beccatoria (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
beccatoria) wrote2008-11-06 08:20 pm
beccatoria) wrote2008-11-06 08:20 pm
Entry tags:
Proposition 8 (and those other states that banned gay marriage).
...and it was all going so well, too.
I don't...understand it. I mean, Canada has gay marriage. Britain has gay marriage (well, okay, "civil partnerships" which aren't technically 'marriage' but give identical rights to marriage). Nothing exploded. I don't know about Canada but in the UK it wasn't even a very big deal. It was just on the front of the papers one day, "By the way, we now have same-sex civil unions." One day, I went into work and the marital status boxes in the patient database said, "Married/Civil Partnership," and "Widowed/Surviving CP."
GUESS WHAT? NO ONE EXPLODED. My rather everything-o-phobic coworker rolled her eyes at how 'PC' everything was these days, and I rolled my eyes at her, but even that piece of homophobia was at least framed in the context of "why do they have to change the ticky boxes, I bet that took someone X hours and they could have used the money for better things," rather than "why do gay people have to ruin my life by getting married?" I mean, it comes from the same place deep down, but the difference in choice of expression shows a changing attitude as to what's acceptable to say or not.
This isn't an issue that is every likely to affect me because I'm already married and it's to a boy, and in general I like boys more, and because I don't live in the US and probably won't ever move there permanently (though living there for a while is still something I'd like to feel comfortable doing).
But that's just...so entirely beside the point. I don't want my hopeful political high taken away from me but I'm so...genuinely shocked at this result and it upsets me.
Because the part of Obama's speech that brought tears to my eyes wasn't the personal stuff about his family, or even the "this is your victory too," stuff. It was the stuff about the surviving government of the people, by the people, for the people. It was the idealistic crap about our choice to treat each other fairly, to be a democracy, to make sure everyone is heard.
Since when are we in the business of taking rights away from people?
Since fucking when?
It was unfair when the rights of one group to have the rights of the majority was even in question, but it's a whole new ballpark of fucked up when we actually start legislating to remove rights that people have already won.
And 'won' here is an important word because it's not like it was a legal loophole. An actual supreme court rendered a legal verdict. If it was a legal loophole where the letter of the law went against the spirit, then those guys ought to damn well have stopped it from going through at the time.
It's ridiculous, and I'm angry about it. I'm so angry about it, I'm even kind of angry with everyone else who's not angry about it. It's as insanely unfair as it would be to go back and legislate against mixed race marriages or take away women's rights to vote.
This isn't just something gay/bisexual people should care about. This is something everyone should care about. This diminishes all of us and it's ridiculous. And we should be furious.
And right after Obama made a fairly radical decision to include, "gay and straight," like it was an actual, legitimate choice in his acceptance speech too.
I don't...understand it. I mean, Canada has gay marriage. Britain has gay marriage (well, okay, "civil partnerships" which aren't technically 'marriage' but give identical rights to marriage). Nothing exploded. I don't know about Canada but in the UK it wasn't even a very big deal. It was just on the front of the papers one day, "By the way, we now have same-sex civil unions." One day, I went into work and the marital status boxes in the patient database said, "Married/Civil Partnership," and "Widowed/Surviving CP."
GUESS WHAT? NO ONE EXPLODED. My rather everything-o-phobic coworker rolled her eyes at how 'PC' everything was these days, and I rolled my eyes at her, but even that piece of homophobia was at least framed in the context of "why do they have to change the ticky boxes, I bet that took someone X hours and they could have used the money for better things," rather than "why do gay people have to ruin my life by getting married?" I mean, it comes from the same place deep down, but the difference in choice of expression shows a changing attitude as to what's acceptable to say or not.
This isn't an issue that is every likely to affect me because I'm already married and it's to a boy, and in general I like boys more, and because I don't live in the US and probably won't ever move there permanently (though living there for a while is still something I'd like to feel comfortable doing).
But that's just...so entirely beside the point. I don't want my hopeful political high taken away from me but I'm so...genuinely shocked at this result and it upsets me.
Because the part of Obama's speech that brought tears to my eyes wasn't the personal stuff about his family, or even the "this is your victory too," stuff. It was the stuff about the surviving government of the people, by the people, for the people. It was the idealistic crap about our choice to treat each other fairly, to be a democracy, to make sure everyone is heard.
Since when are we in the business of taking rights away from people?
Since fucking when?
It was unfair when the rights of one group to have the rights of the majority was even in question, but it's a whole new ballpark of fucked up when we actually start legislating to remove rights that people have already won.
And 'won' here is an important word because it's not like it was a legal loophole. An actual supreme court rendered a legal verdict. If it was a legal loophole where the letter of the law went against the spirit, then those guys ought to damn well have stopped it from going through at the time.
It's ridiculous, and I'm angry about it. I'm so angry about it, I'm even kind of angry with everyone else who's not angry about it. It's as insanely unfair as it would be to go back and legislate against mixed race marriages or take away women's rights to vote.
This isn't just something gay/bisexual people should care about. This is something everyone should care about. This diminishes all of us and it's ridiculous. And we should be furious.
And right after Obama made a fairly radical decision to include, "gay and straight," like it was an actual, legitimate choice in his acceptance speech too.
no subject
It's bullshit for such an amendment to even be up for a popular vote. That's not how civil rights work.
no subject
One would think not, at least. :(
no subject
The whole thing is just so fucking ridiculous.
And yeah, Canada has not exploded from gay marriage. Not in the least.
no subject
no subject
- I think with all the talk about Prop 8, people forget that California (yes, California!) has banned gay marriage before (in 2000, I think?). They've just been going back and forth so many times with banning and permitting it in the past several years that people thought it might actually stick around this time. The measure passed by a very small margin, and was only so publicized because they spent ridonculous amounts of money on it.
- CA still has civil unions. A lot of US states don't even have that, and have even banned them outright. Virginia is the most aggravating of all, where they won't even recognize the unions of other states. (So if you and your partner, legally unionized in NJ or married in VT, get in a car crash in VA, you have no say at the hospital. And until 2003, you could be arrested for having gay sex in twelve or so states, which is why I didn't go to college in VA.)
- Since when are we in the business of taking rights away from people? Don't forget, this is the country that gave us slavery, welfare-to-work, NINA and Jim Crow laws, immigration quotas, salary caps for women, criminalization of religious and sexual minorities, the Trail of Tears, unequal representation for Puerto Rico, segregation...
Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed off about it too. But I'm bitterly cynical as well, having seen this roller coaster going on and on and on for the past five or six years. And though it's intensely frustrating, we have made big strides: like I said, the Supreme Court decision in '03. You know what, I'm going to Wiki the states, hang on...
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia
Before 2003, it was illegal in those states to have CONSENSUAL ADULT sex with someone of the same gender IN PRIVATE. And it was a felony in some of them, so you could do jail time if someone broke into your bedroom with a policeman. (Which is what happened in Texas, which is why the Court overturned all of them at once.) There's some really fucked up stuff like that in our past, but it's slowly, painfully improving. The important thing, I think, is not to let the outrage and anger consume you (though I certainly encourage feeling it, like you said: it's good to be angry for change). Yes, Proposition 8 has passed (for now, that is; we'll see what happens next year)...
...but in the meantime, we have a Democratic President, House, and Senate for the first time in many moons. Live for hope!
P.S. Something I think is way more fucked up than even Prop 8: Arkansas apparently just passed a measure banning adoption by unmarried people/couples. Obviously they were targeting the LGBT community, but... well, think about it for a second. ANY unmarried people. Even the straight ones.
Let's have a look at the homeless child population in Arkansas over the next few years, hm? You can't use a blanket to put out a candle.
no subject
As to the civil rights issues you bring up, yes, absolutely, we have a horrible history of civil rights abuses. But in general, over the last century and a half, we've been reversing that. I may just be uninformed, but I can't think of any other recent examples of situations where once equal rights were won, we went and reamended major laws in order to take them back away. It would be like re-introducing salary caps, re-introducing force relocation of native american populations, re-introducing no votes for women or non-white people, etc.
It takes us a horrible, shamefully long time, sometimes, to realise that people are people but once they get put in that category, since when do we demote them?
As to the adoption thing, that just...it's insane.
Apparently God hates gay people more than he wants children to have loving homes.
no subject
As for civil unions, it varies by state. California is actually one of the ONLY states (along with NJ - woo!) where civil unions are exactly equivalent to marriage in just about every way except in name. (And the federal government doesn't recognize it as equivalent, but one of the only, or perhaps THE only, good things about DOMA is that it allows more liberal states to go nuts when it comes to actually permitting gay unions.) This whole "marriage" thing is 50% symbolic, 50% federal-level.
Don't get me wrong, it saddens and aggravates me that gay Californians are being "demoted" (I like your term!), but I take a great deal of joy from the fact that if McCain/Palin were elected, the entire gay COUNTRY would be, well, fired. :P
no subject
I mean, you make an excellent point about McCain/Palin because DEAR LORD that would have been awful. But at the same time, if a blue state like California makes a decision like this, on this issue, I think it's fair to be hacked off, even if Obama has the potential to make things a whole lot better (or at least prevent them from getting worse)?
Either way, dude, I hope one day you can get married if you want to without running away to Canada.
And yes, the icon is pretty awesome isn't it? ;)
no subject
What people often forget is that California actually isn't as blue as people think. You have millions upon millions of screaming liberals, Mexicans, and Hollywood starlets... but you also have millions upon millions of business owners, computer industry tycoons, and Central Valley farmer hicks. California may have the most liberal groups as part of its population, but there are a LOT of people in CA.
Actually, to carry over an example, California may be very DEMOCRAT as a whole, but not as (socially) LIBERAL as people think. Blue does not = Liberal which does not = Democrat. The example of Mexicans: millions of (legal) immigrants are obviously going to vote for Obama for better recognition by the federal government, and just as obviously are not going to support gay marriage because they're usually very Catholic and socially conservative. They may want a politically and economically permissive government, but I'd bet money that most Latin American immigrants, when push comes to shove, they aren't going to support gay marriage.
Anyway, there are other reasons why I wouldn't want to get married in this country, or in California. I just kind of want to move to Europe and have that be the end of it. ^_^
no subject
no subject
And, of course, immigrants whose marriages aren't recognised as legally valid (but who also aren't necessarily entitled to get remarried legally in Arkansas).
no subject
Very! Fucked! Up!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
As always, my anti-assimilationist side and my outrage at bigotry to some degree conflict on how I feel about this. I don't want marriage to be tied to any rights, I don't want to be a second-class citizen if I live my life uncoupled in an unconventional family of friends, but obviously I want people to have their relationships recognized if that's what they want.
Also, sadly I don't believe in the liberal progress march towards happy perfect rights for all. I think it's a useful tool sometimes, but look at immigration, look at the welfare state--the idea of what people have a 'right' to changes all the time, and it often goes 'backwards.' Excuse the cynicism, I'm pleased about Obama and all, but!
no subject
I think another reason why it's different in the US is, as
I also understand your worries about the actual institution of marriage, but I think that there are parallel issues here, and that if we're going to have marriage for anyone it needs to be open to everyone.
Personally I'm torn. On the one hand I see the problems with the situation. And I certainly dislike the moralising and righteousness that goes with the institution. On the other hand in a legalistic society I think that the ability to create legal bonds with the people you choose is an important one. Although if I had my way I'd expand "civil unions" to not only include romantic partnerships, but also to give people the ability to declare anyone they chose, who was willing to reciprocate, 'family' (i.e. I choose to create a legal relationship with this person; they should now legally be considered part of my 'family' for the purposes of medical decisions should I be incapacitated, rights to see me, division of my stuff should I fail to leave a will, etc.)
Even in a purely anarchic society I think I would support the idea of making a declaration/carrying something around on my person to inform people who I trust and who I want responsible for me should I become incapable of communicating that information myself in the hopes that people would listen to my wishes. And...legally representing that articulated choice is the closest equivalent in our society.
It's just a shame its mapped so directly onto a 'traditional' nuclear family.
Also, were I taking a step back and looking at history or considering this more rationally, I know that I wouldn't believe in a happy liberal progressive march toward perfect rights for all. I certainly know that gay marriage wasn't this final barrier between us and perfect happy equal joy.
I just...I am pretty cynical and the fact that they actually legislated to remove rights that were legally won from their supreme court is what really shocks me. Probably just because I'm not well-versed enough in history to know how many times that happened in all the other fights for equality. But it just... I think it's wrong that other states banned gay marriage too, but the fact that Californians went against their supreme court is a whole other ballpark for me. I guess because it goes from "we don't think these people qualify for these rights," (which is bad enough) to "we know these people qualify for these rights and we want to take them away from them."
Argh...I can't explain it any more clearly, and I know it's largely a semantic difference in my head. But I just don't get it. :(
Making family
I so love this idea. It'd be a bit like Finder, actually - remember Ayo, from Dream Sequence? He makes a remark about having to 'marry like five people' if he wanted to have a bigger apartment. In the notes CSM explains that marrying is a bit like joining a company in Anvard - basically, like you say, accepting certain legal rights and duties in relation to another person, but apparently in Anvard the main focus, or at least *a* main focus is economical. But, anyway, it's not necessarily just between two people. You can apparently marry an entire bunch of people, if you like.
BTW: a comment about your original post: EEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee DEXTER icon! *g*
Re: Making family
But then again, I think that's indicative of the decreasing size of families and the increased mobility of first world populations and our changing culture. Friends are now reasonably likely to be the people you are closest to, who know you best.
Which isn't to say that I'm not close to my parents, because I am - they're wonderful people.
Maybe the best way to put it is, we should be able to choose our families. When you have a child as part of your nuclear family you have this huge leg-up on them wanting you as part of their chosen family. You have this unique and wonderful opportunity; unless you really screw up, you're almost guaranteed that they will choose you. But the fact that people seem to take that relationship for granted instead of seeing it that way is...a shame sometimes?
But, um, yes. FINDER! I do remember that, and remember chuckling at it and thinking it sounded a lot like marriage without the inherent concept of it being a romantic partnership and thinking that made sense.
no subject
no subject
I'm glad you found what I had to say at all interesting!
And yes, I am also a little in love with my Sisko icon.
no subject
I think it sad how behind the times the USA are with the issua of gay marriage compared to most other advanced countries.
On the other hand it seems to pale in comparison to that poor 13 year old girl being stoned to death for being a rape victim in Somalia.
America is really behind the times but thankfully not that far behind.
no subject
but also, civil partnerships were introduced for ANY 2 people living together to acquire legal rights equivalent to marriage - examples given included siblings living together, who would have a lower tax burden due to being able to move part of their taxable income so that if one was taxed at the upper rate and the other at the lower, they could both end up at the lower rate - this is something that previously was unavailable to anyone other than married couples.
no subject
no subject