![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Prop 8 – the complex tapestry of history
Jan. 14th, 2010 12:39 pmLike many people, I wait anxiously as history unfolds in the courtroom as the judges hear the case of Perry vs Schwarzenegger.
In very simplistic terms, here’s the background:
For a long time marriage licenses were only granted to an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Eventually, after years upon years of civil disobedience, protests and lawsuits; marriage licenses were finally granted to same-gender couples in the state of California.
Hooray!
Then came prop 8, a ballot initiative which if passed would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Blinded by ignorance through some very, VERY deceitful and underhanded ad campaigns (Yes, right-wing Mormons, Knights of Columbus, and idiots who would have followed Senator McCarthy into hell, etc., I’m talking about YOU!), the people of California narrowly voted to amend the constitution, thus stripping this fundamental right away from a class of citizens.
BOOOO!
This brings us to today in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. The question that this case poses is simple. Given that the 14th amendment guarantees EQUAL protection under the law FOR ALL, is it legal for Prop 8 to stand when it clearly strips away a fundamental right from one class of citizens? The answer appears simple… and that is what has the right-wing shaking in their age-old boots.
Needless to say, this is a highly-contested issue. For gays and lesbians, it is a matter of fighting for equality – nothing more and nothing less. For the vast, vast majority of people in California (and throughout the nation, really)… it really isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a matter of anything. My marriage, after all, has absolutely no impact upon my friends, my neighbors, or upon anybody else for that matter. But for the right-wing extremists (who probably agree whole-heartedly with Pat Robertson that Haiti got what they deserved for ‘allying with the Devil’ centuries ago), allowing gays and lesbians to marry will be the absolute END of civilization! You know… just like letting women vote… or freeing the slaves…
The most recent controversy of the trial involves video coverage. According to the LA Times, the justices, in a 5-4 majority, say the lawsuit over California's ban on same-sex marriage is not a good one for a pilot program to allow video coverage of federal cases. Why? Because the witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings."
On the one hand, I need to consider their point. As judges, they want to do everything that they can to ensure the integrity of the trial. Witnesses on both sides can and should deliver the best information that they can. And from the judges’ perspective, they are probably worried that witnesses on either side could very well be harassed, persecuted, or even receive death threats for delivering testimony. OK, I get that. Yet, I am still disappointed because there has been so little transparency in this whole issue. As an example, when it came to the publicity about Prop 8, the right-wing really played dirty. The TV ads were not simply ‘misleading’ or ‘biased’ – they were out n out lies, and played upon the fears of naïve parents and citizens. Yet, when forces against Prop 8 tried to find out who sponsored such deceitful ads, who paid for the ads, etc., the supporters insisted upon anonymity. It became a highly controversial topic when it came to finding out who donated funds in support of Prop 8. Those who supported it did not want their identities known.
So let me get this straight (no pun intended). Am I to understand that it is perfectly fine for one party to show complete disregard to a protected class? It is ok for one party to actively work AGAINST granting rights to gays and lesbians who already suffer prejudice and persecution on a daily basis, but… we’re supposed to respect your privacy? COWARDS! You have the right to disagree with me. You have the right to even be an ignorant fuktard if you want. But for cryin’ out loud, at least be honest and up front about it. Frankly, grow a pair!
I don’t have sympathy for the right-wing who are acting out of fear, paranoia, and out-and-out terror tactics. They have the audacity to claim fear of persecution and suffering? Tell that to Matthew Shepard, why don’t ya?!
I apologize if my anger over this whole thing comes off as a rant. But needless to say, I am angry, and I think we should ALL be angry. Gay, straight, bi, clueless, old, young, white, black, brown, purple – who cares! This is not a contest between two rational parties. There is absolutely, positively NO good, logical, rational reason to deny same-gender marriage. And when all is said and done, and the court stinks from the vitriol that has been spouted by conspiracy-theory paranoid right-wing bigots, I can only hope that the judges follow the logic of history. I believe that most recently it was Plessy v. Ferguson that ended segregation on the basis that “separate is NOT equal”.
Time will tell how this chapter ends.
In very simplistic terms, here’s the background:
For a long time marriage licenses were only granted to an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Eventually, after years upon years of civil disobedience, protests and lawsuits; marriage licenses were finally granted to same-gender couples in the state of California.
Hooray!
Then came prop 8, a ballot initiative which if passed would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Blinded by ignorance through some very, VERY deceitful and underhanded ad campaigns (Yes, right-wing Mormons, Knights of Columbus, and idiots who would have followed Senator McCarthy into hell, etc., I’m talking about YOU!), the people of California narrowly voted to amend the constitution, thus stripping this fundamental right away from a class of citizens.
BOOOO!
This brings us to today in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. The question that this case poses is simple. Given that the 14th amendment guarantees EQUAL protection under the law FOR ALL, is it legal for Prop 8 to stand when it clearly strips away a fundamental right from one class of citizens? The answer appears simple… and that is what has the right-wing shaking in their age-old boots.
Needless to say, this is a highly-contested issue. For gays and lesbians, it is a matter of fighting for equality – nothing more and nothing less. For the vast, vast majority of people in California (and throughout the nation, really)… it really isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a matter of anything. My marriage, after all, has absolutely no impact upon my friends, my neighbors, or upon anybody else for that matter. But for the right-wing extremists (who probably agree whole-heartedly with Pat Robertson that Haiti got what they deserved for ‘allying with the Devil’ centuries ago), allowing gays and lesbians to marry will be the absolute END of civilization! You know… just like letting women vote… or freeing the slaves…
The most recent controversy of the trial involves video coverage. According to the LA Times, the justices, in a 5-4 majority, say the lawsuit over California's ban on same-sex marriage is not a good one for a pilot program to allow video coverage of federal cases. Why? Because the witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings."
On the one hand, I need to consider their point. As judges, they want to do everything that they can to ensure the integrity of the trial. Witnesses on both sides can and should deliver the best information that they can. And from the judges’ perspective, they are probably worried that witnesses on either side could very well be harassed, persecuted, or even receive death threats for delivering testimony. OK, I get that. Yet, I am still disappointed because there has been so little transparency in this whole issue. As an example, when it came to the publicity about Prop 8, the right-wing really played dirty. The TV ads were not simply ‘misleading’ or ‘biased’ – they were out n out lies, and played upon the fears of naïve parents and citizens. Yet, when forces against Prop 8 tried to find out who sponsored such deceitful ads, who paid for the ads, etc., the supporters insisted upon anonymity. It became a highly controversial topic when it came to finding out who donated funds in support of Prop 8. Those who supported it did not want their identities known.
So let me get this straight (no pun intended). Am I to understand that it is perfectly fine for one party to show complete disregard to a protected class? It is ok for one party to actively work AGAINST granting rights to gays and lesbians who already suffer prejudice and persecution on a daily basis, but… we’re supposed to respect your privacy? COWARDS! You have the right to disagree with me. You have the right to even be an ignorant fuktard if you want. But for cryin’ out loud, at least be honest and up front about it. Frankly, grow a pair!
I don’t have sympathy for the right-wing who are acting out of fear, paranoia, and out-and-out terror tactics. They have the audacity to claim fear of persecution and suffering? Tell that to Matthew Shepard, why don’t ya?!
I apologize if my anger over this whole thing comes off as a rant. But needless to say, I am angry, and I think we should ALL be angry. Gay, straight, bi, clueless, old, young, white, black, brown, purple – who cares! This is not a contest between two rational parties. There is absolutely, positively NO good, logical, rational reason to deny same-gender marriage. And when all is said and done, and the court stinks from the vitriol that has been spouted by conspiracy-theory paranoid right-wing bigots, I can only hope that the judges follow the logic of history. I believe that most recently it was Plessy v. Ferguson that ended segregation on the basis that “separate is NOT equal”.
Time will tell how this chapter ends.
