Civil Rights Up for Vote

[clement]

Tempering my excitement about Obama's victory is the continued bashing of gay people in the electorate. Although this year it wasn't used as a wedge issue in the general election (thank you McCain and Palin), the results of state-wide ballot initiatives all went in the direction of people using their religion or their prejudice (or both) to dictate what people different than themselves can or cannot do. Arizona had rejected a gay marriage ban before but passed it this time, Florida passed one overwhelmingly, and Californians by a thin margin did the same. Arkansas also passed a law barring gay people from being able to adopt.

To me it is unfathomable and a breach of the type of civilized democracy we are supposed to have to be able to put something like this up for a public vote. I imagine if interracial marriages had been put up to public votes in the 1960s, they would have been voted down in many, if not most states. Have we learned nothing from our civil rights mistakes of the past? I feel frustrated in California because the gay community there has been a very strong and active supporter of the civil rights of all people, yet it was largely the African American (and to a lesser extent Latino) voters who put Proposition 8 over the top. Talk about irony.

So we have 51% of the population of a state deciding that something they are able to do is not going to be permitted for less than 5% of the state's population, for no other justification other than their religious beliefs and personal prejudices. For the abuse of this system of democracy you need look no further than what we see transpiring in Iraq, where the now "free" people of Iraq are beginning to pass laws that codify discrimination against minority religions and Christians are being persecuted there like never before.

Ultimately this issue will be decided by the US Supreme Court. But with the justices that have been put on there by Reagan and Bush, I fear the outcome.

[lukethedrifter]

I sure hope these just represent the last stand of a bigoted and ignorant belief system before the overwhelming wave of inevitable progress makes them obsolete, mere historical blips in the march to real justice and equality for all.

[Arthur Dent]

What does prop 8 mean for California couples who were already married?

[Richie Allen]

Yeah, as proud as I am of this country for yesterday's vote there were still some very disturbing results to be found.

[ghostrunner]

Commentary on Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/ ... _to_do.php

I've been working my way through this thing on blacks, homophobia and marriage equality. I don't regret any of my arguments. But, this is hard to take:

Every ethnic group supported marriage equality, except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them: a staggering 69 - 31 percent African-American margin against marriage equality.

I've given my take many times, and I stand by it, though it should be said I was wrong about Latinos. Still on a gut, emotional level, this makes me sick. If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't, at its root, boil down to "yuck," I guess I'd love to hear it. But really that isn't the point. I've always maintained that you don't have to like black people to do the right thing. Same thing here. I'm not very interested in folks's homophobia. I'm interested in why they think they should be in the business of dictating terms of love to two consenting adults. It's disgusting. And we need to let this [expletive] go. There may be great, sound reasons beyond--the blacks are pathological!!--to explain this. But there are no great, sound reasons that excuse it. Cut this [expletive] out. We know better. Even if other people didn't.


I've been working my way through this thing on blacks, homophobia and marriage equality. I don't regret any of my arguments. But, this is hard to take:

Every ethnic group supported marriage equality, except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them: a staggering 69 - 31 percent African-American margin against marriage equality.

I've given my take many times, and I stand by it, though it should be said I was wrong about Latinos. Still on a gut, emotional level, this makes me sick. If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't, at its root, boil down to "yuck," I guess I'd love to hear it. But really that isn't the point. I've always maintained that you don't have to like black people to do the right thing. Same thing here. I'm not very interested in folks's homophobia. I'm interested in why they think they should be in the business of dictating terms of love to two consenting adults. It's disgusting. And we need to let this [expletive] go. There may be great, sound reasons beyond--the blacks are pathological!!--to explain this. But there are no great, sound reasons that excuse it. Cut this [expletive] out. We know better. Even if other people didn't.

I imagine this has more to do with black voters being more religious than the average California voter, but it's a strange phenomenon all the same.

The adoption law in Arkansas I find even worse. I don't know how you denounce abortion, suggest abortion as an alternative, then say certain people shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

This is partly why I hate propositions on ballots. More often than not, I'm less qualified to make a judgement on what's better than the people I've already elected to make these decisions. We had an issue on our ballot about whether or not township tax assessors should be eliminated in favor of having all assessments done by the county. Property tax was a big issue here in the last two years, since it blew up for everyone. But I have no idea which of those choices is better. I later found out that both the new mayor and the previous one came out with a joint statement suggesting it all fall under the county. Had I known that, I probably would have gone along with them.

[planet planet]

Rumor has it blacks also shy away from cunniliungus.

[sighyoung]

Rumor has it blacks also shy away from cunniliungus.

Licking lungs is disgusting.

[Sutter'sBeard]

Tempering my excitement about Obama's victory is the continued bashing of gay people in the electorate. Although this year it wasn't used as a wedge issue in the general election (thank you McCain and Palin), the results of state-wide ballot initiatives all went in the direction of people using their religion or their prejudice (or both) to dictate what people different than themselves can or cannot do. Arizona had rejected a gay marriage ban before but passed it this time, Florida passed one overwhelmingly, and Californians by a thin margin did the same. Arkansas also passed a law barring gay people from being able to adopt.

To me it is unfathomable and a breach of the type of civilized democracy we are supposed to have to be able to put something like this up for a public vote. I imagine if interracial marriages had been put up to public votes in the 1960s, they would have been voted down in many, if not most states. Have we learned nothing from our civil rights mistakes of the past? I feel frustrated in California because the gay community there has been a very strong and active supporter of the civil rights of all people, yet it was largely the African American (and to a lesser extent Latino) voters who put Proposition 8 over the top. Talk about irony.

So we have 51% of the population of a state deciding that something they are able to do is not going to be permitted for less than 5% of the state's population, for no other justification other than their religious beliefs and personal prejudices. For the abuse of this system of democracy you need look no further than what we see transpiring in Iraq, where the now "free" people of Iraq are beginning to pass laws that codify discrimination against minority religions and Christians are being persecuted there like never before.

Ultimately this issue will be decided by the US Supreme Court. But with the justices that have been put on there by Reagan and Bush, I fear the outcome.

I still don't understand why heterosexual people really care whether homosexual people are married or not. Are the tax benefits of being married really all that substantial? Does anyone really think that a child floating around in the foster care system is better off than getting adopted by a gay couple? Why does it hurt the "sanctity of your marriage" if a gay couple is married. I think that time will take care of this very soon. I don't think I saw my first gay couple holding hands in public until the mid-ninetees and now I see it all the time.

[sighyoung]

More seriously, I was very disappointed with the passing of Proposition 8, and donated money for its defeat. I won't begin to expound on the homophobia in the black community, but it is certainly there, and personally distressing. I think it complicates an open discussion of ideals about manhood, womanhood, sexuality, and undermines honest discussions about sexual health, as well. My church does quarterly AIDS testing, both as a service to the community, and to foster such discussion and support.

Additionally, I will never understand laws blocking adoption. I have known several gay or lesbian couples and individuals who have stepped up to the plate to care for orphaned, abandoned, or abused children. Raising children is a sacrifice, but a chosen one. It pains me to have to vouch for them as good parents, especially in the face of a society in which many children are not adequately cared for.

[ghostrunner]

What does prop 8 mean for California couples who were already married?

That's a very good question.

My understanding is that they're fine. I've heard it from a few different sources now. This would just affect future marriages. (They could still be wrong I suppose).


Here's my question - marriage has it's origins as a religious practice, so:

1. Why does the government get any say in this at all? If a church will marry you, the government should honor that. That's small government AND it's separating church and state.

2. Given that, I don't understand gay couples not getting married whenever they want to. I understand they want the same legal recognition, but in the meantime I don't understand waiting based on a technicality when there's a willing religious institution that will perform the ceremony. Some couples do that, but I've heard the excuse before that "we can't," which really isn't true. F the government and do what you want. The paper doesn't change anything (outside the legal realm.) It seems to me if enough gay couples did this, it really makes the "undermine the institution of marriage" argument moot. Is the objection from conservatives really about legality? I don't think so. They just don't want it to be pervasive (if they were being honest). Make it pervasive and there's not much they can say about it anymore.