Courage Campaign created a video called "Fidelity" that puts some faces to the 36,000 people (and their families) whose marriages are being invalidated by Prop 8. I got all emotional when I watched this and so did my husband. Here are all these people who were finally able to fulfill a lifelong dream, an American dream, when they married their life partners in front of family and friends in beautiful ceremonies all over California. For those people who voted yes on Prop 8 and still insist that Prop 8 wasn't about hurting people, I have to ask, why are other families' happiness any of your business? How does their happiness affect you at all? The truth is, it's none of our business and it doesn't affect the rest of us at all, but the Prop 8 campaign did a heck of a job lying and convincing people that it does. But you know what? When there are people in this country who are hell bent on hurting our fellow Americans, that *is* my business. It is all our business as Americans. Please share this video and remember to sign the petition urging the California Supreme Court to preserve these marriages.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
To contrast the declarations of love, happiness, commitment, and family that so many people were able to make between June and November last year, I just wanted to share some actual footage of the hate and bigotry of the Prop 8 campaign. If this doesn't make you sick, then I don't know what else to say.
Here is a Prop 8 campaigner using the same hateful dialog Anita Bryant and her supporters did for California's Briggs Initiative and others like it:
This one offended and angered the Jewish Community. The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology and of course, the Prop 8 folks refused:
2024-03
3 weeks ago
5 comments:
Given that they were then entering into what was a live political question, the Supreme Court of California erred in not staying their decision until the outcome of Prop. 8 was known, causing a large number of "gap" marriages. However, no one, not even the supporters of Prop. 8, have argued that those marriages are invalid. It's a fairly settled principle that any marriage effected under what was then the law of the land is as valid now as it was then.
I tried sharing this on facebook but it won't let me. :-(
YES on 8 was really special. Really really special.
What is a "gap" marriage Fritz? It was obvious that the Yes on 8 campaign wanted to prohibit same sex marriage before and after the constitutional ban. I think the point of this blog is not just to show the faces of people who will be affected by the ban, but every gay family in the United States.
And the Supreme Court doesn't wait for new laws or revisions before deciding what the constitution says. Any thing besides up or down by the court would have been repugnant.
And to say that No one, not even the supporters of Prop. 8 have argued those marriages are invalid. Lukewarm stances from an idiotic logic. If gay marriages are simply not legal anymore what would be the point in allowing these marriages at all, regardless of which moment they ended up in history? It seems your whole argument ascribes to this, given the errors you attributed to the supreme court. It has been argued, and to say that the people and organizations who funded Prop 8 didn't want this is ridiculous. That is what they wanted... down with gay marriage, down with gays.
Prop 8 should be repealed, and if not now, in 2010.
Great post, and I love the Regina Spektor song. Thanks Tam, and the Courage Campaign.
The gap is June 16-November 4, 2008.
Those marriages were legal under the Constitution, according to the California Supreme Court, before the Constitution was amended on November 4. There was no ex post facto provision to the amendment.
Courts have been known to stay a decision to wait for a specific legislative outcome.
So which is it, Fritz? In your first comment, you say that the Prop 8 supporters never argued that those marriages are invalid. However, it is a known FACT that the Prop 8 supporters always contended that those marriages would be invalidated by Prop 8. They submitted a legal brief in December arguing that those marriages are now invalid uder Prop 8. Now you say that those marriages *were* legal before the amendment. What happened to "It's a fairly settled principle that any marriage effected under what was then the law of the land is as valid now as it was then."? Considering that before the election, it was a "fairly settled principle" as stated by legal experts around the state that those marriages would be in legal limbo because of Prop 8, I'd like to see your sources. You seem to state opinions and not fact.
Yes, legal experts weighed in on the validity of those marriages if Prop 8 passes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriagelaw30-2008oct30,0,3560871.story
Many people recognized that Prop 8 threatened those marriages:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/10/30/what-prop-8-threatens-existing-marriages-you-dont-say/
Additionally, this post is about a video that was a response to the legal brief that the Prop 8 campaign submitted in December to invalidate marriages. So your comment "However, no one, not even the supporters of Prop. 8, have argued that those marriages are invalid." is totally false. I also wrote about this in December:
http://dotnetgoddess.blogspot.com/2008/12/same-sex-marriages-before-nov-4-no.html
The Supreme Court does not participate in "live political" questions, so to speak. That is not their purpose and to contend that they "erred" has no legal grounds. They were reviewing lawsuits and made a decision. The fact that Prop 8 might have been on the ballot is irrelevant, and as some legal experts commented, the court is not going to make a decision about how a measure affects a current law until it is *actually* a law and the issue is brought to their attention in a lawsuit. This is why they refused to review anything from either side until after the election.
Furthermore, part of the reason why we have a judicial branch is to effect justice. Justice doesn't wait to see what a simple majority thinks through a popular election. In 1948, when the California Supreme Court was the first to overturn the ban on interracial marriage, 90% of Americans opposed it. Let's say that some political machine had enough money to put an amendment on the ballot to restrict marriages only to couples of the same race. It would have passed for sure, and if upheld, many of us wouldn't have been able to marry the person we had chosen to be our life partners, while setting a dangerous precedent of allowing a majority vote on the rights of fellow citizens, which is never a good thing (as been shown throughout all of history). The reason why we have a republic and not a direct democracy is because certain issues are to be kept out of the hands of the people. As we all know, the opinions of a simple majority do not equate to justice, fairness, and is not necessarily constitutional. Other propositions passed by a simple majority of the people have been overturned on similar grounds.
Also, we're not talking about a legislative decision. There is no precedence for this, using the California Initiative Process and direct democracy in general, to take people's rights away. And considering that our State Legislature had already made a decision on this by passing marriage equality bills with bipartisan majorities TWICE over the last several years, both of which were vetoed by Governor Schwarzeneggar with notes that he wanted to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, it was well-established that legislative action had already been taken on this issue. Once this went through the process of judicial review and a decision was made, the governor also through his support behind the decision. So, as was intended, all three branches of our government agreed, including the branch that represents the people in our representative democracy.
Those bills, the legal brief filed by the Prop 8 campaign to invalidate existing marriages, the amici curaie submitted by various groups in support of or against Prop 8, and the May decision "In Re Marriage Cases" are available on the California Supreme Court site.
Post a Comment