It is not over
and it won't ever be so
'till we have justice
This morning, Kirsti and I, along with a handful of friends, went down to City Hall in Walnut Creek to join one of the many prop-8 protests across the state (and across the world as well, it seems).
Even though I felt pretty sad at the passing of this unjust amendment, I still feel pretty positive about the future. Even if it wasn't clear that the younger generations are bound to eventually overturn it, I even have some confidence regarding these lawsuits that have been filed. The one that makes the most sense to me is the one that claims that Prop 8 isn't an ammendment so much as it's a revision of the Constitution. After all, if it declares that we all have equal protection, but then an ammendment says that we don't, that's a bit of a contradiction now, isn't it? Supposedly revisions require a lot more than just a simple majority vote.
I promised myself to be on my best behavior if I saw any of the "Yes on 8" crowd. I didn't really get much of an opportunity, but there were a couple who showed up. One was a guy who wouldn't talk to anybody, including the little kid who asked him if he loved anybody. There was another guy with a cardboard sign that read "Your making yourselves look stupid." Scott and I were quick to mock his bad grammar. I figure that sort of a thing is fair game. We even chanted "Yes on grammar!" at him.
One thing that I really think was cool about it is that I really wasn't sure exactly who was gay and who was straight. In some cases, I could probably make an educated guess; however, I didn't feel like some sort of token straight guy in a gay crowd. I felt like we were all Californians - Americans even - who all felt the same way. It really didn't even seem to matter.
What was also cool is that a friend of Kirsti's, who's a lesbian, was with us and was much more open about her sexuality than I had ever seen. The thing is, I imagine if you're gay you probably have a tendency to not bring it up, as you don't exactly want people pointing the finger of judgment at you all the time. Kirsti's friend and I had never discussed my feelings on the issue, so perhaps she didn't want to test it out only to find that I was anti-gay rights or something. She probably figured that it was pretty safe to discuss it openly if I was at an anti-8 rally though.
Oh, and don't get me wrong. By saying that she was "open", I'm not saying that she was describing her sex life to us. I'm referring to how she and I were joking about the "gay agenda", and I told her that I was tired of her always pushing it on me. It was pretty funny because a lady standing behind us turned to her and asked her, "When you find out what that is, could you let me know?" She also made it a point to thank us for protesting with her, as everybody else in our group was straight.
So, we're not where we should be - but we're getting there.
5 comments:
Just curious. What is your position on polygamy? If a man and his multiply wanna be wives want to have a lawful marriage, shouldn't that be their constitutional rights?
Seriously, what is your thoughts on that?
If you are for it, why?
If you are against, why?
I don't think that the state should have to recognize polygamist marriages for the sole fact that marriages are between two people and not two or more. Polygamist relationships would require a completely different set of laws as far as determining things like inheritence, child custody, hospital visitation, etc.
With same-sex marriage, it's still between two people, so you don't have to worry about all of those other things.
However, if consenting adults want to enter into such relationships, then I don't think that the government should intervene. (Of course, they should with those guys who are marrying underage girls.) So, I'm not really against it, but I don't think that the government needs to go through the hassle of coming up with some completely different set of laws just for their sake. I imagine that the process of coming up with all of that would be a nightmare unto itself.
With gay marriage, as far as the law is concerned, nothing has to be rewritten or changed around. It's just two people of the same sex instead of the opposite sex.
And hey, how about putting a name to your comments?
Since it's late and I'm getting tired, I don't feel like I'm making myself clear regarding the difference between allowing gays to marry and allowing polygamist marriages.
With gay marriage, all that changes is that marriage is now between any two people. With polygamy, there's a whole lot more that needs to be changed by the very nature that you're adding at least one more person into the equation. So, declaring polygamy legal isn't that simple - there's a lot more that would need to be done, and I don't see any reason why the state should have to do that.
Thanks for thinking about this and answering my question. It does make one "think" about stuff. I know it makes me really think about my position and why I hold certain positions.
Something you said made me think even more. You said,
"I don't think that the state should have to recognize polygamist marriages for the sole fact that marriages are between two people and not two or more."
So, why is marriage between two people? Who said it was between two people? If it's all about people's rights and freedoms, why do we hold certain truths like "marriage is between two people"?
Anyway, just something to think about. I know why I hold to that position, just wonder why you do.
Thanks for allowing my comments. Hope, if nothing else, I have provoked thought. I always enjoy reading your posts.
I guess I prefer to remain anonymous because I have found in the blogosphere, when people know who you are, they tend to bring their presuppostions into the mix which can cloud their ability to dialogue with honesty and clarity. You have probably experienced that yourself. They tend to "read between the lines" and get defensive. I can be guilty of that myself.
Have a great day.
So, why is marriage between two people? Who said it was between two people? If it's all about people's rights and freedoms, why do we hold certain truths like "marriage is between two people"?
By marriage, I'm referring more to how it's understood by the law. So, by law, it's between two people. As for society's standards, you're right - who's to say what marriage is? And as I've said, I don't think that the government should interfere with what consenting adults do.
Personally, I think that a good argument can be made about why government has any say in marriage at all, and if they got involved in polygamy, that would just be one more thing where the government is getting involved.
Still, by law, if the law provides something for one type of couple, then they need to provide it to all types of couples.
Post a Comment