The votes have been counted, and Californians have amended the state's constitution to overturn the state Supreme Court's decision granting same-sex marriage rights.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
This is important as a matter of law because it binds the State Supreme Court, which doesn't have the authority to declare the constitution itself unconstitutional. Until and unless voters in California go to the polls again to change the state constitution to permit same-sex marriage, gay marriage is null and void in California.
Several things to be said:
1. Don't gloat over this. While I would have supported Prop 8 had I been a Californian, because I do not think there exists a right to same-sex marriage and I fear for the religious liberty implications of constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, I recognize that this is a tremendous blow to good men and women who disagree. It seems to me to be unseemly, even cruel, to rub salt in their wounds.
2. Barack Obama's candidacy made this win by the Prop 8 folks possible. Black voters went for Prop 8 by a margin of 9 to 1. Hispanics split, and whites voted against it. Without such a huge black turnout, it probably wouldn't have passed.
3. Most importantly, this result shows the strategic risk of trying to carry out a social revolution via the courts, without consulting the people. I don't doubt that barring some unforeseen cataclysm, same-sex marriage is going to be the law of the land in my lifetime. If you look at the actuarial tables and the demographic charts, it's clear that younger voters accept it. Had gay activists in California pursued a gradualist strategy building democratic support for same-sex marriage measures incrementally, they would be well on their way to getting what they want. Even though I'm against gay marriage, I could live with compromise legislation that erected a zone of protection around religious liberty. I suspect you could built a workable majority of voters who'd support something like that.
But by appealing to the courts to impose something as radical as same-sex marriage, something that has never in the history of human society existed, they invited this backlash. Now, traditional marriage has been constitutionalized, and same-sex couples are worse off than before, because they only way they can get marriage now is by amending the state constitution. It was a foolish strategy, and if the US Supreme Court should in the next decade or so discover a same-sex marriage right in the US Constitution, there will swiftly arise a movement to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Yes, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the Senate in 2005, but I think that's because the idea of court-imposed gay marriage was an abstract threat. In California, it was a reality, and that appears to have galvanized voters.
4. I expect that the anger among the gay community and their supporters over this result will make rational discussion of the matter impossible, at least for a time. But what I would like to see is an honest reckoning over why Prop 8 won, something that goes beyond, "They hate us! They hate us!" If you blame it all on bigotry, that doesn't require you to think about other reasons why people voted for Prop 8 -- like, for example, resentment over something as radical as same-sex marriage being imposed by a judicial elite.
Think about it in another context. It's 2002, and you passionately support going to war in Iraq. Your neighbor does not. If you said, "Well, he's nothing but a lousy appeaser!", it might give you an emotional charge to disdain your neighbor, but you have not listened to him, or tried to imagine why he opposes war with Iraq. He might just be a lousy appeaser. But maybe he has other reasons, reasons that you may not agree with, but which are serious, substantive and rational. How would you know if you decide at the outset that no possible opposition to your point of view can be either sane or morally licit?
Nor does it invite self-criticism over your own side's tactics -- like, for example, the role played by that preening jackass Gavin Newsom. Look at this, for example:
Even one of Andrew Sullivan's readers, a woman who supports gay marriage, wrote to him to talk about how Newsom's public arrogance was hurting the cause. People don't like being told by slicks like Newsom that they don't have any say in what's going to become of a fundamental institution of society. Until gay activists contend with the risk in pursuing their idea of equality through the courts without having first won a social consensus, they're going to set themselves up for the prospect of a crushing failure like this.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Jelperman, Jefferson and others supported such as an idea, to an extent, as a libertarian philosophical principle, they never thought it was possible to enshrine it in Law! How could you? You're arguing that everyone has a right to do whatever they want so long as they're not hammering their neighbor's head in w/a hammer. You're arguing effectively that there be NO LAW. It's silly and ignorant of American history to say the founders supported such a thing. Moreover, it's logically impossible. Take gay marriage. After it was (unconstitutionally) created in MA., it had to be applied in law. Catholic Charities could no longer stay in the adoption business, because they were told they MUST place adoptees w/homosexual men and lesbians. OBVIOUSLY, their "rights" (as you are interpreting the founders) have now been obliterated; they wanted to place newborns w/adoptees they deemed fit, they now can't. Assuming the founders believed you could apply such an anarchic libertarian idea into the Law just tells us how little you really understand the founders. (Or the law)
Again, celticdragon, you are not correctly interpreting what i said. I don't know the reasoning of the opinion of LovingvVa. off top of my head; I'm saying IT WAS ALWAYS unconstitutional to have anti-miscegenation laws. THat is, at least, debateable, cause as nightstalker and i have both said, "marriage" is not an explicit right in the text of Constit., it is a traditional "right" that had been exercised prior to founding. Exercised by whom? By unions of MEN & WOMEN! Saying the court "allowed marriages that had previously been banned!" shows me you support the FALSE idea that courts can CHANGE the law. They can't. They can CORRECTLY interpret the law; in this case apply the principle of colorblindedness implicit, i'm arguing, in the Constit. In Loving, they (or at least, they should have, again, lots of court decisions are right result w/bad, wrong, illogical reasoning. Look At BrownvBoard of Ed.) were maintaining interracial bans on marriage WERE unconstitutional. In that decision, in the future, and in the past, since the founding. THey were correcting that injustice, BY interpreting the Constit. PROPERLY. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts supreme courts have/are doing no such thing; they are unconstitutionally changing the definition of marriage, and completely misapplying (which left-wing judges do constantly) the principle of equal application of law. Denton above is correct; every one already HAS ability to marry someone of opposite sex-that is the correct application of principle equal access to law. Changing definition of marriage MUST be done legislatively.
One last thing. Lots of people here keep repeating the idea that 'they don't care what religious/traditionalist people think of them'; they want the rights they're entitled to. My own experience tells me this is patently false. Among plenty of homosexuals i know, many, perhaps most agree w/notion of homosexual marriage, but some don't. Ones who don't are overwhelmingly Republican-voting libertarian type people who couldn't care less that I, as a Catholic conservative, don't approve of their sexual habits. We are friendly because we share interests, like each other, etc, etc, same reasons any people have in friendships. They don't NEED MY APPROVAL, or the approval of majority of Americans to say that their "marriages" of family relationships/setups are O.K. They ALREADY LIVE the way hetero marriages do, and honestly admit so. The others, like Andrew Sullivan for example, deny there are such people, and insist they are persecuted beyond the comprehension of normal hetero Americans. That's because what they REALLY want is not gay marriage or any specific change in law. What they want, what they are loudly DEMANDING, without specifically saying so, is APPROVAL for their sexual behavior. And that says to me that they are much LESS comfortable with themselves and the decisions they make than the libertarian types. They define themselves almost entirely BY their sexual orientation, and this is what convinces me they are much less certain about the rightness of that orientation and their own behavior. Regular traditionally-minded Americans recognize this, and that is why they resent this political campaign to change (and yes, diminish if not destroy) the institution of marriage.
"Jelperman, Jefferson and others supported such as an idea, to an extent, as a libertarian philosophical principle, they never thought it was possible to enshrine it in Law!"
Oh, so that's why they DID enshrine it into law in the form of the Ninth Amendment.
=============================================================
"How could you? You're arguing that everyone has a right to do whatever they want so long as they're not hammering their neighbor's head in w/a hammer. You're arguing effectively that there be NO LAW. "
Thank you for proving once again that logic is for right-wingers what garlic is for vampires. The idea that the state has no business meddling in the marriage arrangements of citizens unless there is proof of real harm (kidnapping the bride, for example) means that the government needs to butt out. It does NOT mean anarchy or an absence of law. If I want to marry a woman (or man) because they have lots of money and I'm tired of working for a living, it's no concern of yours. If you think it "cheapens" your marriage then I say your marriage was worthless to begin with since it's tarnished by the marriages of others.
Nice All-or-Nothing Fallacy, though.
I am deeply opposed to Proposition 8. I find it to be offensive on the deepest level of humanity in the United States. I am expected to work hard, pay my taxes, support my country, etc. the exact same things asked of those against marriage equality. HOWEVER! I am not allowed the same rights, lets be honest...I am not allowed to use the same word for my relationship because it is special to other people and they do not want to share. Sure, civil unions are great, here in California we get so many of the same benefits as the heterosexuals. But the vehemence of some people to insist that I am different is what is offensive. This is offensive because it is based on a valuation of sexuality. The undertext is that I am inferior and dangerous. I do all the same things and for the most part live an identical life to heterosexual people and I expect to be treated the same and provided the equality promised to ALL citizens of the United States.
Of course this is mainly about equality! I don't know if I will ever get married, I haven't met someone I want to marry yet but I want to know that I can, that I am valued the same way in the legal documents of the place I am asked to support every day of my life.
The fact that people want to isolate me and differentiate makes me want it even more, to support my community. You may be unaware but if you had any inkling of the emotional and psychological issues the majority of the queer community must face due to the differentiation and hurtful actions of "pro-family" people that unfortunately raise us, you too would want to be equal. I hope NO child will ever have to rationalize and explain the atrocious events I dealt with growing up. They are told they are bad and wrong and inappropriate and unlovable and inferior and ill and dirty and demonic and going to hell. Most gay people are told this at some point, usually at a young age, by someone hoping to keep them from becoming gay, but they already are and now they have just forced a child to try to understand a lot of complex philosophical questions and most likely made them too scared to ask for an explanation. Well guess what my friends, that has lasting effects on self-worth and development of a balanced self. At some point, hopefully, you just refuse to live a lie and accept who you are and as you grow you start to see what the differences between hetero and homo are. We are "fags" because you labelled us "fags," but we will work to prove that the negative connotation associated with that word is unsubstantiated and the work of bitter people trying to find some way to feel better than others. Maybe my community won't have to battle the drug problems it does if most of it's members weren't raised to feel inferior?
On a quick digression...look up the word fag and the historical usage of the term and then consciously choose to use it and at the same time claim to be sharing the love of God, or pursuing the characteristics of Jesus Christ.
The Republicans criticisized Obama for acting superior and elitist. The majority of support for Prop 8 came from the Republican party and guess what it is...an attempt to enshrine one group as superior or "more equal than other's."
"marriage" is not an explicit right in the text of Constit., it is a traditional "right" that had been exercised prior to founding. Exercised by whom? By unions of MEN & WOMEN"
Slavery was also a traditional right exercsized prior to founding. As was the tradition of ignoring women's contributions and value. And not allowing inter-racial marriages. But all of these things were proved to be explicitly unjust along with many other "traditions," why is differentiating homosexuals not the same? This argument for tradition is a poor disguise for the real, religious reasons for discrimination. If you look into US history, and you all seem very intelligent so I am sure you know, tradition seems to be discrimination. I would feel confident to say that US "tradition" has constantly had to be opposed by minorities, starting with indigenous groups and reaching today to homosexuals, to ensure their equality. And throughout this history, much of the justification has been religious or imposed by a majority religious group. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, no one is entitled to impose their beliefs on anyone! It says so in the constitution, we realized that long ago.
Before being a homo, I am an American. This is a battle about democracy and equality. It isn't petty or a spiteful attempt to impose homos on the religious but rather a real push for equality in this country.
Marriage is provided to any adult regardless of their intentions, history, religious affiliation (or lack there of). The only requirement is that you hitch yourself to the opposite sex. Every "rational" reason for denying marriage to homosexuals is something that heterosexuals are guilty of as well. Heteros set bad examples for children, they get divorced, they threaten the sanctity, they abuse the meaning, they ignore tradition. I just once would like to hear a real argument that doesn't, once deconstructed, come down to religion and the tyranny of the religious majority over the minority.
I don't hate you but I am hurt by you. I am offended that you think I am too ignorant or drugged out or immoral to see through the true reason for discrimination. Some day I will be married. While we lost our right in California it will only make us stamp our feet harder and scream a little louder for our rights.
We are not the same, you are correct in that belief! But our differences are cultural and social, we have different values and experiences, and it is despicable to push for discrimination on these grounds.
"All men are created equal" and I will always fight to prove that and to ensure this country provides what it promises. Until that day the "American dream" is just false advertising but I believe it is more and should be more than that!
I know this is ridiculously long but I needed to get some of this out there. You all sound intelligent, not like the vast majority of internet commenters wishing us death and beating, which is why I bothered to comment. I know you are Christian and have been taught to believe that homosexuality is a flagrant slap in the face to God's principles. But I am a Christian too and I was taught, above all, that God loves everyone and doesn't want us to wander alone and in the next sentence was told that the homos are going to hell. I still don't understand the faith required to make a fundamental leap from God is love to God is hate but I think I know who God is. And God loves me as much as He loves you and He made me in His image. Under California's new legislation I suppose homosexuality is a slap in God's face because every single homo is incapable from having sex inside of marriage. I am sure most people don't think all the gays should be celibate, the Catholic Church (unfortunately and disturbingly) has seen first hand what can happen from fear and intolerance.
I hope this hasn't fallen on deaf ears and I hope, even if you think I am a crazy fag, that you will challenge yourself to think exactly what this legislation is saying. And try to fathom the statement made to the many homosexuals who wish only for the same legal recognition and possibility to publicly profess their love. Someday, I hope you too will see why I think marriage needs to be open to everyone.
RobK- No one on this board ever came close to calling you or anyone else a "crazy fag". I stand by what I said in my first post about the truth regarding which side of this debate has been tolerant and which has been intolerant. Indeed, since the vote your side has shown through violent protests, (where I've seen one woman smacked to the ground for daring to show a sign approving of prop 8, and several other physical incidents, ALL committed by the anti-8 forces.) how little respect you have for democracy. Saying you know who God is tells me a lot more about you and your lack of seriousness than it does anything else. Saying there is no reason to limit marriage to heterosexuals, but assuming there is some reason to limit it to two individuals tells me the same.
Well said Andrew!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.