How Prop 8 spits in the face of Thomas Jefferson and hurts "the People"

For those of you who are wondering why there are so many lawsuits against Prop 8, or if you are just finding out about them now, you may be wondering, "How is this possible? Like didn't we all vote on this already and the majority already decided?" Well, a lot of us who've studied American Government in earnest saw this coming. I think it's really important for every American to understand the basic workings of our government. Otherwise, how can you possibly appreciate what an amazing place this is to live (most of the time)? /cheer

I posted this in the No on Prop 8 Facebook group discussions before the election, and one of my fellow Facebookers asked if she could share this with her friends. I thought I would share it here for anyone who still doesn't understand how Prop 8 undermines the fundamental principles of our government and affects us all as Americans:

In "In Re Marriage Cases," which is the CA Supreme Court decision that declared Prop 22 unconstitutional, the justices, in 160 pages of legal precedence, stated that marriage is a "civil right." I'm not going to go into what a "civil right" is because hopefully, we learned this in school. The important thing we should have learned is that everyone is entitled to civil rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Lots of "Yes on 8" people keep saying they were "activist judges." But the truth is that CA has a right leaning supreme court (6 of 7 were appointed by Republican governors). They come from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds. However, their job is one of the most important in our government and that is to interpret the constitution. They don't add or change laws. And they have to do this without bias, which means that justices have the hardest job because they must put aside their personal and religious views.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of marriage to everyone, based on its definition in the constitution, which declares it as "a contract," not a "religious rite" or "tradition." They also based it on countless cases that declared that marriage is a civil right. This right is essential to "the pursuit of happiness" etc. etc. Of course, you can't say it's a right in other cases, and not in this one because that would violate constitutional law. So... constitutional law now upholds that the civil contract of marriage is available to everyone. This is where Prop 8 comes along. Prop 8 is an AMENDMENT to the constitution that will change the the CIVIL definition of marriage, which changes it for ALL of US. The current definition allows you to uphold your beliefs about marriage in your church, and my beliefs in mine. Prop 8 doesn't just "reinforce" the definition of traditional marriage by making it legal. Constitutional amendment should never be taken lightly. This one literally takes the civil right of marriage away from one group of people, many of whom are already married. LITERALLY.

Our Founding Fathers drafted a constitution that would protect civil rights for all, and they even knew that their own ideas about what is just might be wrong, which is why we have checks and balances. It is not a direct democracy, where the majority can oppress a minority. This is where (hopefully) you can believe that we all are trying to uphold everything that this country was built on. You are free to practice whatever religion you want, and so is everyone else. If we all do not fight for this, no matter if we feel gays are sinful or not, WE ALL LOSE. I don't think in all of the history of our government have we ever upheld a constitutional right, and then rescinded it. EVER. The precedent this sets goes against *everything* our country stands for.

Prop 8 rescinded the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice. A fundamental right is a constitutional right that is either explicit or implied, and the right to marry is a fundamental right along with other familiar rights, like the right to procreate, the right to vote, and the right to raise children free of governmental interference. I've read a lot of bloggers arguing about how marriage is a religious sacrament. Well, yes, it may be a religious sacrament in your religion, and that's great, but a civil marriage that provides the legal status and protections of marriage is available to everyone, including non-religious people in the U.S. The state allows clergy to solemnize marriages more as a courtesy. In many other countries, marriages can only be solemnized by the state, and the religious ceremony (or non-religious celebration) is completely separate. I think that because of how our country handles marriages, many people feel that the word "marriage" belongs to their religion and is a religious rite and a sacrament. But a civil marriage has no relationship to religion or tradition at all and should be impartial to any one group's beliefs about religion or tradition.

The lawsuits that have been submitted against Prop 8 currently include ones from: the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights, who are representing couples who can no longer marry; the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which contend that a higher standard than a simple majority must be required to strip a minority of fundamental rights; the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, Marin, San Francisco, and many cities, which assert that Prop 8 is a major revision and therefore invalid because it did not go through the proper procedures required of a revision; and the California Council of Churches and several faith organizations, which describe Prop 8 as an infringement upon the religious liberty of churches that recognize same-sex marriage and sets a legal precedent that undermines our government's ability to protect religious minorities. All of these argue that Prop 8 undermines the independent judiciary's ability to protect minorities by allowing the electorate to strip away rights from a group that were upheld by the courts. Some people are wondering, "Wait, didn't some ethnic groups and many religious groups represented by these legal groups vote for Prop 8 with overwhelming majorities?" These lawsuits aren't about protecting personal beliefs registered through a majority vote (the right to vote is what is protected, not the outcome!). These groups protect the rights of specific minority groups, and as many legal experts have pointed out, Prop 8 sets a legal precedent that allows for any group's rights to be stripped through misuse of California's Initiative Process. In other words, Prop 8 makes it difficult for these legal groups to protect the rights of the groups they champion, should their rights be threatened by similar measures in the future. I've seen some conspiracy theories about bribes given to the NAACP and other nonsense to justify many of their members' opposition to Prop 8, even though a majority of the Black community supposedly voted for Prop 8. Unbeknownst to these ignorant bloggers, the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement are the ones who championed marriage equality, long before Prop 8 came around.

A final word about constitutions... many people keep saying, "Well, now that Prop 8 is in the constitution, doesn't the Supreme Court have to uphold the constitution? Didn't the majority already decide? Haven't THE PEOPLE spoken?" Well, this is where a solid understanding of our government is really important. Constitutions are "by the People, for the People". When our Founding Fathers wrote "for the People" they meant "for ALL the People," not "for the majority." We are purposely NOT a "majority rules" nation. In fact, the Constitution of the United States was almost not ratified because many of the Founding Fathers protested its lack of guarantee of rights to protect minorites from "majority rule" tyranny. Hence, the Bill of Rights was born. As it stands, the California Constitution is not "for the People." It is "for the majority" (and a slim majority at that). As I've mentioned in other posts and as others have noted, we are not some ancient democracy that eventually imploded on itself when 49% of the people got sick and tired of 51% of the people voting their rights away. For the sake of our great state, let's hope Prop 8 gets overturned soon.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
- Thomas Jefferson

Sliding down the "slippery slope" to polygamy

As a descendent of polygamists, I find it incredibly offensive when people akin same-sex marriage to polygamy. I think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous. When people ask about what I think about polygamy, I try to answer objectively and say that if it is possible to eliminate the "oppression of women and children" part of it, and we can show that it doesn't hurt anybody at all, then I'm all for it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, especially since our country used it as an excuse to discriminate against the Mormons, who were forced to give up polygamy to get their own state. Recently, we had a guy in our Facebook discussion group who said that if we could totally prove that same-sex marriage would not lead to polygamy, he would be all for it, but he couldn't see how it would be possible to keep this from leading to legalizing polygamy. /sigh So I had this to say:

[Same-sex marriage opponent], I think I understand your concern. If we purely argue the marriage is a fundamental right, you feel that this might mean that we have to extend rights for everyone eventually, and for example, allow polygamous marriages. This is not true however, and I think I can convince you. At least I'm up for the challenge.

Rights are not absolute. Just like the different powers of government (the voters, the president, Congress, etc.) are not absolute, neither is a right. Let's take the freedom of speech for example. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. However, we have plenty of limits on freedom of speech in the interest of the greater good. Same thing on the right to bear arms. I dont think it is legal for us to have bazookas in our homes. (At least I hope not.) Rights are expanded or limited in the interest of protecting the rights and welfare of others.

The right to marry is a fundamental right, but this doesn't mean that it can't be limited. It is limited, and in May the Supreme Court had expanded it to include same-sex couples. Just like any other right, the social welfare aspect of it was considered. In this case, there is a lot of evidence that supports legalizing same-sex marriage: the thousands of families that are already headed by same-sex couples, the major mental health and medical associations all support legalizing same-sex marriage based on empirical evidence from over 25 years of research, the studies that indicate that children of married couples actually fare better that unmarried couples, etc. etc. From a public policy standpoint, it makes sense to support same-sex marriage.

The difference with polygamy is that there is no positive research that supports it. In order for us to ever get to the point of even considering legalizing polygamy, there is going to have to be thousands of families that can be studied over many years, and then those studies are going to have to have positive evidence that support it, which I doubt will ever happen. The reason is that it is the "permanent monogamy" aspect of marriage that is stabilizing for families. When people say "I choose you and forsake all others" in marriage, they are committing to not sleeping around and to staying with one person and building a life with that person. Polygamy would undermine this aspect of marriage as we know it. Same-sex marriage actually strengthens it because we are encouraging everyone to be in stable, permanent, monogamous relationships that are recognized and protected by our government with a single binding civil contract (not the thousands of dollars worth of legal documents that are required to give same-sex couples the same protections as married couples).

Also, a personal anecdote for you. My ancestors are polygamists. They were not Mormon though so I can't speak for them, but I've heard stories from family members about the way it was. Whenever a second wife (or concubine) was added to the family, it was very destabilizing to the family. Sometimes it was devastating, especially if the first wife hoped she would be the only wife. The children are sometimes jealous of children of the other wives. The father has to split his time between families. Again, if anyone can prove that polygamy isn't going to hurt anyone and will help the general welfare of society, then go ahead and try, but I will bet on my ancestors' graves that this won't happen.

Anyway, [fellow marriage equality proponent] quoted this in a previous post [from a New York Times article written in 2004], which sums it up nicely:

"After identifying the social function that marriage serves, it is easy to allay the fears of those worried about a slippery slope to an 'anything goes' definition of marriage. Marriages between brother and sister? Incestuous marriages strike at the core of the bonds of trust and the functions of care that a family requires. Polygamy? One husband and numerous wives invites increased jealousy, deception and subjugation, and mocks the importance of 'forsaking all others,' essential components of the stabilizing function of marriage."

I also had the following to say to another person who said that there was no way that same-sex marriage would be legalized in our lifetime and that all us marriage equality proponents would "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits":

No, a lot has happened in our lifetime. I'm really happy with the way things are going. And marriage equality is going to happen too, and it's already happening, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There is one thing about this that makes me really happy. I'm really happy that we've left the traditional definition of marriage behind... the one that made my grandmother the second wife, where she married out of obligation and left her true love behind. The one that had to do with oppression of women, status, property, and strictly procreation. The one where love and commitment were not a prereq or even goals. That is what traditional marriage is. One thing I know for sure is that my grandmother wanted better for her daughters and grand-daughters. Our society has encouraged the evolution of the modern definition of marriage into one of love, commitment, stability, a declaration of permanent monogamy, finding a soulmate, creating and nuturing a family out of LOVE, not obligation, not a need to create heirs for men, not control. Not only that, we encourage people to make this declaration in front of family and friends and society in general, which makes us work all the harder to keeping our families intact. And our government will acknowledge this family unit with a legal status of marriage (with the protections and responsibilities that come with it). This modern meaning of marriage in itself is inherently a stabilizing force in our society. In light of this, why would you not want to encourage all people to marry? To find a partner in life to which they can emotionally and physically commit their hearts and minds to, settle down, raise children? Why do we not want to give their families the best possible environment possible (with the status and protections of a civil marriage)?

I know that my grandmother would have voted no on Prop 8. In fact, everyone in my family did, and since we are all old-fashioned traditional folk with family values, who are married with children, I find your comments about how we'll "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits" quite short-sighted. Perhaps our goals concerning society have a lot more in common than you think.

Civil union and domestic partnership vs. marriage: "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal

A few years ago, I worked in the IT department on an HR application for managing benefits. Long before I ever thought about gay rights or marriage equality, I did notice something that bothered me about the whole domestic partnership thing. I could tell that most of those people were gay. So basically, in order to get benefits for you and your partner and their children, you basically have to out yourself to your company. I remember thinking how unfair that was... do the rest of us have to declare something about ourselves at work that some people might find questionable or worthy of discrimination, like our religion or ethnicity? No, absolutely not. And it would be unethical to require it, just as it is unethical that domestic partnership and civil unions even exist as a "separate but equal" substitute to marriage.

For those people who were quoting the California Family Code 297.5 in order to prove that domestic partnerships have all the same rights as marriage, who are neither lawyers nor lawmakers... to pretend that you know anything about the law and its complexities when it comes to this issue, means that you are "bearing false witness." Even if the Defense of Marriage Act were repealed today, this does not mean that domestic partnerships or civil unions will have all the same rights and protections as marriage, even if they do in California. In fact, because civil unions and domestic partnerships are separate legal recognitions altogether, they also have their own definitions and sets of rules, depending on which state you are in, and other countries may not recognize them at all. This means that they are not portable... considering that people may need to travel outside of the state for work or leisure, it doesn't seem all that practical or fair. Furthermore, my husband and I went to the County and paid $73 for a marriage license and $13 for a registered copy of our marriage certificate. In order to ensure that domestic partners have the legal protections of marriage, they would need to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to draw up those legal documents, and those legal documents can still be challenged in court by disgruntled family members. Because of this, same-sex partners are denied rights and benefits all the time, even as people are arguing that they are "equal".

According to Joanna Grossman, a professor of law at Hofstra University, the only legitimate argument to deny a partner in a civil union "rights" that should be theirs is an argument that also confirms that a civil union is NOT a marriage. Because of laws that explicitly refer to marriage and policies by insurance companies and other entities that explicitly refer to marriage, like the Workers' Compensation Law, civil unions and domestic partnership remain unequal. Every single law, insurance policy, legal statute, etc. would have to need to be rewritten to say "marriage or civil union or domestic partnership" for civil unions and domestic partnerships to be "equal." This isn't going to happen because it would be a huge waste of time and tax payer dollars, and as far as insurance policies go, it's just one more sneaky way not to have to pay out to the families of the insured. It makes far more sense and takes far less tax dollars to ensure equality by legalizing same-sex marriage.

According to research recently published by the Williams Institute, same-sex couples prefer marriage over other legal recognition:

The data from these states also demonstrate that same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. While 37% of same-sex couples married during the first year that marriage was made available to them in Massachusetts, only 12% of same-sex couples have entered civil unions and 10% have entered domestic partnerships during the first year in which states have offered these forms of recognition.

I don't blame those people who would rather wait to be married. I wouldn't want to register myself or my loved one in the "gay people" directory at my government office either, after witnessing how serious the prejudice against gay people still is after all these years. Having seen all the homophobes come out during the Prop 8 campaign, I'd be even less inclined now.

/cringe

If I need to spend thousand of dollars to a lawyer anyway to have legal documents drawn up so that my domestic partner and I might even be close to having the same legal protections that an $86 marriage certificate gives to straight couples (with the help of my tax dollars no less), why bother??? Besides, many of us grew up dreaming about finding "the one" and asking, or being asked, the most important question in one's life (and ultimate declaration of love), "Will you marry me?" NOT "Will you register a domestic partnership with me?" I wouldn't want anything less for my fellow human beings.

First cousin marriages and Prop 8

Before the election, I remember reading about a legal scholar who was up in arms about Prop 8 and gave the "first cousin marriage" issue as one of concern in regard to Prop 8. No, it's not about how Prop 8 could lead to incest between first cousins being legalized. /scowl This is about how first cousin marriages are already legal in California, and how Prop 8 could lead to a measure with similar verbiage like "Only a marriage between and man and a woman, who are unrelated and do not share a grandparent, is valid or recognized" that could affect those marriages. I recently came across this blog post that articulates quite eloquently the ugly legal precedent that Prop 8 could set if allowed to stand. With recent developments in the Prop 8 fight concerning how the new constitutional amendment should be interpreted "literally", this issue is all the more relevant.

It seems that a lot of people don't know this, but in about half the states in the U.S., first cousin marriages are restricted. California is one of the states that allows first cousin marriages. We are apparently the only country in the western world that has any restrictions on first cousin marriages. It is legal in all of Europe, Canada, and Mexico. In some cultures outside of western culture, cousin marriages are preferable. "Kissing cousins" are not all that uncommon throughout history. Queen Victoria and Darwin married their first cousins. Recent studies have shown that the increased chance of genetic defects in the children of cousins much less significant than previously thought. Many editorials about first cousin marriage are pretty consistent and supportive, as they were for Prop 8. However, I see a lot of first cousin marriage bashing in the discussion boards whenever someone brings up the "slippery slope" argument to "incest" when it comes to cousins marrying. A lot of this is from the Yes on Prop 8 folks saying "gay marriage will lead to cousins marrying!" with No on Prop 8 folks replying "No, this won't lead to cousins marrying!" NEWS FLASH: First cousins are already allowed to marry in California, and being a melting pot of diversity, there are thousands of married first cousins living here. If an interest group were to get an initiative on the ballot in California that redefined marriage to be of unrelated persons who do not share a grandparent, I would venture to guess that it would pass for sure, and more out of ignorance than malice (as it has in other states). Not surprisingly, the first cousin marriage "ick" factor has Christian roots, since Leviticus says that persons who are closely related cannot marry.

If the proponents for banning first cousin marriage tried to apply the same logic that they are using for Prop 8 and succeeded, then thousands of first cousin marriages would no longer be recognized. The children of those marriages are affected, as well as every legal document that depends on those marriages. The far-reaching legal ramifications for those families are scary to think about. By the same logic that the Prop 8 proponents are defending, those marriages can no longer be recognized in California, but they would still be valid in states that recognize first cousin marriage. Again, this just wreaks of "we don't want you here" to me.

As an aside, this is a good lesson to think about as a No on Prop 8 supporter (and Yes on Prop 8 supporter if you are reading this). Before knowing all the things we know now about first cousin marriage, would you have voted to ban marriage between cousins? I am assuming that many people will say yes. If yes, would you still vote yes, knowing that first cousin marriages are legal in many other countries, that thousands of same-grandparent couples exist in California, that experts feel that banning cousins from marrying is not necessary, and that this will have serious legal consequences on their lives? Even if this is not something that you would tolerate personally, would you still vote to ban it for other families, invalidating their marriages and interfering with their personal lives? If the answer is no to both of these questions, then I'm assuming that you voted no on Prop 8. /grin

Same-sex marriages before Nov 4 no longer valid in CA

The Yes on Prop 8 folks filed a legal brief that says that the marriages of couples who got married before Nov 4 can no longer be recognized in California, but they can still be recognized in other states that recognize same-sex marriages. According to this logic, I'm assuming this means that no same-sex marriage from ANY other state/country can be recognized within our borders either. WOW.

"Proposition 8 supporters acknowledge those marriages were legal before Election Day, and say they are not trying to "nullify" them now. They argue that the plain language of Proposition 8 — "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." — means those marriages can no longer be recognized in California, although they would still be valid in other states where same-sex marriage is legal or recognized.

"Proposition 8 is in effect, and only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. "It doesn't say only a man and woman can get married. It says that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. It means what it says."

/amaze

This just proves to me that those groups responsible for Prop 8 are trying to hurt people, and not just gay couples in California but gay couples all over the world. It wasn't only about taking rights away, but it's like they are saying to gay people, "We don't want you here!"

If I knew that there was a state or country that wouldn't recognize the marriage between my husband and me, for example, if in Alabama, there was a law that said that a marriage between people of different races would not be recognized within its borders... I would never go to that state, EVER. I wouldn't set foot into any state or country with such a law, knowing that something could happen to one of us and we could possibly be separated, or I couldn't be at my husband's bed-side when he needed me most. I'm sure that those Prop 8 people know this, and they just don't want you LGBT people here folks!!

Now we know what the intentions of the Prop 8 proponents were. This is about whether same-sex marriages are valid or recognized within the borders of California, literally. Their argument basically says that no same-sex marriages are good here in California, including those of any state or country, which affects every legal document and statute that depends on the validity of a couple's marriage. This affects every married same-sex couple that is physically here in California, including tourists and immigrants. This would also prevent California from recognizing the same-sex marriages of other jurisdictions, like New York does. According to Andrew Pugno, the language is clear. "It means what it says." He even says that it wasn't about the right to marry. It is about whether a marriage is legally recognized or not. If we interpret it as literally as he does, then Prop 8 definitely has serious legal ramifications.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jerry Brown figures out that we have enough evidence to prove that Prop 8 was a major revision and not an amendment to the constitution. It's about time.

Message to a Prop 8 supporter

In a previous post, I mentioned that a fellow Facebooker messaged me about one of the posts I wrote in response to a Prop 8 supporter. The Prop 8 supporter's comments were typical: that homosexuality is a choice, that the definition of marriage has been the same for thousands of years, that marriage is only for procreation and that this is what Loving v. Virginia is about (?!), that same-sex marriage will threaten our survival and undermine our ability to carry on the "race of humans", and that we all have the same civil right, namely, we all have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. (That last one always gets me... just like we all had the same civil right to marry 60 years ago: we all had the right to marry someone of our own race.)

/emote rolls her eyes

Anyway, she said that it was one of the best responses she'd ever read and encouraged me to send it to newspapers. :) I thought I'd share my message for anyone who is thinking of writing their own letters:

[Prop 8 Supporter],

Please read this: http://www.gfcbaltimore.org/GFC_VT_Mom.htm

Herein lies the problem. If you think that sexual orientation is something you can change, then that makes it difficult to argue that people should not be discriminated against for things they cannot change. I don't think you can change your sexual orientation and there is plenty of evidence that "therapy" doesn't work. You can decide to be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex in order to fit in, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation. Not only that, you are depriving another human being the opportunity to marry with someone with whom they even have a fighting chance of having a fulfilling partnership with, which I don't think is fair. (I'm sure that is another discussion that we can have... how many people have been hurt by sham marriages with people trying to rid themselves of "homosexuality").

The right to marry the person of one's choice is still a choice. But it is not a choice like what to eat for lunch. It is the same type of choice that religion is. It is a spiritual choice. Your heart and mind chooses, and no force of will can change it (or at least it is very hard to change). If someone asked me if I could stop believing in God or whatever higher power I believe in, I would say no way. If someone asked a Protestant if they could be Catholic instead, they are probably going to say no, even if being Protestant was illegal. If someone asked me if I could choose someone other than my husband to be my life partner, my soulmate, I would say no way. If there was a law on the books that said I could not marry him, I would still be with him, even if it meant that I could not have the same recognition, protections, etc. that other couples do. Spirituality and sexual orientation are so coupled, that I don't see how the right to marry is not protected the same way that the freedom of religion is. If I am not sexually attracted to someone, I can't imagine how I can fall in love with them or have any kind of spiritual connection that comes with being in love with someone.

Also, the definition of marriage never meant to me (and many others) what it means to you. It always meant to me that I would be able to marry the person my heart and mind decided would be my life partner, and I hope that everyone has that right and that the families they form have the same legal status and protections the rest of us do. There should be no difference under the law. No religion has to recognize the unions they don't want to, and they don't now anyway, so why does it matter if 2% of the population can now marry each other in a civil contract? It's not going to change anything for the 98% of us, or cause us all to become gay. There will be no shortage of children to carry on the "race of humans". It's not going to threaten our survival. If you are arguing that it will, then that's ridiculous. And in fact, it's going to be much better for all of us, and those reasons have already been documented. Also, Mildred Loving (from Loving v. Virginia) made it clear that she wasn't fighting for the right of black people to marry white people. She wasn't a part of an immutable group of black people who could only fall in love with white people. People told her that she had the right to marry another black person, just not a white person. No, she and her husband were fighting for the right to marry the person their hearts and minds had already chosen. And this was her statement last year (which eloquently states the spirit of their court case and speaks of her stance on same-sex marriage):

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Celebrating diversity

In the last several weeks following the election, there was a lot of shaking heads, disappointment, heartache, anger, and retrospection on the Prop 8 discussion boards. A lot of my fellow Facebookers have been discussing the kinds of forces that drive such a proposition, and the one word that keep popping up is "religion". We all know that religious groups were behind Prop 8, like the Mormon Church, and some people are angry that religion is used to justify homophobia and opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as all sorts of nasty acts against humanity throughout history. I know that a lot of people, when asked why they are so against same-sex marriage, start quoting the Bible and how it says that homosexuality is a sin. Frustrating, I KNOW. However, I'd like to point out the word "used". People use religion. It is not the cause. It is the excuse, and more so, the weapon.

Many people who supported segregation and the ban on interracial marriage supported the separating of races for religious reasons. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister. Does anyone think he would have said that religion was to blame? I don't think so. Religion is not to blame. People are to blame. Just like in a murder, the person is to blame, not the weapon. People can use whatever weapon they want to justify their personal beliefs. In this case, people used their churches, and the social connections and money-making power of those connections to help pass Prop 8. And churches, with their social connections and ability to raise money and rally people, created a political machine to do work to pass Prop 8. I guess this is why its called "organized religion." Unfortunately, the No on Prop 8 campaigners could have better utilized their own social connections before the election.

Besides, I just had a IM chat on Facebook with a guy who isn't religious but had a whole lot to say about "fags" and how they should "grow up and learn to eat fish." Ew ew ew. (And I'm sure this guy has no problems at all with lesbians. Jerk.)

He also said that we are all animals, and animals are supposed to reproduce, and that's all. Here's the icing on the cake: he said that I should abandon my "project" and do something more worthy, like work on legalizing porn. (And porn is already legal, stupid.)

/sigh
/emote shakes her head

The greatest champions of civil rights, equality, and social justice of our time were spirtual leaders who celebrated diversity. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and others... they neither blamed religion, nor used their religion to snub their oppressors. Gandhi once told a Hindu man after he confessed to killing a Muslim child to avenge his own child being killed, that in order to atone for his sin, he needed to find an orphan whose parents had been killed by the fighting... and raise that child as a Muslim. Diversity indeed. I think we can take a few lessons from them. Also, consider this: Spain, which is largely a Catholic country (over 75%) legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, which over 66% of the population in approval. Ironically, at least one Spaniard, Pedro Almodovar said, "It's about time. This law will enrich society. It is pro-family."

We need to remind ourselves of what makes America so special: liberty, equality, and diversity. We should be celebrating diversity, which is really what makes our nation unique from all the others, the "beacon on the hill", however we want to describe ourselves. People are going to have different beliefs about things, and maybe it doesn't matter how they come to the same conclusion. We just hope to convince as many people as possible that same-sex marriage is a good thing. Attacking religion is harmful for the cause, not only because a lot of religious people voted against Prop 8, but in order to teach others to celebrate diversity, we ourselves have to show that we do too. So, I think the solution is not in being weary of religion, but in convincing people to celebrate diversity. Without diversity, we wouldn't be the country that we are today. I can't think of anything else that makes us different.

My very first blog post

Well... I finally did it! I decided to start my own blog. w00t! as we say in the gaming world. This really has been a long time coming, and I just needed a little nudge from some friendly folks to take the plunge. I've been actively participating in the Facebook Group discussions on Prop 8 over the last several weeks, and literally, it's been a high school kid's lifetime since I'd written this much. I realized that that my pen was my sword in the 10th grade, when my teacher decided to read one of my essays to the class anonymously, and afterward told me it was one of the best essays he'd come across. In 11th grade, I submitted a critical essay to the Mt. SAC Writers' Day Festival and placed 1st in my division. I had the honor of shaking hands with Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, when he handed me my award. In college, one of my English TAs told me that I should be a writer, and I seriously considered it. But I discovered the computer, fell in love with technology, life happened, and I hadn't thought much about writing since then.

So several weeks ago, I received a unexpected message from a fellow Facebooker who saw one of my posts and asked if she could post it on her profile, so she could share it with friends. It really made my day... I didn't think I could write like that anymore. Of course, technical specs don't have the same moving power as essays on Prop 8, so maybe writing is just like riding a bicycle. Then a couple weeks ago, I got a message from another Facebooker who told me that a post I had written in response to a Prop 8 supporter was one of the best posts she had ever read and encouraged me to send it to every newspaper I could. Of course, I was ecstatic.

/cheer

I've had a handful of compliments on my writing since then. My husband, who has been incredibly supportive of me and has been reading some of my posts, said yesterday that I was no longer allowed "to let my words go to waste," so here I am. I hope that my words at least help open up a dialog, if not move people, to help make the world a better place. My first area of business now that Prop 8 has passed is marriage equality. I have quite a lot more to say on the subject, so stay tuned. :)