Prop 8, et al.: The Beginning of the End?

[TygrBright]

I really think that the vile and bigoted ballot measures passed denying civil rights to gay people in several states are the beginning of the end.

Yes, I really believe that, ultimately, states allowing this crap to be pulled are paving the way to a national civil rights act that will include gender identity and sexual orientation.

In other words: There is good news and bad news to be read in these pathetic attempts to institutionalize fear, homophobia and oppression.

The good news: I think that when it does come, the repudiation of this injustice will come in a form sweeping, effective, and above all, Federal. This one, too, is gonna be lifted out of the states' hands, now that they are showing just how cruel and unconstitutional those hands may be. These stupid, hateful ballot measures, should they indeed proceed to enshrinement in state law or state constitutions, are the equivalent of Jim Crow laws, laws denying women ownership and control of property, etc. The states that actually implement them will create a painful carbuncle on the flesh of our body politic, and sooner or later, action at the federal level will take the option of discrimination out of their hands far more decisively and irreversibly than state law can guarantee.

There will be a legal challenge. Several, probably. They will wind through the court systems and eventually the right challenge will make its way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will finally and oh-so-reluctantly have to admit that America's GLBT citizens are fully human, fully American, and fully entitled to equal rights under the law.

The bad news: It's going to take a long time. Far longer than it should. Hopefully not as long as it took women to get suffrage. Hopefully not as long as it took to banish "separate but equal." Hopefully not as long as it is taking to make the U.S. Government abide by its treaty agreements with the First Nations. But long. Maybe very long, maybe decades more.

The other bad news: It's going to have the same kind of mixed and dubious social legacy attached to it as every other legal intervention to protect equal rights has acquired. IOW, it's going to be as popular (with the usual suspects) as Brown v. the Board of Education or Roe v. Wade.

Ultimately, equal rights WILL be legally and constitutionally affirmed and enforced.

But it will be a long time a-comin', and when it gets here, it's going to make for some nasty political messes.

Worth it? Of COURSE it is. We are degrading our humanity and our constitution by denying equal rights to our fellow human beings. A little political mess (even big political messes) are nothing against the value of justice and equity. But let's not kid ourselves. These sad, disgusting ballot initiatives demonstrate just how ugly it's going to get... and stay... for a long time.

That said, those of us who KNOW that no American is fully invested in freedom while we deny some Americans basic equity under the law have to pull together. We have to stop playing the "if only you'd..." game, and parsing the relative (negative) value of different kinds of victimization to the Nth decimal place, and presuming the worst of each others' motives and intents.

We have to come together, heal among ourselves, strengthen each other, and dig in for a long fight.

I'm not giving up. I owe it to too many people I love... not to mention myself.

A huge shadow was lifted from my spirit on Tuesday, and the feeling was so powerful that it made me see, even while I rejoiced, the cost of the shadows I still carry as a straight, white, middle-class American.

So no, I'm not giving up.

I feared I'd never see a non-white President in my lifetime.

Now I know that it was possible all along.

Equal rights for my brothers and sisters is possible too.

determinedly,
Bright

[DirtyDawg]

1. Seems to me...

...that the way to approach the reproach to churches, Mormon, et. al., is for someone to bring a case of overt involvement in the political process. Don't know about how often this has played out before, but I think it will soon - perhaps after a couple of more Supremes get replaced by a President Obama - time to take 'em to court and expose their tax-exempt status for just this kind of activity.

By the way, does anybody know if The Book of Mormon says anything more about homosexuality than currently exists in the Bible - and I'm talking about the mentions in Leviticus? I mean let's face it, Mormonism is goofy at best and should be exposed as such in any court case that may be brought.

[SemperEadem]

13. I posed this query in another thread

I wonder what would it require to amend the constitution of CA to say heterosexual couples who married in CA could not divorce or get annulments and that if they did divorce/annul out of state and returned to the state, they could be charged with breaking that law... or if they remarried, they could be charged with bigamy? I mean, since marriage is such a "sacred thing" to these religious whack jobs...

Throw them in their box and tape it shut.

[Divine Discontent]

2. thanks for a thoughtful post, and may I say...

I hope that Californian Mormon middle-class family with the kids, who took FIFTY-THOUSAND dollars out of their family's savings to give in the fight to "restore marriage", will be blessed with one of those kids telling them when they get older how embarrassing it is that they did that, and that they're GLBT or best-friends with someone who is!

[chelsea0011]

3. If churches want to become heavily involved in these causes then they

should lose their tax break status. The anti-gay marriage movement is primarily a religious movement.

[madrchsod]

4. the mormons were ran out of illinois because they thought they were above the law

i see they still think they should above the law in another state...time for california to "run them out"?

[nichomachus]

9. Right -- the Mormons were not persecuted because of their so-called religious beliefs

That's a lie. The Mormons were persecuted because they wanted to take over every town they went to -- and because Joseph Smith couldn't keep his pecker in his pants. He not only wanted his wives, but he wanted the wives of other Mormons, and the wives of the men in town. Guys really don't like that a lot.

The late 19th century was a time of numerous wacky religious groups -- none of them were "persecuted." In fact, people found them kind of quaint.

[cate94]

5. The only way

equality comes to any minority, is when people from the majority join the minority in the fight for their rights.

The one thing that gives me hope in this horror, is that I am hearing many more straight folks objecting to our discrimination.

Thanks for that.

[bemildred]

6. Well, it's true, as anyone who has been around for a while can see,

that these sort of initiatives are being promulgated because the fundie-nuts are losing the culture war. So yeah, hang in there, one of these days we will have a gay President too, who will live with his family in the White House, and smoke a joint in the evening if he feels like it.

[NorthCarolina]

7. The argument of the religious right is based solely on cementing their idea

of Nurture not Nature in the minds of the public. This is their Ace in the hole, and is the sole reason for the existence of Ex-Gay ministries. Once Nature not Nurture becomes the mainstream belief, their house of cards will fall apart.

[Divine Discontent]

11. "Exodus Intl." "Worthy Creations", etc. A bunch of self-hating confused Christians who've been

DUPED. I think I have lost a friend to them, I'm not 100% sure but knowing he stopped talking to me after he started going to a church in SOBE that pushed the 2nd group I mentioned, and he was accused by his girlfriend of being Gay, and then told me, "God doesn't want us to be Gay", etc, makes me think his slow walk into ignoring me outright is because of their teachings that tell them to avoid all things Gay.

The Nurture not Nature argument is their great LIE and they ignore all scientific evidence to push a doctrine of self-hate and I've read from several ex-exgays that they never felt so bad about themselves til they started going to the ex-gay classes.

I despise these bastards for what they stole from me, my best friend that lit up the room wherever he went and want to see them fall hard to the ground for ruining so many lives.

I occasionally read Wayne Besen's website blog. He is a great speaker against these morons who use people's faith against them to suck them into this false belief of 'ex-gay'. Wanna see a walking talking self-hater - look up ex-gay sexuality speaker, Sy Rogers - WHEW, I was like - you are so in denial! If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny...

When they attack what God made, they're attacking God - but they don't care because they think they embody God, just like the Mormons with their heavy push into removal of rights - I guess the Mormons have forgotten what it's like to be assaulted like this, perhaps we need to push the envelope that they're a cult group invading public policy and stripping civil rights from Salt Lake!

[NorthCarolina]

12. Their achilles heel is Nurture not Nature. That is where the anti-gay religious right

must be challenged. It forms the basis of their justification for their actions taken against the gay community. Prove that "gay" is a normal product of natures "variety" and the basis for their entire position on the LGBT community will crumble. Their ex-gay ministries exist for one sole purpose, and that is to reinforce the idea of nurture not nature. Challenge this notion and you attack the very framework of their argument.

[2Design]

8. article on alternet about if we had done this along sex lines - saying females no longer have right

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106191/legal_challenges_filed_against_prop_8/


In a press release, Lambda Legal attorney Jenny Pizer said:

If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us. That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.

[SharonAnn]

14. More like a state level right. For example, if women were denied the right to driver licenses.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

10. And maybe by the time it gets to the USSC, there will be a couple of Obama justices.

The bigots need to mind their own bedrooms.

[NobleCynic]

15. Demographics are on your side

Every election cycle more of the old guard is gone and more of my generation is of voting age. If the same ballot question hits Cali in 2012, i imagine a different result.

[Jim Lane]

16. I agree, keep going with ballot questions and legislative bills

The federal intervention on behalf of interracial marriage -- the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia -- came only after most states were recognizing such marriages. Then the power of the federal government was used to drag Virginia and the other holdout states into the twentieth century.

We who support marriage equality aren't likely to succeed with a federal initiative -- be it a bill, a court decision, or a constitutional amendment -- as long as the vast majority of the states are denying this right. Instead of looking for a federal solution, we should instead rely on the demographics that you mention.

Also, as time goes on, more and more people will see that Massachusetts hasn't degenerated into chaos just because all its citizens have the right to marry. Winning in California in 2012 (or maybe even 2010) and winning in other states will provide more such examples.

[NobleCynic]

18. Bingo, bring it up every 2 years until it starts cascading

Pressure from the bottom is the only way the community will see any progress on the issue.

[amb123]

17. What we need to do is amend the US Constitution

with a amendment based on the Equal Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.