Proposition 8 (and those other states that banned gay marriage).

[beccatoria]

...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.

Comments

[heyiya.livejournal.com]

Yes, what zepooka said. The differentiation we have the the UK between 'civil partner' and 'spouse' is actually a big part of what gay marriage campaigners are fighting against: so that the rights attaching to same-sex and opposite-sex marriages can't be separated. In the US where politics are less centralized that has more potential knock-on effects in the UK.

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!

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am - to some degree - aware of the difference and importance of "marriage" versus "civil partnership". I recall an issue in the UK where a Canadian couple wanted to get their Canadian marriage recognised in the UK as a marriage rather than a Civil Partnership, though I think that failed. Though I do believe that an extension of equal legal rights is a very important step forward and that at least covers the important practical issues even if it doesn't create an environment of absolute equality/free of homophobia.

I think another reason why it's different in the US is, as zepooka mentions, the way States legislate these issues for themselves. So equal rights in your home state do not extend to equal rights from your nation, which is very problematic.

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

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>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.)

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

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

It's an idea I like too. Perhaps it partly stems from being an only child and physically a long way from my family for most of my life so I wasn't so close to them. The fact I'm married to someone who by choice and necessity isn't close to his family, our perception of importance is rather more stressed on our friends - the people we choose - than necessarily 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.