A video from the children and spouses of the 18,000 same-sex couples that would be forcibly divorced by the passage of Prop 8. Cry? Ain’t enough Kleenexes.
Thanks to joe.my.god for alerting us.
The message from the group behind the video: ”Watch the video and sign our letter to the state Supreme Court. Tell the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8 and let loving, committed couples marry. DEADLINE: Valentine’s Day.”
Amen.
The Advocate had a potentially interesting cover story about African-American nay-saying to gay civil rights. I say “potentially” because the story punted on its own premise. You have to go two pages into the story before they actually say anything about the subject. It’s yet another example of the magazine’s ongoing struggle with publishing bulimia–Binging on a delicious topic, then throwing it up before it’s fully digested.
But enough about why the magazine’s so thin you could mistake it for a brochure. Truth is, it’s a very provocative title. Some excerpts:
“Gay is the new black in only one meaningful way. At present we are the most socially acceptable targets for the kind of casual hatred that American society once approved for habitual use against black people…
Except in a few statistically insignificant cases (the gay kid who happens to be the child of gay parents), being gay begins with recognizing your difference from the people with whom you have your earliest, most intimate relationships….
Our oppression, by and large, is nowhere near as extreme as blacks’, and we insult them when we make facile comparisons between our plights. Gay people have more resources than blacks had in the 1960s. We are embedded in the power structures of every institution of this society. While it is illegal in this country to fire an African-American without cause and in most places it’s still legal to fire a gay person for being gay, we are more likely to have informal means of recourse than black people have. Almost all gay people have the choice of passing. Very few black people have that option…”
Here’s the problem: While these are all good points, does it matter? Is black support for discrimination acceptable because there are differences between us? Methinks the writer punted. Instead of holding that part of the African-American population that supported Prop 8 accountable, he gave them a pass. It’s almost like he’s apologizing to them: ”Well, you know, we’re DIFFERENT, so you don’t have a moral obligation to stop what was done to you.”
By holding them accountable I don’t mean BLAME. I mean holding a mirror up. The way MLK did to that part of white America that objected to black civil rights. Mirrors have a way of double-checking our self-perceptions. If I were the editors of the Advocate, I would have put an African-American clutching his Yes on 8 ballot on the cover, looking into a mirror, and seeing George Wallace smiling back.
I know that many of you can’t shake a sense of déjà vu since your vote—you know, that feeling that you’ve witnessed or been part of something before. Certainly, your vote had an eerie metaphorical familiarity—someone standing at the doorway of a great institution, protecting it from people who shouldn’t be there. But if the rest seems a little fuzzy it’s probably because you’re confused about the role you played.
See, you thought you were God’s warrior defending the institution of marriage from gay people. But really, you were George Wallace blocking the entrance to the University of Alabama.
In 1963, Governor George Wallace stood at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in a symbolic attempt to block two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from enrolling at the school. He used the same arguments to keep you out of school that you used to keep us out of marriage. He used the same logic. He even used the same language.
I’m sure many of you are looking for a way to shake that awful feeling you’ve revisited a shameful part of history. I think there is, but it requires going further into that awful feeling, further into that history.
As many of you know, George Wallace, one of the biggest racists who ever lived, at some point, stopped, and saw your humanity. At some point he stopped and thought, “I have no right to take your rights away.” At some point he stopped and said, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.” And devoted his life to undoing his deeds.
My guess is that if you want that unsettling feeling to go away, you probably need to complete your experience of deja vu and act more like the guy who once stood in the doorway of a great institution to stop you from coming in.
Sincerely,
Everyone Who’s Been Locked Out for No Good Reason
I figured churches and other religious and conservative organizations know a lot about saving marriages because they deal with so much divorce. Knowing that these good folks would not spend over $25 million to change California’s State Constitution to prevent gay people from marrying unless it truly threatened the institution of marriage, I figured they made a list of the Top 10 reasons couples get divorced and it looked something like this:
1. Some guy they don’t know, who lives in a city they’ve never been to, marries a guy they’ve never met.
2. Infidelity
3. Domestic Abuse
4. Financial issues
5. Child rearing differences
6. Substance Abuse
7. Sexual Incompatibility
8. Religious and cultural conflicts
9. Lack of Communication
10. Boredom
So, you see, spending $25 million on Proposition 8 makes sense. A whole lot more than spending it on counseling centers that offer programs to deal with the bottom nine on this list.
I mean, you gotta start at the top and work your way down, right?
On November 4, Californians will vote to amend the State Constitution, which currently allows the right of same-sex couples to marry.
There will be no winners in this referendum. Whether the proposition succeeds or fails, we’ll all be diminished by it. That always happens when one group of people has the authority to take rights away from another.
In California, gay couples have a right to marry. Prop 8 isn’t about preventing people from enjoying that right, it’s going to the unprecedented step of taking it away. It’s the equivalent of voting to take away a woman’s right to vote.
It’s too bad we can’t get online and pull up a moral Mapquest. We could input the starting location (the corner of Rule and Law) and the ending location (the corner of Playing and God). We’d click the “Get Directions” button and see the quickest route: Proposition 8.
Voting to take people’s rights away circumvents the rule of law. Actually, it does more than that—it transforms the law into a tool for persecution. Which may sound fine, if you believe the persecuted pose a danger. But who gets to decide that? You? Me? What if we disagree? Majority rule? But what if you’re not in the majority?
Here’s the exact wording on Proposition 8: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The problem with “letting the voters decide” on that simple sentence is that once we get used to deciding who deserves a right and who doesn’t, once we get a taste of that kind of power, we’ll want to exercise it again and again. Where would we stop? Imagine if you will, a Proposition 80:
“Only marriage between a Christian man and a Christian woman is valid or recognized in California.”
. . .
Part of the reason so many can’t see the folly of Prop 8 is the belief that the vote is about preserving the sanctity of marriage. It’s not. Imagine yourself at the entrance of a dying man’s hospital room. He doesn’t want to die alone. His lover is in the room. You’re voting on the right to throw him out.
Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from getting a marriage license or two men from registering at Bloomingdale’s. It’s not. Imagine yourself at an orphanage with an eight-year old girl nobody wants. She found a couple who’ll love and take care of her. The papers are signed. You’re voting on the right to leave her in the orphanage.
Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from entering into a committed relationship or two men from filing joint tax returns. It’s not. Imagine a lonely 70-year-old woman who can stay in her home because she’s receiving spousal death benefits. You’re voting on the right to cancel her checks.
Is that what being an American is about? Voting to take away other people’s rights? Are we going to turn the American Constitution into American Idol? As long as the contestants amuse us we’ll give them another chance?
This isn’t just about gay marriage. It’s about codifying the ability of one group of people to punish another by taking away their rights. That’s why it’s imperative that this amendment fail– so it doesn’t continue as an option to be used against others. Vote No on 8. Not because you’re for gay marriage, but because you don’t believe you have the right to stand in the entrance of that hospital room and reverse a dying man’s decision, because you don’t believe you have the right to keep that little girl from loving parents, because you don’t believe you have the right to cancel a widower’s checks.
But most of all, vote no because you don’t believe other people should have the power to take away your own rights.
