One of the more interesting bits of political news lately has been that black voters overwhelmingly supported an outright ban on gay marriage in California. I consider this somewhat unfortunate, as I have always believed that simple fairness dictates that these couples, whatever your religious views, deserve the same protections the rest of us get.
Nevertheless I’m not surprised, as I think election victories like this are inevitable. The gay movement should have stayed out of the courts and fought in the democratic arena; their failure to do so, more than anything, has set them back at least a decade in their struggle for simple fairness and decency.
Eric Scheie has a thoughtful post on the matter, as well as related information on some sickeningly racist displays by some gay activists in response to overwhelming black opposition to gay marriage.
You know, the essential social conservatism of most black Americans just isn’t reflected in the Democratic Party; I suspect that once blacks start to feel that their other issues are properly addressed, they’ll be more likely to vote Republican. Your guess is as good as mine how long we’ll be waiting on that one though. Probably it’ll mirror moves into the suburbs.
{ 19 comments }
Dean wrote:
I have always believed that simple fairness dictates that these couples, whatever your religious views, deserve the same protections the rest of us get.
I agree with you, Dean, which is why I voted Yes on Prop 8.
Gay relationships in California are already afforded all the rights and privileges of marriage. Prop 8 didn’t aim to change that, and I would vote against any law which did.
But I also feel that changing the very definition of a word and tradition which has existed in most cultures for thousands of years is wrong. It’s especially wrong when the prime motivation is social acceptance, not justice. Homosexuals want to get "married," because that’s what everybody else does. But — in my opinion — this is simply impossible because of the nature of their relationship. Two men cannot get married because marriage is and always has been a contract between the two halves of humanity, men and women.
Now, if homosexuals want to start their own special sort of union then that’s great. But don’t try to alter something that’s been around as long as marriage has just because you want to feel accepted.
Jesse,
what you’re arguing for is a separate but equal institution. you’re associating marriage with the judeo-christian religious institution, but the term can’t be considered to be exclusive to that arrangement. the ship on that argument sailed as soon as government officials were given the ability to preside over a civil marriage contract. so i think that leaves two options. either abolish civil marriages, and reserve the term for religious institutions; or else provide equal protection to all citizens and grant civil marriages to any two willing adults.
Dean,
IIRC, Schwarzenegger’s stated reason for vetoing the gay marriage law ratified by the California legislature was that he thought it was a decision that was properly the courts’ to decide. So then it got brought to the courts and now you lay the blame for that on California gay rights groups?
I’ve always been in favor of getting government out of the marriage business. If the government wants to record marriages for certain reasons, such as tax preferences, that’s fine but you should not have to get government’s permission to marry, i.e. a marriage license, nor should government define what marriage is. Marriage was created by God and should be beyond the purview of government.
God also said murder is a sin. Should government stay out of that too?
I have an opinion about homosexuals. I have an opinion about polygamists, too, but neither matter for this discussion.
What I take issue with is your easy dismissal of one group’s deeply held ideology ("… whatever your religious views…") in favor of an existential pronouncement of what is ‘fair’ – with a seemingly casual disregard of known detriments.
Ask the CDC about suicide rates; drug use; domestic abuse; STDs; and depression to see which group turns up at the top of the list.
Human behavior has consequences which effect cultural cohesion, & societal sanity. History is replete with examples of these effects; beneficial & detrimental.
The majority of population has strongly held beliefs based upon this history of cultural cohesion, & societal sanity – much of it derived from ‘whatever your religious views’.
It cannot be discounted. That wouldn’t be ‘fair’.
Zach, you recall incorrectly. In March, 2000, voters overwhelmingly enacted Proposition 22, which was worded identically to Prop 8 but amended the Family Code instead of the Constitution. Courts can strike down voter initiatives but the Legislature can’t. It was against that backdrop (plus the fact that challenges to Prop 22 were already working their way through the courts) that Governor Schwarzenegger said that the matter should be decided by the voters or the courts, and not by the Legislature and the Governor. Since then the courts spoke, and after that, the people spoke again.
It’s worth noting that both legislative attempts to enact gay marriage could have been done constitutionally by repealing Prop 22 outright and submitting the matter to voters. The Legislature didn’t do that because they knew they would lose (and it wouldn’t have been close, either, as in this case a “yes” vote would have been in favor of gay marriage and a “no” vote against, and roughly 20% of the population routinely votes “no” on just about everything).
Xrlq’s last blog post..Sore Winners
xrlq,
i defer to your expertise on this one.
Prop 8 got about 52% of the vote. In 2000 Prop 22 that was ruled unconstitutional got 61% of the vote.
It is clear that younger voters support gay marriage, so the long term trend favors gay marriage. I expect there will be more propositions on this issue in California.
Prop 8 got about 52% of the vote. In 2000 Prop 22 that was ruled unconstitutional got 61% of the vote.
As has been pointed out in other articles, the "No" vote was almost certainly overinflated. Many Californians vote no on all propositions. Also, the wording and meaning of this particular prop was confusing. A "yes" vote meant "no" to gay marriage. More than a few of my politically aware friends weren’t sure which was which.
Also, the minority groups in California are going to keep rising, while the white majority will continue falling. Minorities are poorer, less educated and also more religious than Whites. They voted overwhelmingly for the amendment.
That does not bode well for gay marriage in this state.
It seems to me like we’re changing or have changed the meaning of the term "marriage".
I can’t really pin down the change. It does look to me like it’s tied to transient emotional responses.
Looking at my family tree, my ancestors for generations have shared the same distinctive characteristics. My ancestors were able to marry.
For some reason, the change seems to have left the post-boomers with my characteristics with great difficulty. I’m far from the only one having difficulty.
I don’t think it would be reasonable for me to go to court seeking an order to let me get married.
… or maybe I’m just whining because I can’t get married, either.
Also, the wording and meaning of this particular prop was confusing.
Right.
The entire text of Proposition 8 is (was) as follows:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Contrary to the silly explanations of Nancy Pelosi, the 5,425,000 voters that voted yes, are not dumber than a bag of hammers except the hispanics and the blacks according to our liberal experts.
Given the large and growing Latin population of California; given that the vast majority of Latin immigrants are Catholic; given that Catholics frown upon homosexuality, it is certainly not a ‘given’ that the next time around the vote would go the other way.
Mormons, too, have a higher than average birth rate.
I’d be willing to wager that for every child coming to a gay family, there are 1,000 Mormon children.
Florida, too, had a similar constitutional amendment (Amendment 2) voted on. It passed (i.e., banned gay marriages) by a vote of 63%-38%. The demographics aren’t the same, but a growing Latin population might have played a role as well.
John_B’s last blog post..Saudis Start to Reap Wild Oats
All and all it’s a lot of BS.
If it was first purposed as a gender neutral Civil union AKA marriage this would not have happened. Civil unions and contract marriages are on the horizon (in 15 20 30 years or so) but once again the knee jerk special interest groups on both sides ran head long in to the one constant that is being proved over and over. “YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE INTELLIGENCE MORALS OR CHARACTERâ€
The removal of Bride and Groom on the Marriage License forms and the replacement of them with Party A and Party B. I found very offensive and insulting to dyslexics everywhere. Further what about those who are more comfortable with number designations? 1 & 2 or 2 2.
As it were.
Was this about money? Oh yes mostly. Was this Lovely dovey sappy self indulgence a little. Was any of it intelligently and thoughtful discussed and laid out? NO. Why?
Because if you espouse any thought in disagreement to any LIBERAL idea no matter what that may be you are labeled as a &^%$&$&$ – *%*%&$&$. (Insert you liberal catch phases here.)
The ACLU champion of any and I mean ANY non conservative ideal have already filed suit so as always the shout goes out (DEFEND THE LEFT) formally know as defend the right (good guys and nice-ness)……………but no longer PC by Ms Pelosi and company.
I personally would like it to read (OFFEND THE LEFT) as I usually do on my own.
I have only been saying for, oh, about 10 or 15 years now, that having legislative protection for these folks is a good idea, but it was a huge, horrible mistake to try to get the courts to ram it down voters’ throats. I stand by that. Things like this are the result.
Let’s compare this to the Civil Rights Movement, which really began some time earlier but kicked into full gear in the 1950s and 1960s. Some sort of mass delusion has taken hold in a lot of people (on the left especially, but other places) that the most effective victories there came from historic court decisions.
They did not.
There were a few. The most significant decision from the courts was probably the decision to declare that "Separate But Equal" was a lie in the case of school segregation and was therefore not protecting the civil rights of all students. But let’s be clear: they didn’t decide that "separate but equal" was never allowed under any circumstances. Indeed, if they had, then all sorts of things would have been struck down, including such mundane things as separate bathrooms for men and women. The courts decided no such thing. They decided that specifically in the case of public schools, the "separate" was NOT truly "equal" and therefore was not allowed anymore. They did so after years of efforts by people to make the "but equal" part a reality, which the courts found had failed. It was not on any general principle that you can never have separation with equality before the law. Obviously, you can, and if the courts had found that the “but equal” part was really working they would have let it stand.
But in any case, regardless, during the civil rights era most of the most significant improvements in civil rights were NOT created by the courts. They were done primarily legislatively, and through Presidential orders. A very significant amount was also accomplished at the state and local government levels, as well. It is a myth to believe it was mostly the courts. It was certainly not.
To get people to change their minds, you have to persuade them, and the Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. King and others knew this all along and were very effective at doing so–and won many very impressive victories, MOSTLY through working through the everyday POLITICAL channels and NOT by showing up in court and demanding that they be given what they wanted. That’s really NOT what they did most of the time, although obviously they hailed the breakthroughs they got in court they were never dumb enough to rely mostly on the courts; indeed, they had a lot of setbacks in the courts that they got ahead on LEGISLATIVELY and through DEMOCRATIC MEANS.
The efforts to demand that the courts give them what they want hurt gay people badly. That many of them are too stubborn to acknowledge this really frustrates me, but I’ve given up even trying to explain this to most of them. You guys started by trying to strongarm the courts rather than convincing your neighbors and your legislators to support you, and voters didn’t like it much. Now we see the result, and it’s the voters you’re mad at. Counterproductive! Start by looking in the mirror and asking whether you didn’t make a serious miscalculation, and you’re likely to do better in the long run. Did you want to win, or did you just want to be angry and sulk?
Dean,
The problem with what you wrote is that it requires an honest look at the history of the civil rights movement and the role played by Republicans. That doesn’t fit the narrative.
"If it doesn’t fit The Narrative, it couldn’t possibly have happened."
/snark off
One problem with viewing things through too strong a narrative is that sometimes it conceals from you the very real location of your foot as you go blasting away.
Agreed, but with a twist: Cali’s domestic partnership law, which is not directly affected by the May ruling or by Proposition 8, draws very few substantive distinctions between married straight couples and registered gay domestic partnerships. In fact, this very advance of gay rights was used by the George court to justify its goofy decision. They might just as well have said “separate but equal is unacceptable, but separate and nothing approaching equal is A-O-K!” Like I said, Prop 8 won’t affect Cali’s domestic partnership law directly. It may, however, create some legal problems for gay couples who were previously domestic partnered, then got married (which AFAIK required them to surrender their domestic partnership), and now are probably neither. This is made worse still by a governor and AG who insist they are still married even though nothing in Proposition 8 itself suggests any such thing (and even though the opinions of said officials would be worthless when private parties sue each other on the issue in court).
In many other states the impact of these crazy court cases has been worse for gays, as the amendments in question have banned gay marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships alike.
Xrlq’s last blog post..Sore Winners
The problem with what you wrote is that it requires an honest look at the history of the civil rights movement and the role played by Republicans. That doesn’t fit the narrative.
How true.
TexasAg03′s last blog post..Obama Mandate? – I don’t know
Xrlq: Yeah, well that’s pretty consistent with what I believe–that history shows quite clearly that the courts have NEVER been the most reliable avenue for any form of civil rights agenda, no matter what your goals or how noble you may think them.
The people in the Civil Rights Movement KNEW THIS. Which is why they were happy to celebrate their victories in court, but they also had a long line of court LOSSES and they knew that they could never count on the courts alone; the courts were often their enemy, and it was often smarter to keep it out of the courts. Which is why they concentrated most of their efforts on the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and in public relations.
The gay rights movement has long seemed surly and sulky by comparison, thinking that they shouldn’t have to do this. They think their heroes are people like Martin Luther King, but they miss the fact that King spent most of his life working with state legislators, Governors, members of Congress, and Presidents, and he knew it would be a long fight and was prepared to commit to it.
He didn’t sulk and whine that he shouldn’t have to convince anybody of anything, that it was his moral right to just demand what he wanted.
Another tough issue.
Gays coming out of the closet, Â welcomed into society, allowed to live their lives with minimal amount of fear, maximum amount of civic and social participation — all a good thing. For it.
But, very weary of the "movement gays." The public school system has already been destroyed by the left. The folks running it are much more concerned with left-wing ideology, then teaching civic duty, let alone readin’, writin’ and rithmetic’.
All of my rich left-wing neighbors send their kids to private school — they love public schools in theory, but in practice, Hell No! Typical hypocrites.
Whats the connection between schools and gay rights, you ask?
Well, the most effective Prop 8 Ad was when they noted that once gay marriage gets elevated to legal status on par with traditional marriage, it will be pushed hard in the public schools. "Husband" and "wife" will be slowly be purged by the textbooks, we’ll all be "partners" and "spouses". The culural pustsch against religious folks, married folks, and others who aren’t yet on board with homosexuals or their lifestyles will be profound and disturbing to some
Many sober, responsible adults aren’t quite willing to make this move yet, aren’t quite willing to accept Horse and Buggy status in a new world full of shiny automobiles.
Also, many sober, responsible adults who have seen prior epic cultural fights (abortion) think the country has gotten much worse, much more insenstive, much more violent, because of it.Â
It ain’t hate, either. That’s why societies vote on important issues, to try and sort it out and abide by the results. Massive, loud demonstrations against the Mormom Church by disappointed voters don’t help.
Â
I didn’t see too many protests at Mosques – Gee, I wonder why?
The activist gay movement needs to take a breath, re-evaluate their strategy and tactics and obtain a little bit of calm.
HBÂ
Comments on this entry are closed.