways of
knowing (experimentation/verification), the Newtonian world view (understanding of what is real and possible) that what is real can be known through the methods of science.

4. postmodernity. 1. the realization that modernism itself is
culturally conditioned and relative historical construction and that we don't know what is coming next. 2. A turn towards experience as a foundation of religious faith and practice. 3. A recognition that stories can be "true"--that is contain valuable wisdom and insight--without being literally and factually true. This is the foundation of contemporary theology's emphasis upon metaphorical theology.

Not my ideas--all from my reading of Borg.

From their defensive "under-siege mentally" many biblically-based Christians view continued efforts to insist upon separate of church and state here in the US as attacks upon Christianity. Tie this to our history as a nation as embracing such lovely concepts as "manifest destiny" and "city on the hill" and you get . . . "God Bless America" in all its worst possible senses.

Class dismissed! LOL.

I've got to go get some breakfast now . . .

Random commenter

[gaycrow.livejournal.com]

That was very interesting! I enjoyed reading it all.

Thanks for sharing.

[cprefect.livejournal.com]

I agree with Nicole.

Nuff said.

[kel-reiley.livejournal.com]

damn
i hadn't checked all the proposals - i fell asleep last night right after they announced the win
my stupid state passed that idiotic amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage last prez election

i'm really hoping a national bill will arise to overturn all of those

live in hope

[musicianatheart.livejournal.com]

I stayed up til 3.30 last night watching the numbers for prop 8, and woke up at 7.30 to check them again. because the world hates me, my internet wasn't working and nobody was talking abut it on tv because obviously obama's win was more important to everyone. I couldn't get back to sleep and just kind of dozed fitfully for a couple hours til my network came back up. of all the days for it to go down again, it had to be today.

as happy as I am that we won, I'm still crying this morning. we may have won the white house, kept and made more progress in the senate and the house of reps, but we still lost some major battles. someday we've got to make progress on this front, right?

[tencrush]

It will happen, I'm sure of it.

[littlepunkryo.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping it's a thing about the word "marriage" too.

That's the problem my mother had with it - she's not homophobic at all, just the opposite, but for some reason, she was very adamant that it be something other than 'marriage.'

Of course she's a sane individual who changed her mind after we talked about it, but that was her original reaction.

I, for one, see this as a bit of a generation thing - as in, people my age are (sad as it is) starting to see marriage as a piece of paper in the end, that it doesn't mean this "till death do you part" thing that will be violated or made less if gay people can do it, too. With the divorce rate what it is, and how many people are choosing NOT to marry, and how many people are content to stay 'together' but not married and raise their families that way...

I think we'll get there in the future. Hopefully sooner rather than later!

(I'm not bashing marriage, honestly, I think it's a wonderful thing. But that's the attitude I encounter, and frankly, before I get married, I'm going into it with my eyes opened - it's not what you think it is when you're 5 and playing with Barbie and Ken.)

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Perhaps now President Elect Obama will change his position and support gay marriage now that the election is no longer at risk?

[tencrush]

Obama's not exactly known as the world's biggest LGBT activist, though, let's face it. I think it has reached the point now where the issue needs to be decided on a national level.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Also, I want to be fair to Obama. He did come out against Prop 8, although there has been some criticism on the left that he didn't put a lot of oomph into his opposition. But he does walk the line by saying marriage is between a man and a woman.

I really look for him to try to shape public opinion on this issue. He's elected now, make the switch to fully supporting gay marriage and not just using that civil union dodge, and lead public opinion instead of walking the fine line.

[alba17.livejournal.com]

I think it definitely is the word "marriage". Which is a double-edged sword. Truly equal rights come only with that word, but many straight people don't feel comfortable with "letting" gay people "marry". Disappointingly, Obama has a religious basis for not supporting gay marriage. I have an entry on my journal about this, because I wasn't really that aware of it until recently: Obama's Position on Gay Marriage is Disturbing. The NYTimes had an enlightening article about it a few days ago, which I link to there. I wonder if he'll soften on that point now that he's been elected (OMG!!!! I still can't believe it).

I hope tencrush is getting some rest.

[tencrush]

Nope, I just skipped an entire night's sleep because I wanted to see this. I'm going to bed in an hour to watch yesterday's Daily Show and slip into a coma.

[gaycrow.livejournal.com]

I didn't think Prop 8 would be defeated - there was just too much money being thrown into the ring by the Yes side. Plus the blindness of people when it comes to the "marriage" word.

It's so frustrating to me. For the life of me I can't understand how people feel threatened by gay people getting married. It truly baffles and annoys me no end. :/

[boojumste.livejournal.com]

Kos (of Daily Kos) has a comment on Proposition 8 on the front page - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13351/5326/393/654565

It includes a statement from the "No on 8" community:
"Statement by No on Prop 8 Campaign on Election Status Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied.

Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.

Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.

It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning.

As of this point, the election is too close to call.

Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome."


All that said, at least 25 million dollars was donated from members of the Mormon Church at the encouragement of their leaders to campaign for "yes" on Proposition 8. It is time to end the Mormon Church's tax except status.

[tencrush]

Only if we end the Church of $cientology's tax exempt status while we're at it.

But yes, I agree. It's horriffic.

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Although it is a matter of interpretation and conflicting legal codes, there is a loop hole for churches when it comes to espousing a position on a proposition rather than a candidate or party.

Our minister preached against Prop 8 and congregation campaigned heavily against it. . .

[risinggraenn.livejournal.com]

Legal challenge is on the way!

See: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id={43A72A1B-BEAC-4756-84BF-1DA2414ABD80}¬oc=1

"The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group -- lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities.

According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here."

[cirrocumulus.livejournal.com]

My reaction to Obama's win= :'D!!!

My reaction to Prop 8 passing= D:

D:

D:


But you know what? It's a fight we'll have to fight, and I'm up for it. Hell, I may even be living in California next year if all goes according to plan, so I may even be able to help there. I volunteered for the Obama campaign yesterday and it felt so good to do so-- I'm willing, even eager, to campaign for gay marriage if it is possible for me to do so.

[holdingoff.livejournal.com]

many a year ago, there was Prop 22 aka "the Knight Initiative" that defined marriage as one man, one woman in California. I think that was 1992- it passed with over 66% of the vote. Prop 8 passed with not quite 52% -- and if California didn't have such a damaged political system it wouldn't have passed because until 10 years ago it would have required a 2/3rd majority.

it took 4 tries to have the "no mixed racial marriages" wording removed from California law, this will be no easier.

the Prop8 people were reprehensible. they flat out lied saying children would be taught that gay marriage was good in school. California doesn't teach anything about marriage in school. they claimed that churches would be sued if they wouldn't perform same-sex marriages. then there was the simple fact that their more "fanatical" supporters started harassing people that supported no on 8.

the thing non-US residents need to understand is that the constitutional "separation of church and state" means that religious organizations get to be totally fucking insane and get away with it because many people are afraid to directly challenge religious institutions. people videotaped church sermons where the only topic was collecting money to pass measure 8. that is TECHNICALLY against the law.

holdin (proud of his county's nearly 300K "no" votes.)

[coffee-kris.livejournal.com]

I lived in LA in 1992 when the whole state voted en masse for Bill Clinton - and passed a law that would have decimated the rights of illegal immigrants, including denying children health care and education, which was luckily rescinded as unconstitutional. Anyway, my point is that it all made me scratch my head.

I think that this country is resistant to the marriage issue and it's polarized us in a way that was unnecessary. It's given the conservative right a huge peg to hang their hat on and to appeal to their "base" and even some liberal-minded folks have more old-fashioned views of gay rights issues, and of marriage. I think in many ways, we would have been better off to make our little gains here and there, have more mainstreaming of the GLBT lifestyle, and gradually worked up to a point where everyone (not just those of us who are already there) went, well, yeah, duh, of course they have the right to be married (or have civil unions or whatever) and all the rights and responsibilities that the hetero married community has.

A friend of mine compares it to the acceptance of racially mixed marriages (and I'm sure she's not alone in making that analogy). Even post-civil rights, that was a taboo in some places. My brother (adopted and black) is married to a white woman and there are places in the US that he wouldn't go with her or their kids to this day. And of course, some during the election spoke about Obama being "an abomination against God" because he's of mixed race... But I think 95% of the population don't see any issues with mixed marriages anymore, and that's definitely changed, even in the 12 years since my brother got married.

So I guess I am just posting because I am so with you (and lots of others) in being bitterly disappointed that Prop 8 appears to have passed, but I'm hopeful that in 20 years, we'll be watching all these stupid anti-marriage laws be repealed and wondering what all the fuss was about. I know we will get there. If Obama can get elected in our lifetime, if my brother now looks like the President of the United State-elect, then this too shall pass and right will win. :-)

[tencrush]

I find it interesting, because like you say, a lot has changed, even just in the past 20 years or so, there were propositions with regards to reproductive rights and abortion in quite a few states that were all shot down in a way that I can't imagine would have happened twenty years ago when I lived in the States and my mother couldn't keep a pro-choice bumper sticker on her car for more than a week without it being removed or defaced, in liberal fucking Massachussetts, no less. Attitudes change, it may take a while, but on this issue, like on many others, right will eventually prevail.