Here’s one of the ramifications of the Democratic Party’s refusal to support gay marriage: all three ballot attempts to ban gay marriage passed. Florida, Arizona and California – where 17,000 same-sex couples have already married, best friends of mine among them – all voted to limit the civil rights of their citizens.
Obama and Biden were both as clear about their anti-gay marriage stand as they were on their support of Roe v Wade and – waddya know – all three anti-abortion initiatives (South Dakota, Colorado and California) were defeated. Colorado’s rejected initiative was especially sinister: it attempted to define human-hood as starting at the moment of fertilization.
That’s leadership, Barack Obama. For good and for crap.
There were a lot of other Propositions to interest people. According to Ballotwatch, “Overall, 92 measures were approved, 54 were rejected, and 7 are still to be decided.” Animal rights propositions to stop commercial dog racing in Massachusetts and to define acceptable housing space for California’s farm animals succeeded. Bond proposals got a friendly hearing but tax cuts were sensibly rejected, including an attempt to end income tax in Massachusetts.
And the two states that often fight to be Trendsetter of the Nation took different decisions about dope: California will not be decriminalizing possession, while Massachusetts is only gonna fine you if you’re holding less than an ounce of weed. Now Massachusetts residents can enjoy a lesbian or gay marriage while stoned in a well-resourced dog-friendly state. This could be the economic life-raft we’ve been looking for.
However one of my oldest dearest friends Tracy Moore is married to the wonderful Rabbi Lisa Edwards of the world’s first lesbian and gay synagogue Beth Chayim Chadashim (BCC) in LA. They’ve conducted 42 weddings since July 17th and this moving film by Pam Postrel (with Dan Fogelberg singing a Judy Collins song) gives evidence of the nightmarish devil’s rituals these homophobes have put a (temporary?) end to.
Comments
Sue, brilliant! I so appreciate your outrage . . . vis-a-vis the enrage that's so possible. Sheriden and I agreed this morning we'd stay in MA just so we are married somewhere at least.
Let's not forget Arkansas, where a proposition was passed limiting child adoption to married couples. This was clearly an attempt to circumvent constitutional challenges with regards to banning gays from adopting. Alas now, single parents, widowed grandparents, and couples who choose not to marry, are now added to the list of those deemed unfit to adopt children in the good state of Arkansas.
Because 50% of marriages don't end in divorce, right? Because divorce doesn't "damage" children, right? Because how can one person possibly provide a safe, loving environment for a child? Because two committed parents can't possibly hold the same amount of love in their hearts and homes as a couple with rings and a piece of legal paper, right? RIGHT!
I keep trying to figure out what exactly it is these maniacs are so afraid of. Why do they even care who loves who? For a bunch of people who claim that God created all of us (of course they mean ONLY people THEY deem appropriate) they sure are a bunch of hypocrites.
Of course, I'm sure the orphanages are all empty and all foster parents are worried about getting pink slips since obviously the pool for "appropriate" adoptive/foster parents is now limited to only the "one man/one woman" concept of family.
This whole thing is so disgusting it makes me wonder what God must really think about how her word has been perverted.
I share your frustration regarding successful efforts to prevent gay marriage. However, the first, and in my opinion the more important obstacle to to be addressed, is civil union. In my blog today (http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/) I wrote the following:
Gay marriage ~ Straight conundrum – On November 4th three states dealt a setback for gay marriage advocates. I believe that many of those who voted for the setbacks are not necessarily anti-gay or anti-gay rights. They are having a tough time with the “marriage” part. This is understandable. Social change does not occur in flashes. It takes society time to alter long-standing custom and belief. I would suggest to gay-rights advocates that their energies be focused on the principle that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which include employer spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights and adoption rights. I believe that today’s society is ready to accept same-sex civil unions, a legal relationship between two people of the same gender. “Marriage” confuses and exasperates the issue. By advocates concentrating on civil union rather than marriage the anti-gay forces will lose a significant portion of their support, thereby fostering an environment for gay Americans to gain the rights they seek and deserve.
Well, Stephen it had to happen. We had to eventually find something to disagree on. I have for decades written against the institution of marriage, but if it's going to be the going institution, then everyone who wants a piece should have the right to have it. You can't have half a piece of equality - something is either equal or not. History has shown us that "separate but equal" is always a lot more separate than equal.
There's also this matter of the separation of church and state: the fact that some fundamentalists think same-sex canoodling is the road to hell should not impact on actual civil rights. It's either a right or not. And unfortunately there are hundreds of very concrete material benefits, as well as social capital, connected to legal marriage. There is a whole other level of annoyance when you consider how all of this discriminates against committed singles, like myself, but that's a different story.
Meanwhile, to my readers, don't miss Stephen's weekly review of the week at http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/
Katz, you're the best. Watching the video from a post-election perspective is especially poignant, but there is still a very good legal strategy being followed by the lambda legal/nclr/aclu team which filed with the california supremes on 11/5.
i'm really exhausted so can't get into all the issues that have arisen--suffice it to say that i can certainly tell that the finite number of days of street protests given to me by the goddess were used up decades ago.
Sue, brilliant! I so appreciate your outrage . . . vis-a-vis the enrage that's so possible. Sheriden and I agreed this morning we'd stay in MA just so we are married somewhere at least.
Posted by: Dr. Susan Corso | 07 November 2008 at 09:47
Let's not forget Arkansas, where a proposition was passed limiting child adoption to married couples. This was clearly an attempt to circumvent constitutional challenges with regards to banning gays from adopting. Alas now, single parents, widowed grandparents, and couples who choose not to marry, are now added to the list of those deemed unfit to adopt children in the good state of Arkansas.
Because 50% of marriages don't end in divorce, right? Because divorce doesn't "damage" children, right? Because how can one person possibly provide a safe, loving environment for a child? Because two committed parents can't possibly hold the same amount of love in their hearts and homes as a couple with rings and a piece of legal paper, right? RIGHT!
Posted by: Gema Gray | 07 November 2008 at 12:40
I keep trying to figure out what exactly it is these maniacs are so afraid of. Why do they even care who loves who? For a bunch of people who claim that God created all of us (of course they mean ONLY people THEY deem appropriate) they sure are a bunch of hypocrites.
Of course, I'm sure the orphanages are all empty and all foster parents are worried about getting pink slips since obviously the pool for "appropriate" adoptive/foster parents is now limited to only the "one man/one woman" concept of family.
This whole thing is so disgusting it makes me wonder what God must really think about how her word has been perverted.
Posted by: Lynda | 09 November 2008 at 08:33
I share your frustration regarding successful efforts to prevent gay marriage. However, the first, and in my opinion the more important obstacle to to be addressed, is civil union. In my blog today (http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/) I wrote the following:
Gay marriage ~ Straight conundrum – On November 4th three states dealt a setback for gay marriage advocates. I believe that many of those who voted for the setbacks are not necessarily anti-gay or anti-gay rights. They are having a tough time with the “marriage” part. This is understandable. Social change does not occur in flashes. It takes society time to alter long-standing custom and belief. I would suggest to gay-rights advocates that their energies be focused on the principle that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which include employer spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights and adoption rights. I believe that today’s society is ready to accept same-sex civil unions, a legal relationship between two people of the same gender. “Marriage” confuses and exasperates the issue. By advocates concentrating on civil union rather than marriage the anti-gay forces will lose a significant portion of their support, thereby fostering an environment for gay Americans to gain the rights they seek and deserve.
Posted by: Stephen Weinstein | 09 November 2008 at 19:34
Well, Stephen it had to happen. We had to eventually find something to disagree on. I have for decades written against the institution of marriage, but if it's going to be the going institution, then everyone who wants a piece should have the right to have it. You can't have half a piece of equality - something is either equal or not. History has shown us that "separate but equal" is always a lot more separate than equal.
There's also this matter of the separation of church and state: the fact that some fundamentalists think same-sex canoodling is the road to hell should not impact on actual civil rights. It's either a right or not. And unfortunately there are hundreds of very concrete material benefits, as well as social capital, connected to legal marriage. There is a whole other level of annoyance when you consider how all of this discriminates against committed singles, like myself, but that's a different story.
Meanwhile, to my readers, don't miss Stephen's weekly review of the week at http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Sue Katz | 11 November 2008 at 11:23
Katz, you're the best. Watching the video from a post-election perspective is especially poignant, but there is still a very good legal strategy being followed by the lambda legal/nclr/aclu team which filed with the california supremes on 11/5.
i'm really exhausted so can't get into all the issues that have arisen--suffice it to say that i can certainly tell that the finite number of days of street protests given to me by the goddess were used up decades ago.
Posted by: Tracy | 12 November 2008 at 00:28