Still so far away...
On one level, I find it incredible that a state in which 61% of the voters decided to elect a black man president also decided to pass Prop. 8. Why is it okay to break the racial barrier, but not okay to allow gay people access to the same kinds of rights we give everyone else? What really gets me is the way the Yes on 8 campaign was run - essentially threatening people that if they didn't vote for Prop. 8, the whole moral fabric of society would collapse.
Their children would be "taught" gay marriage in schools. (In much the same way schools "teach" straight marriage, I suppose, by books and videos and classroom sessions mentioning that when people grow up and they love each other very much, they get married.) The institution of marriage would be threatened. (Because two gay people marrying each other prevents straight people from getting married.) That traditional values would be threatened. (But if we stuck with "traditional" Biblical values, we'd still be exchanging camels as dowry and condoning polygamy.)
In ten or fifteen or twenty years, my children are going to ask me why it is that people in my generation could manage set race aside but couldn't let go of homophobic fears and hatreds. And I won't have an answer for them.
Their children would be "taught" gay marriage in schools. (In much the same way schools "teach" straight marriage, I suppose, by books and videos and classroom sessions mentioning that when people grow up and they love each other very much, they get married.) The institution of marriage would be threatened. (Because two gay people marrying each other prevents straight people from getting married.) That traditional values would be threatened. (But if we stuck with "traditional" Biblical values, we'd still be exchanging camels as dowry and condoning polygamy.)
In ten or fifteen or twenty years, my children are going to ask me why it is that people in my generation could manage set race aside but couldn't let go of homophobic fears and hatreds. And I won't have an answer for them.
Labels: Prop. 8
posted by Bekki at 10:55 AM
18 Comments:
Every single ethnic group was either against or evenly split except for African-Americans who, according to the CNN exit polls, supported Prop 8 69-31.
So one can speculate that were Obama not on the ticket, Prop 8 might not have passed. Ironic, and sad.
11:34:
I don't think you can pin the passage of Prop 8 on blacks alone. True, the exit polls showed that blacks supported Prop 8 by a large margin, and that margin helped pass Prop 8. But support for Prop 8 among the other racial groups definitely helped as well. In fact, it appears that among non-blacks, support seemed to be evenly divided.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
12:02,
The link you just gave us completely undermines your argument, to the extent that is shows that blacks were overwhelming supporters of Prop 8. And your statement that support was 'evenly divided' among non-blacks is totally wrong based on the data you provided - some groups supported and some did not.
That said, you're probably correct that the passage can't be placed on the backs of blacks alone - I don't think they made up a large enough proportion of the electorate. I think one can, however, be upset and saddened by the overwhelming support they provided as a group.
I think the premise of this post is wrong. If you look at the polling on this, young people overwhelmingly rejected this proposition (about 60-40) and old people overwhelmingly supported it (about 60-40 for our grandparents, 55-45 for our parents). It's not our generation; it's the ones that came before us.
12:02 here,
All I'm saying is that you still have consider that nearly half of white voters supported Prop 8 (at least according to the CNN poll). What about them? Without them, Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Basically, you're unnecessarily racializing the issue.
Also, I consider margins within 3% of 50% to be "evenly divided," but that's just me.
I am very sad to see California go "yes" on Proposition 8. In a way it is ironic that it bothers me as much as it does, because as a straight and non-married fellow I have little at stake in the issue itself. I can think of many reasons to be disturbed however, as a future lawyer who, silly as it sounds, believes in America. Proposition 8 amended the state Constitution to define marriage as woman/man only, which (to me) is tantamount to using the Constitution to strip away civil liberties and individual rights. As a philosophical matter, I believe constitutions should be sheltering documents that encourage inclusion, not divisive tools for exclusion. That the voters here found a consensus in creating an instrument for prejudice shows, I suppose, that have a long way to go. I suppose the anti-gay marriage folks see the amendment as sheltering and protecting marriage from some sort of pollution, but obviously I do not agree.
I would like to point out a couple of things:
1. This amendment did not, as the original post says, prevent "access to the same kinds of rights we give everyone else." Gay couples that are joined in a civil union are afforded the exact same rights as a married couple in California.
2. I agree with Patrick's statement that the State Constitution should be a sheltering document, insofar as it is furthering protections granted by the Federal Constitution. However, as state supreme courts have held time and again, marriage is one of the main issues left to the States through the police powers. Because of this, I think it is necessary for the State to spell out how it is defined which, to some extent, must draw lines.
With the support it received throughout the State, it is difficult to argue with democracy. In fact, it seems that the proposition system was set up for just such a circumstance: the California Supreme Court makes a ruling under the State Constitution, the people disagree with it, and the State Constitution is amended.
That said, I, too, am ashamed of California, a state that embodies tolerance, to be so bigoted.
I think you have to keep in mind the context. Prop 8 became an issue in reaction to 4 Supreme Court justices' views. The ballot initative process remains a powerful counter-countermajoritarian tool for the people to reassert their power against perceived judicial overreaching. Not that this actually motivated the electorate, but food for thought. We saw a similar thing with Prop 209: the people did not want racial preferences to be a part of state law, reacting to the enlightened but unpopular practice of the UC Regents. While it is unfortunate that this will hinder gays' struggle for equality, it is a reminder that the progress of social change is much slower than, and hostile to, administrative or judicial fiat.
For the record, I also voted against Prop. 8. I don't see any rational basis for the state to marry certain individuals and not others; I also don't like the idea of constitutions limiting rights, not expanding them.
That being said--I'm not sure I agree with Bekki's implication that the gay rights movement is conceptually identical the civil rights movement. Apparently many in the African American community (including civil rights leaders) also disagree.
It's true that Prop. 8 proponents used hyperbolic language. Then again, so did opponents. Remember Samuel Jackson's Japanese concentration camp comparison?
Finally, what's with your narrow-minded condemnation of polygamy, Bekki? Why do adult polygamists in consensual relationships threaten the institution of marriage? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as to why our generation can't let go if its anti-polygamist fears and hatred.
Also--Above The Law is reporting that the ACLU of Northern California is filing suit against Proposition 8. They are arguing that "[a]ny measure that changes the underlying principles of the Constitution must first be approved by the state legislature before reaching a voter's ballot."
Does anyone want to comment on this? I did a quick look at the California Constitution, and I didn't see anything in the initiatives section mentioning such a requirement. Any thoughts?
I have a thought. It's based on my Cal Con Law class:
"Good fucking luck."
Not to be a debbie downer, but there isn't any viable way to shoehorn this one into the "underlying principles" of the cal constitution.
We went over this a bit in California Con Law. Basically, the California Constitution recognizes two ways of changing the state constitution: amendment and revision.
While the definition of "revision" is not exactly clear, what is clear is that a revision is of a more substantial character (either quantitatively or qualitatively) than an amendment. Voter initiatives are not allowed, under the California Constitution, to be revisions.
So the ACLU's basic argument is that Prop 8 constitutes a revision, rather than an amendment. It's basically the only argument we've got left to bring to the California Supreme Court, and it is, unfortunately, probably a loser.
I think these elected judges are very unlikely to overturn the will of 52% of California voters (even if those voters are bigots). And to my knowledge the court has never overturned a voter initiative on grounds of being a revision rather than an amendment (although I believe it has done so with regard to revisions which have gone through the Legislature as if they were amendments).
But liberalism always prevails right? So I guess we'll just have to wait for those older voters to die off, then we can bring a repealing initiative.
Caley, the Cal. Supreme Court has overturned proposition state constitutional amendments for being revisions. One case was Raven v. Deukmejian where a proposition constitutional amendment enacted a sweeping crime revision that categorically limited the rights of criminal defendants under the Cal. Constitution to be no more than what the Federal Constitution protected. The court said that because it effected so many changes in so many different distinct rights it constituted a revision.
Other cases invalidating the amendments as improper revisions were Livermore v. Waite and McFadden v. Jordan.
\
The problem is, prop 8 is clearly not a revision. It is quantitatively small: only a handful of words. It is qualitatively small: only one right is involved (and even then a substantially equal right exists).
Unfortunately, the only likely fix is SCOTUS.
The CA Supreme Court's decision did more than legalize gay marriage, it declared sexual orientation a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny. Prop 8 amends the constitution to state that only marriage between a man and woman is valid and recognized. But doesn't that still leave any other discrimination based on homosexuality subject to strict scrutiny? It's as if following Brown v. Board of Ed, the US amended the constitution to maintain segregation in schools, but other types of discrimination would still have to pass the Brown test. If so, then can anyone think of other anti-gay discrimination this holding can be applied to?
For once, I agree with Carbolic. If you going to allow gay marriage, which I absolutely think you should, you can't argue against polygamy, because the argument is that consenting adults should have the right to marry. The whole point is that people can't limit people's rights because we are uncomfortable with their actions.
Patrick, you wrote, "As a philosophical matter, I believe constitutions should be sheltering documents that encourage inclusion, not divisive tools for exclusion."
I have to respectfully disagree. A constitution is a framework for a government, no more, no less. The U.S. Constitution is full of "divisive" "exclusion." It limits various jobs to people of specific ages. Those people have to be Americans -- no foreigners allowed. The original constitution contained odious provisions for counting votes.
Now, change your statement to "'bills of rights'should encourage inclusion," then maybe I can get on board. But broadly speaking, a constitution is much more about the government's relationship with itself than it about the government's relationship with an individual.
That's totally, totally fair and correct. I am happy to make those changes.
For me, the reason that the issue of the large proportion of blacks who supported prop 8 is troubling is that I simply don't understand how a group of people who experienced such hatred and discrimination for so long can choose to pass that along to another group. Hell, interracial marriages were once not allowed. I just don't get it (well, I do get it, I think it has more to do with evangelical religion than anything, but still). So while I'm sure that in terms of numbers, whites are just as much, if not more, to blame for prop 8 passing, we've come to expect that. Not the case for blacks.
Just my two cents.
Post a Comment
<< Home