Who Really Killed Prop. 8?

[omega minimo]

"Editor - Since opponents of gay marriage have yet to explain just how gay marriage will harm heterosexuals, why don't they outlaw divorce, instead, and leave the gays alone?"

This letter to the editor of a SF Bay Area major daily oversimplifies the argument concisely and opens a can o' worms.

I am not an opponent of gay marriage and yet I can explain how gay marriage "will harm heterosexuals" -- or at least their perceptions and way of life.

What I don't understand is how a group fighting for "civil rights" can line up behind others in history and say "it's our turn" and leave out the part where they identify and face the power that they are fighting.

Suffragettes did it, abolitionists did it, Womens Rights did it, Civil Rights did it... what civil rights group in history skipped over the part that what they were doing was a threat to the status quo, which made it a "civil rights" battle?

:shrug:

I have been open to the possibility that this forge-ahead-and-ignore-the-obvious effort might succeed. And it may yet.

However, Prop. 8 threw a wrench in the works. Has the GLBT marriage rights discussion/strategy now opened up to new ways of looking at its own issues/communication?

It's easy to "ignore the obvious" because it's not so obvious. It's easy to point the bigot finger at people who stand behind their moral/religious beliefs. It's easy to have a bogus news excuse when questionable results of polls shift blame to brown people who supposedly voted for Obama and against same gender marriage.

It's not so easy to see the real issue. The fact that it's embedded in society to the point of invisibility is part of the problem.

Moral/religious traditions encode gender inequality into society. That's how the attitudes are transmitted/perpetuated through generations.

Same gender marriage upsets the traditional gender roles of males and females in society.

Same gender marriage upsets the traditional male authoritarian power structure in society.

Same gender marriage folks want to change a fundamental structure of tradition, identity and power in society and yet ignore that it is a threat to that fundamental structure of tradition, identity and power in society. They want to have same gender marriage "normalized" -- as if it doesn't make any difference at all -- in a society that will be forever changed by same gender marriage.

How can you have it both ways? By ignoring the power structure -- the truth of it -- that you are inevitably challenging.

How can you claim it will change nothing else and opponents are mere bigots? By ignoring the importance and power of societal gender roles encoded in moral/religious trappings.

How is this possible? By ignoring that the whole male authoritarian power structure of traditional society is based on the subservience and subversion of female identity, autonomy and power.

That is why it will be worth incorporating womens rights into the discussion and strategy of successful, long term gender rights efforts.

Maybe womens rights have to come first. Or with.

But not ignored.

[AntiFascist]

1. I believe that women are already considered a "suspect classification" in the eyes of the law..

where it comes to equal protection. I suspect that the suspect classification of sexual orientation will come under intense scrutiny in the forthcoming legal cases.

[omega minimo]

2. What does that mean?

[AntiFascist]

6. I'm not an attorney so bear with me...

a "suspect classification," as I understand it, basically gives a certain classification of people greater protection under the Equal Protection clause of the state or federal constitution. It is the duty of the Judicial Branch to uphold the rights of minorities when faced with discrimination by the majority. In the CA Marriage Ruling, sexual orientation is now considered a suspect classification, which means it can be treated similarly to racial minorities and women, as far as discrimination is concerned, at least in California. All of the court cases against Prop 8 argue that it is unconstitutional in light of the CA Marriage Ruling.

On edit: I guess you could argue that it is the CA Marriage Ruling which shakes up the status quo - and for very good reason. People have no choice when it comes to their sexual orientation, but the Religious Right argues that it IS a choice, and a sinful one at that. This is the traditional belief that must be challenged and defeated.

[omega minimo]

12. and still no Equal Rights Amendment. Maybe that classification of equality for women

will smooth the way for same gender marriage

[AntiFascist]

16. or the reverse could happen...

Prop 8 could erode the value of the Equal Protection clause, which is why a women's group (California Women Lawyers) has joined to fight Prop 8.

[omega minimo]

18. I don't follow your logic. Your post leaves out ERA and leaves Prop. 8 unchallenged.

:shrug:


promoting gender equality benefits all

[AntiFascist]

19. What I'm saying is...

if Prop. 8 is not overturned, then the value of the equal protection clause in the state constitution becomes questionable (when a simple majority is allowed, through an initiative, to take away a Fundamental Right of a protected minority without good cause).

Also, I've read that women are provided more "strict scrutiny" under the California Constitution than under the Federal Constitution, so the need for ERA may be mostly a Federal issue.

[omega minimo]

22. Oh yes

Federal ERA :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[AntiFascist]

32. Yes, FEDERAL ERA...

but what we are fighting for in California, at the present time, is equal rights for gays and lesbians, at least bringing us up to the level that women currently enjoy under state law. Now, once we take this to the Federal level, then we can argue about women not yet enjoying full equality.

[keepCAblue]

3. Why don't you ask Canada, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa, and now Nepal...

"Same gender marriage folks want to change a fundamental structure of tradition, identity and power in society and yet ignore that it is a threat to that fundamental structure of tradition, identity and power in society. They want to have same gender marriage "normalized" -- as if it doesn't make any difference at all -- in a society that will be forever changed by same gender marriage."

Many other countries have already "normalized" same-sex marriage and, whadya know, it DIDN'T make any difference at all - their societies have changed little, except for maybe the fact there is less violence and bigotry toward glbts due to assimilation and acceptance.

"Normalized"... that you chose to put that word in quotes tells me everything I need to know about the OP's bias, just like when the christo-fascist media always put the word "marriage" into quotes whenever it is used in the context of same-sex unions.

[omega minimo]

7. and yet it hasn't happened here yet

due to resistance that is what this OP is examining -- the reasons, the realities, the denial, the exclusion, the process....

"That is why it will be worth incorporating womens rights into the discussion and strategy of successful, long term gender rights efforts. Maybe womens rights have to come first. Or with. But not ignored."

What if my suggested inclusion was timely or even needed here?


"Normalized"... that you chose to put that word in quotes tells me everything I need to know about the OP's bias, just like when the christo-fascist media always put the word "marriage" into quotes whenever it is used in the context of same-sex unions.

As for "the OP's bias," as carefully and respectfully I have crafted an OP on a concept that I seem to be the only person -- not a bigot or marriage rights opponent -- on the planet to think about, you may check your attitude (bigoted towards "" ?) at the door.

I used "" because
1. I don't claim to speak for a movement or individuals in the marriage rights issue.
2. "Normalized" can mean a lot of things, a lot of areas of normal everyday activities
3. Since I don't speak for anyone, I was thinking of those who don't want to be "normalized" or normal and may already realize how their presence impacts traditional gender roles.
4. I felt like it.


Comparing my offering to "christ-fascist" anything just looks like knee jerk bias toward thinking in a new way.

Good luck.

[keepCAblue]

4. And one other thing ... your subject line: "Who really killed Prop 8?"

Is this another "blame the victim post?" If it is, then shame on you. Shame on you.

[EFerrari]

8. Before you go off with both barrels, why not ask if that was a misstatement?

Jeezus on a trailer hitch.

[omega minimo]

14. creative license

:hug:

[omega minimo]

9. What? Good Gawd. Please read the OP with the respect it was offered.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

5. Prop H8 passed. No one killed it. ?

[omega minimo]

10. Play on today's JFK titles.

It passed. Who killed it? Will it be killed in court as unConstitutional?

[EFerrari]

15. ( I don't think it's been read that way, but I'm a mom.)

[bluedawg12]

11. here's a thread looking for a reason to exist. n/t

[omega minimo]

13. The reason is gender equality

What's yer reason for pissin in the wind?

[bluedawg12]

25. If your cause is gender equality then don't make it either or.

Society is capable of working on two issues at once.

[uppityperson]

17. Gay marriage prop passed due to sexism? Is this what you are saying?

Too many people in our society want women to be the "little woman", needing help from "her man" or men in general? Women are still looked down upon enough that the thought of legalizing marriage between 2 people who didn't have this power difference is what caused this to happen?

[omega minimo]

20. I'm saying this, uppityperson

OP:

How can you claim it will change nothing else and opponents are mere bigots? By ignoring the importance and power of societal gender roles encoded in moral/religious trappings.

How is this possible? By ignoring that the whole male authoritarian power structure of traditional society is based on the subservience and subversion of female identity, autonomy and power.

That is why it will be worth incorporating womens rights into the discussion and strategy of successful, long term gender rights efforts.



Boiled down more?

"Women are still looked down upon enough that the thought of legalizing marriage between 2 people who didn't have this power difference is what caused this to happen?"


Traditional gender roles are so fundamental to -- and embedded within -- the authoritarian power structure, that the FRICTION between same gender marriage (not acknowledging that) and religious (not acknowledging that) advocates, is what caused this to happen.


:whew: :hi:

[uppityperson]

21. Who wears the pants in your family? Who gets ultimate responsibility for economic choices in a famil

For instance. I will have to think on this for a while. Thanks for the interesting thought.

[omega minimo]

23. Who drives? Who wears pink and blue? Who does domestic, who does the yard?

Who gets paid 3/4 of the money for the same job?

Thanks, uppity!

[uppityperson]

24. Back when jr was 4, still loved pink.

Had a pink raincoat, pink boots, etc. Someone called him a girl and he confronted them with "pink is the most beautiful color there is. I am a boy and I like beautiful colors." (yes, was very verbal)

Most little kids love pink, then change to purple, my thought is because that is the color they see first in utero. Boys change away from pink once they get into social situations and here crap like "pink is for girls". When jr was 1, had various pink outfits (second hand, who really cares) and a friend asked me if I was afraid he would "turn gay".

After I quit laughing, we had a long talk.

So, back to the subject, until gender equality happens, many won't be accepting of a marriage where the partners are equal. That is a wild thought.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. My boys liked pink, too

I think it's because their mom does, lol.

Still do!

[bluedawg12]

26. Same sex marriage rights is about legal rights under law.

Changing the "power structure" and attitudes is a different issue.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I certainly think this is more than fair to argue with

the LDS community that funded, what, 70% of the effort to push Prop 8?

Strict gender roles are absolutely followed there - it's written into their religion - man is the head of the household, women are secondary. God is most definitely male; gender is absolutely critical to their whole way of seeing the world.

So I do think this argument has validity as to the rationale of those opposing equal rights.

I also think that it's foolish to start prioritizing rights - either civil rights are available to all, or really, no one's civil rights are really safe - as Prop 8 shows. If a simple majority vote is all it takes in CA, to overturn a minority group's civil rights, then any protected group is fair game from a determined and well-funded majority.

[uppityperson]

31. That all makes sense. And I've avoided prioritizing rights since this shows no one's rights are safe

If a simple majority vote is all it takes, no one is safe. No group. No people. It is wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Yup

and I'm sort of surprised actually that a group like the LDS apparently doesn't realize how easily they could have that same weapon turned back on them. It's certainly a minority religion in this country, and they've been on the receiving end of plenty of discrimination in their history. One would have hoped that would open more eyes to the implications of campaigning to remove someone else's rights... Too often, it didn't, and doesn't.

[ismnotwasm]

27. I read a long essay

Too long to even summarize, about heterosexualism and white supremacy. It traced white supremest colonial roots and subjugation of Aboriginal Americans--many of which didn't HAVE patriarchy and a did have a certain amount of openness with gender, with the gender and racialized hierarchy of white Europeans.

One of the points made was the rightwingnuts are afraid because "so many many of those seeking marriage "rights" look just like right-wing conservatives--"white, respectable, capitalist, often republican, gay men and women who work to fit it." (Possibly, but I've been to pride parade or two, not exactly a bastion of Right wing fashion statements)

Heterosexualism; "a particular economic, political and emotional relationship between men and women; men must dominate women and women must subordinate themselves to men in any number of ways. As a result men presume access to women while women remain riveted on men and are unable to sustain a community of women"
Sarah Lucia Hoagland

"

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

33. Do you SUPPORT our equal right to marry?

NT!

[bluedawg12]

34. Do you SUPPORT our equal right to marry?

[iverglas]

36. You may be interested in this column in the Toronto Star

Forgive me for being late, but I am underwhelmed by the responses in this thread and thought I'd say something. A whole lot of people have just managed to live their entire lives without hearing about that whole patriarchy thing, haven't they?

I have always harboured some resentment about same-sex marriage activism. (We're talking about a couple of decades ago, when it first became an issue to give serious thought to.) Why did the activists not want to join us feminists in smashing the thing altogether? Why did they want to sign on to an institution that had been the instrument for the oppression of women for millennia, and still was (and is)?

The concern has always gone in both directions, too. Many in the GLBT community have not wanted to buy into marriage, for reasons specific to their culture.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/539218

I find myself falling into the same trap. I never got the idea of gay marriage. (Heck, I don't even get straight marriage, with its $50,000 parties and other fripperies – give me that kind of dough and I'd be on the next plane to Australia. But that's another story.)

One of the great advantages of gay life has always been its social freedom. Unfettered by institutional restraints, gay relationships were free to seek their own balance.

... But like everyone else, I find myself getting on the pro-marriage bandwagon just because to do otherwise would be un-gay. And this annoys me, because it stifles nuance, innovation and discussion. ...

The Canadian courts based their various decisions on same-sex marriage (striking down refusals to permit it) on the fundamental values underlying the Canadian constitution and Canadian society: respect for the equal dignity and worth of all individuals. To deny two people's relationship the social recognition that marriage obviously still does confer is a violation of those values, and of the equality guarantees in our Constitution.

I don't want that social recognition, as a feminist -- I don't want anyone's recognition that I have hitched myself to someone else, and I don't want any advantages or disadvantages that come with that. I don't want to be involved. I don't want anything to do with the institution.

But in a society that respects individuals and guarantees equal treatment and opportunity, it is not for me to object to someone wanting to do what it is perfectly legal for me to do.

So the theory goes that same-sex partners will change marriage itself by joining in, that the institution will not be the same again. Well, I don't really care. I just want it to go away. But since it's not going to, this year, it's just as well if it gets a new image, I guess.

Will it go farther? --

Same gender marriage upsets the traditional gender roles of males and females in society.
Same gender marriage upsets the traditional male authoritarian power structure in society.

I'm not so sure. I don't disagree at all that opposition to same-sex marriage arises out of all that patriarchal stuff. I don't know that permitting it will go far to ending that stuff.

Canada is vastly less patriarchal in terms of public attitudes than the US.

(I have to take the opportunity to recommend this study of attitudes in the two countries again:
http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=456)

If we agree that same-sex marriage and patriarchy are inherently inimical, then we would have to say that the weaker adherence to patriarchal values in Canada is one reason why same-sex marriage has been so easily implemented here.

The old chicken and egg.

So it would seem to be kind of in the GLBT community's interests to get on board with women's struggles for equality. Looks like women's hard work at tearing down the patriarchal walls did the GLBT community some good up here when it came to getting same-sex marriage.