Prop 8 in California

November 5, 2008 by Phil Barron · · · Post a comment ⋅

We yield the floor to Andrew Sullivan:

Heart-breaking news this morning: a terribly close vote has stripped gay couples in California of their right to marry. The geographic balance shows that the inland parts of California voted for the Proposition and the coast and urban areas voted against it.

Yes, it is heart-breaking: it is always hard to be in a tiny minority whose rights and dignity are removed by a majority. It’s a brutal rebuke to the state supreme court, and enshrinement in California’s constitution that gay couples are now second-class citizens and second class human beings. Massively funded by the Mormon church, a religious majority finally managed to put gay people in the back of the bus in the biggest state of the union. The refusal of Schwarzenegger to really oppose the measure and Obama’s luke-warm opposition didn’t help. And cruelly, a very hefty black turnout, as feared, was one of the factors that defeated us, according to the exit poll. Today this is one of the solaces to a hard right and a Republican party that sees gay people as the least real of Americans.

But I realize I am not shattered. My own marriage exists and is real without the approval of others. One day soon, it will be accepted by a majority. And this initiative in California can and will be reversed, as California’s initiatives are much more fluid than those in other states; and the younger generation is overwhelmingly - 2 to 1 - in our favor. The tide of history is behind us; but we will have to work harder to educate people about our lives and loves and humanity.

I live in Missouri, whose good citizens saw fit to enshrine this kind of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the state constitution four years ago. What happened yesterday in California is as vindictive as what happened in my own state - and as futile. The recognition of simple equality that eventually undermined anti-miscegenation laws - for which my wife and I are understandably grateful - will bring the basic human right of marriage to gay couples, and one day we will look back in bafflement on a time when this was considered an issue.

But it’s going to take more time, and more words, and more work - and less caution from leaders who claim hope and inclusion as part of their mandates. President-elect Obama: take note.

Filed Under: Blogged
Tagged: California, Civil Rights, Gay and Lesbian Issues, Politics

Similar posts:
Terminating the truth
Wanda Sykes is teh awesome
History can wait
Black enough for you, apparently
“Bellwether”

Comments

4420CommentsProp+8+in+California2008-11-05+20%3A10%3A54Phil+Barron to “Prop 8 in California”

Bitty on November 5th, 2008 10:55 pm

I know it’s not popular to say this in some circles, but I can understand why Obama handled gay issues gingerly.

One cannot effect change if one can’t get past the bigots at the ballot box. And what sank Kerry last time was this very red herring: Look! Over there! It’s Adam and Steve!

For the same reason, we may not see as much from Obama on this score as we might like in term 1 — because he has to get to term 2.

But he may surprise me.

I think it’s going to take the Supreme Court* to straighten all this out — some gays married, some not. Some married in one state one day, but not eligible for marriage the next.

And we may get a sane Supreme Court out of this election, so yay!

*Unless our Democratic legislature turns out to be braver than I expect. Even then, we’d need a sympathetic Supreme Court to keep gay marriage legislation from being overturned.
Phil Barron on November 5th, 2008 11:59 pm

One cannot effect change if one can’t get past the bigots at the ballot box.

Which is precisely the realpolitik you’d likely get from Obama or his campaign advisers, and there’s a lot to that.

Still, I’d argue that it wasn’t Adam and Steve that brought John Kerry down, even with anti-gay discourse being all the rage at the time. Given GOP culture-baiting at the time, it’s a credit that he came as close as he did. Minus the Swift Boaters - or a more effective reply to their bile - I think Kerry would have succeeded despite the anti-gay red herring.

Obama, however, had the benefit of a stronger campaign and a unique identity and position in politics. I have to think that if anyone could have - and should have, given hope! and inclusion! and such - made any kind of stand in defense of this civil right, it was Obama. The times are right for such a stance - is this really what should concern us now? - as the failure of various smears hurled against Obama indicate.

Obama’s caution in this regard, as with his studied distance from Muslims in this country, troubles me. That is to say, it pisses me off. I don’t know that I believe, as some folks do, that “one governs as one campaigns,” but I also don’t know that I should put much stock in “get me elected, then we’ll see,” either.

I do see that I need to study up on this stuff, though.
Bitty on November 7th, 2008 11:53 am

And what sank Kerry last time was this very red herring: Look! Over there! It’s Adam and Steve!

What I should have said was that this helped sink Kerry. Some people who might not have come to the polls otherwise did so to beat back the “evil” gays.

I’m listening to NPR right now, and during the “domestic wrap up” hour of the Diane Rehm show, a female guest voiced better than I ever could what has been my observation on gay rights issue. Unfortunately, I didn’t memorize her language, so this will be in my own halting words, but it was along the lines of the Prop 8 setback as following the “traditional” civil rights trajectory — a few steps forward, a setback, forward again, but a little further, a setback — and despite the setbacks, the net trajectory is forward.

I had a strange high school history teacher senior year. Actually, I don’t know if he WAS my “history” teacher. I don’t know what subject we were supposed to be studying, beyond social studies! We never read anything, we wrote one paper all year, and each class session was a discussion of current events, which were a big deal then: Vietnam etc. (although he did spend a few weeks teaching us how to fill out tax returns). Since we weren’t used to being educated that way (1970-71, after all), only a handful of students ever spoke, so day after day we sat and listened to him and his handful have a discussion. At 17, I was somewhere between cowed and bored. Today, I’d be right in there. I learned two things from him: how to fill out a tax return, and the one thing he said all the damn time: the pendulum always swings back. At the time I’m not sure I understood the difference between conservative and liberal, but I understood the idea that whatever the prevailing attitude was, it would eventually go “too far” and be jerked back the other way.

However, now that I’ve lived more than three and a half decades past that class, I’ve concluded that yes, this is true and no, it isn’t. The pendulum swings back and forth, but never returns to its original position. The net trajectory is forward.

Back to Obama, he did get modestly more brave in the final days of the campaign in his message of inclusion (Yes, we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort - black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, disabled or not. ). Notice he didn’t touch religion there at all! Too hot button! This might be the bridge to where he goes from here.

I do see that I need to study up on this stuff, though.

I’m not sure what you would study, besides the future! There’s where the final answer lies.
I guess I’ll bow out with one final word. Well, two: Lyndon Johnson. Very few ever imagined that he as president would be the person who would become a passionate champion of civil rights. (To this day, I’m not sure how many people know about this, Great Society notwithstanding. People remember him for Vietnam.)

So, let’s study the future. I’m game.
Bitty on November 7th, 2008 2:59 pm

I’ve been thinking about this all afternoon, a’feared that I never really made my point, which is that while I don’t agree with Obama’s tiptoeing around gay rights (and, as you added, acknowledging, for pity’s sake, Muslims), I understand why he would be careful.

But then I see my original first line, where I specifically said “I understand.” All that was missing was the second part, “although I don’t agree.”

Anyway, all done now.
Phil Barron on November 7th, 2008 3:58 pm

I’ve been thinking about this all afternoon, a’feared that I never really made my point, which is that while I don’t agree with Obama’s tiptoeing around gay rights (and, as you added, acknowledging, for pity’s sake, Muslims), I understand why he would be careful.

That was indeed what I took away from your earlier comment, so no worries.

When I said I needed to study up, I was thinking specifically of the legal/judicial aspects of these propositions and amendments. It’s one thing to “feel” a certain way about them, but I should like a clearer understanding of standing law and court reasonings in states where same-sex marriage has been contested. Which means (sigh) more reading.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Videoed: From an iReporter at CNN.com, it's...Snow Dogs! That is, dogs playing in freshly-fallen powder in Sioux City. It's a sweet video with jaunty background music, and it will take your mind off of irritating politicians and your diminishing 401K and such. So watch, already.

Recent Posts

Prop 8 in California

Comments

Recent Posts

Commented

Advertisement

Prop 8 in California

Comments

Bettie says:

Sponsored

Recent Posts

Commented

Advertisement