thomascwaters.com

Isobel Whites post is really excellent and should be, in my opinion, required reading!  There is at one time, two ideas in there: one may seem counter-intuitive, but the other is well worth the trouble of sorting the first out.

I admit, if asked to decide between, 2010 or 2012, I’m on the 2010 side of things.This is based on a number of things:

• I think a big win in California would give a boost to all GLBTQ struggles across the country.
• While the issue is still so fresh, I think it has more chance of passing.
• I’m not sure I trust those suggesting to wait, since many of them are the folks who wewre unsuccessful in the last fight against Prop 8

So I headed into the post expecting to disagree with her at every turn. But clearly, if I feel the post should be required reading, I feel differently after finishing it. I think each of her eight points can all be discussed, but for me, there are three, that are the really big deal for me.

4. It’s incredibly expensive- I’m not sure that this will change over time, but because the price tag is/ was/ will be so big, it makes sense to make sure it will be a definite win before proceeding. If we can’t say definite, then we should have a pretty good idea that a win is likely.

6) Return to the ballot box too soon, and it’s easy for the opposition to argue that we’re subverting the will of the people and the Courts.- The second worst thing that could happen would be for Marriage Equality to win the next round, only to be challenged again in the next election. This back and forth will grow very old very quickly, and we are the ones likely to lose out.

5. Other states need more help.- This is the point that makes the most sense to me overall. We can’t afford to lose in Maine. I’ve written about that before. And while Marriage Equality is a fight worth fighting, it does not in any way help the whole of the GLBTQ communities. Marriage Equality is but one side of a multi-faceted demand for full equality for all GLBTQ’s. While regional and state-wide change will be a critical part of a broader strategy, thinking in a bigger way means, we need to keep making grounds on multiple fronts across multiple states.

What do you think? Does White’s ideas shift your thinking?

Isobel White: Same Sex Marriage in CA: 8 Reasons Why We Should Lay Off the Debate over 2010 v. 2012.

An opposing viewpoint is presented here:

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=16408

In recent weeks, we have seen some in the Republican Party begin to soften on Gay Marriage and suggest the GOP is a welcoming place for the GLBTQ community. This can be understood in a few ways:

1. The GOP, since Reagan, was supposedly a “big tent” party with room for diverse opinions. However, the growth of the radical religious right has over time, forced many from the big tent. As the GOP attempts to redefine itself and regroup, some are calling for a return to the big tent, while those in power call for a cleansing of the party.
2. For some, it isn’t so much about “the big tent” as it is the recognition that the radical religious right has harmed the party irreparably, and this is an attempt to capture the reigns of the party. For them, its about power, not diversity. It isn’t hard to see that while the Democratic Party has claimed to be backing of change to support gay rights, Obama has shown us (so far) that it was all empty rhetoric. We got used to help get him elected, and we are again slipping into invisibility. Some in the GOP see this as an opportunity to exploit, and get GLBTQ people to jump ship and be a strong enough base to give them power over the radical religious right.
3. For some, it is simply a matter of believing that a more progressive stance on Gay Rights is needed. They recognize that the culture has changed and if the party is going to stay relevant, it must be at the fore front of the change. The GOP has always claimed to stand for a strict adherence to the Constitution and personal liberties, yet, we see in the Gay rights issue government encroaching upon the rights of people. It isn’t too hard of a stretch philosophically, to see the Gay Rights movement fitting well within a GOP framework, except that the party is so full of the radical religious, I think a snow ball has a better chance in hell, that Gays have in the GOP.

But this may be one of the first times, we are starting to see such major shifts within a religious denomination, especially one as strict as the Catholic Church. Of course, Kmiec, really isn’t inside the Church leadership. He is merely a member of the flock.

His suggestion to remove the government from marriage, and return it completely to the Church, is not so new.  Kmiec’s perspective is one of “religious liberty. In his editorial, he writes:

Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church.

How to accomplish this? The state would grant civil licenses to all couples same-sex or opposite sex. Then churches may perform marriages as each sees fit. If a faith accepts gay marriage it can marry a gay couple, but if a faith does not, it can marry only straight couples. A number of folks have suggested the same, but usually from the other side of the issue. All couples have the same legal rights this way.

Princeton University law professor Robert George, denounced his idea, telling CNN:

“Family is built on marriage, and government – the state – has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,”

Truly, one of the main reasons to push for Marriage Equality is to protect gay families, and if marriage is removed as a civil institution, it is unclear how this would impact laws and protections that are all about the family. Dissolving Marriage as a civil institution could make it harder for same-sex families in areas of adoption, second parent adoption.

My views on this are changing dramatically. At one time, I would have totally agreed with getting the government out of the marriage business and grant everyone a civil license, but as the debate continues, I am more inclined personally to believe that the better distinction to be drawn is between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. All couples get married, but only religious marriages have the blessing of the church (and presumably God). I recognize for someone wishing to elevate the importance of Religion, this may seem inadequate. That is something writing more about.

So, I started this saying that there were several reasons why the GOP’s stance of Gays seems to be in flux. Are there potentially different reasons why the Church, or the religious (or some intersection of these) may be calling for a different stance? I’d say, yes, and while I think I have become to articulate some of that, it would be a good base for another blog post.

Both the linked article, and the linked editorial is a good read. Check them out, and then comment here in my blog about what you think.

Pro-Obama “Catholic” Jurist Douglas Kmiec Now Abandons Church Teaching on Homosexual Unions.

Kmiec’s Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle

There is no shortage of news and comment about today’s decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8.  I’ve written a very little about it today, replying to the change.org blog by Michael Jones. I generally like what he writes, and if you don’t currently frequent his stuff, I think you should. But most of what has been written today is too negative, angry or whining for me. Maybe I’m in deep denial and just don’t want to cope with the reality of the news, but I don’t think so. I think it was almost assured since the day of verbal arguments before the Supreme Court, that this was what was going to happen, so we have had months to prepare for the news. FWIW, I don’t find Michael’s post whining or angry- but for me the news wasn’t “the ultimate buzz kill” either.

And then maybe, this is exactly what is supposed to happen after such an event. Galvinize the supporters with angry rhetoric and calls for action. Use it to raise funds to keep the struggle for equality moving forward. I just think that we give our opponents more power if we feel hurt and taken advantage of. And if we really want full equal rights, we are going to need to get off our asses, and get to work big time.

A friend commented to my boyfriend today, that I had “called it right” since I had said that the decision would come down as it did. But I was far from the only one. I put much faith behind what I read on the Law Dork 2.0 site. And his comments had much to do with how I formulated my own opinions. Chris’s blog is another “must read” in my book. Another blog entry today really nailed it in many ways, and if you want to cut through all the crap, I’d say start with William Bradley’s writing on the Huffington Post. And the last thing, I want to mention that colors my opinion, has been listening to Left, Right, and Center from KCRW. From last week’s show- they were talking about California’s budget problems and the way that CA’s initiative process has made California “ungovernable.” But they have been commenting on California for some time.

There were 2 issues before the California Supreme Court, but neither one was really about same-se marriage directly. The first was questioning how Prop 8 did what it did. Opponents to Prop 8 claimed that it wasn’t really an amendment to the CA constitution, but rather a revision of it. That would change everything- for a revision requires a much higher bar for approval than a simple majority. The second issue was about if Prop 8 was proactive or retroactive. If it had been retroactive, the 18,000 marriages would have been invalidated. Fortunately, the folks who crafted the initiative were too vague in that regard. If they had done a better job crafting the initiative wording, there would probably be 36,000 more single people in CA tonight!

Both of these kinda astound me! The proponents for Yes on 8, must have figured that since the San Francisco weddings were retroactively wiped out that the 18,000 would have been, or they were just so hellbent on making sure the voters had the last (haha) word, that they didn’t think it all through. As for the first question, I think the No on 8 people were just too full of their own kool aide. While most of us can agree that everyone deserves equal rights, merely stating that is far from enough to get it through the court. Or maybe since the Supreme Court had, not too many months earlier opened the door for gay marriage, they thought it would be an easy ride. But I remember listening to the court proceedings, and I didn’t think “our side” did a very strong job or arguing for Prop 8 to be struck down. So, the Yes on Pop 89 folks did everything by the ules and California places a huge emphasis on the voters actions on initiatives, so the vote was upheld. The Judges do not believe in taking rights away from people once they have them, so the 18,000 couples remain married.

And here is the good news from my point of view. Well, the first point of good news, at least. There are now 3 groups of people in California. Straight people who can get married, gay people who can not get married, and gay people who are married. What stops 2 men (or 2 women) from being part of the last group? The date by which they want to get married? The stage is being set for the unfair nature of this to be set right. That these marriages stand is the best “gift” the Supreme Court could have granted. They really couldn’t wipe away Prop 8. The initiative had been done completely by the rules and the voters had spoken. Democracy can onlty exist when the voters believe that they are truly heard, and the majority, as slim as it was, ruled. but by leaving these 18,000 marries intact, the court has validated the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples! This has now been validated by the courts and by legislators. The conservative right has argued that redefining marriage should not happen, but gues what- it has already happened. While they will most likely still trot out that argument, it really has no merit any longer.

The second piece of good news, at least in my opinion, was that the case was pretty simple. The initiative had done it all correctly, and the voters had spoken. This makes it much easier for another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8. As long as they do it right, and get the needed votes, it will be just as easy to overturn Prop 8. Unfortunately, in California, this back and forth process and go on and on and on. But my guess is, that after one or two more rounds, it will be all over, and the people of California will say enough!

Prop 8 was not upheld because it was the moral thing. It wasn’t upheld because traditional marriage should be the norm. It was uphelp only because the Yes on 8 people dotted their “i’s” and crossed their “t’s.” That and the fact that they organized a highly successful campaign that used fear tactics and a lack of facts that was highly persuasive, while the No on 8 People ran a poor and ineffective campaign.

The other “good” thing is that most states are not California! While initiatives can be placed on all ballots, in the cases of the other states that currently allow gay marriage, the process is far more daunting. It has almost no chance in Iowa, but some chance in Maine.

The last thing I want to say, is that Marriage Equality, isn’t and shouldn’t be the only issue that people get focused on! Here in Pennsylvania, GLBTQ people can lose their jobs, vbe refused housing or public accommodations for being wh they are. Hate crimes against GLBTQ people happen at an alarming rate without adequate recourse. and marriage isn’t the only “institution” where straight people have special rights. DODT continues to destroy the careers of many men and women who passionately have fought for and protected our country, yet are denied their right to serve. Yes! Let’s keep working for marriage equality. But if people can be fired for being gay, how will they ever have the courage to be civily married and place themselves at that risk? all of these civil rights and protections are needed, and if we only focus on marriage, we will not win overall, nor will we get to full equality as quickly.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture

Okay, I’m really tired of the Miss California-I-was-so-mistreated garbage. I don’t have any expectations that my post, added to all the verbiage out there is going to make it stop, but at least I’ll feel better after getting it off my chest. The final straw for me was the linked commentary below. Now, Christians are the victims? Good grief. But the part that really made my blood boil was this:

She returned an equally direct and honest answer that was well thought out and expressed,

THAT’s when I said, OK, I’m tired of being quiet- I am going to write about this.

First, here is my opinion on what happened. Then, some ranting about all that has transpired since.

Hilton posed a reasonable and excellent question to the constestent. It was far from an easy question. The topic is truly controversial. A good answer would have to be thoughtful, honest, and respectful of both sides of the issue. The constestent may have got the honest part right, but failed big time on thoughtful or respectful. The vote fell as it did. I don’t see any problem with that. Then Hilton added insult to injury by being his normal controversial self calling her names. He was a total ass, and single-handedly presented to the National Organization for Marriage their only hope for gaining any popularity.

I have no problems with the fact that she expressed her personal viewpoint against same-sex marriage. But that wasn’t the question. No one asked her what was her personal feelings about the subject. She didn’t really answer the question posed to her. Not only that, but in voicing her personal opinion, she did so in a highly offensive way, while saying some things that are either untrue or just confusing. I can’t find much of anything that Hilton did after the answer that was acceptable, except how he scored her. Past that, he was a total fail! So she failed in her answer, and he failed in his response to the answer.

Now, it is no surprise that Perez Hilton acted without class, respect, or common decency. He is Perez Hilton, and to expect him to rise to any reasonable level of respectful discourse would be expecting too much. He’s a gossip queen who knows how to stir the pot so the speak. But that is no excuse for his actions either. Miss CA’s answer however was totally surprising. Her inability to walk the fine line between sharing one’s personal viewpoints but doing it in a way that is respectful of all, is alarming, and shows her to be inadequate to be the winner. That’s why I believe she deserved a poor score.

So, let’s look at both the question and the answer:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

That she didn’t realize that her answer would come across as offensive is no surprise. She goes to a Christian school where there is little diversity of opinions or people. She is very used to environments where there isn’t two very different and highly emotional viewpoints to things. And I truly feel bad for her in that regard. When you live sheltered away, you lack the experiences to enable you to act more compassionately towards everyone.

So, what does her answer mean? Mr. Adamo feels it was well thought out, direct and honest. When you cut through everything, she basically said, “No, every state should not follow because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. The entire country should go one way, because she thinks so? Because she thinks so? I can see that this would be a sufficient reason why she might do something, but Hilton’s question asked her what she thought the rest of the country should do, and personal opinion just isn’t enough to go on. it may have beren an honest portrayal of her feelings, but lousy reasoning. Now, if she had said, she believed that most Americans were not ready to accept same-sex marriage and tradition hold marriage to be between a man and a woman. That may still have pissed off some people, but it would have been a reasonable argument to support her position. and if she had said something along the lines of ” I think we as a country need to find a way that the rights of all can be protected while at the same time protecting the traditiuonal definition of marriage,” she would have started to display some well-thought out respectful dialogue that both is true to her personal beliefs and aknowledges that not everyone holds the same views.

Come on, Mr Adamo! Well, thought out? Direct? What does it mean to say, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other?” First, this is inaccurate. Only people in three states can choose one or the other (although one or the other what is a reasonable follow-up).  but here is her first step away from a winning answer.  Here she is trying to find something to say that will reflect the diverse opinions on this issue. She wants to come across as pro- freedom to choose. I think she genuinely doesn’t want to force others to see things only her way. That’s fine, but she just didn’t find the right words. Yes, thinking on your feet is hard. winners can do it more successfully than she did.

But here’s the part where she failed big time. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe…” Her country? Her family? By speaking in the possessive of “my,” she alienates all those who feel differently than she does. They must not belong in “her country?”  But wait, that is a direct contradiction to her first statement that Americans can choose one or the other. So which is it? My Country! My Way? Or Americans can choose?

Mr Adamo, if respecting both sides of a highly emotionally charged issue is being politically correct, then we need more of that all around, not only with this subject. but I don’t think the lack of a “politically correct” answer is what caused her loss. It was the lack of a well expressed comment that allowed her to be true to her personal feelings, but spoke to the issue in such a way that both respected differing viewpoints and was a valid argument for the question of “why or why not.”

I can’t disagree with Mr Adamo that Hilton’s behavior post the episode was atrocious at best. I don’t however think Hilton speaks for me or the thousands of GLBTQ people who are demanding equal rights. The GLBTQ communities are no more monolithic than the straight community.

What’s unfortunate is how Miss CA has been treated through all of this including how she is being used by Mr Adamo to advance his own cause. She said, “No offense to anybody out there.” It was not her intent to cause a controversy with her answer. In that sense, she isn’t dumb as Hilton labeled her, but naive. So now she is being exploited by all sides in this battle over marriage.

The other thing that has happened is that the real issue- why same-sex couples do or do not deserve equal rights is again lost in craziness. I tend to think that’s how they like it. There are no valid emotional-less valid reasons why loving committed same-sex couples do not deserve equal rights under the law. When a straight couple is married there are about 1000 civil rights and civil privileges that become theirs immediately. Same-sex couples who have a civil union- about one quarter as many of those, and for couples like myself and my partner who have been together 10 years… nothing.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture.

Maybe I’m naive, but it seems to me that most Americans will over time, and given the chance, begin to separate out the truth from myh and choose reality over emotionalism and exploitation. The role of the gay rights activist, has to be countering the craziness with level-headed truth and valid ideas. The focus of the debate must be shifted to facts and realities and away from exaggeration and hyperbole.

We know that the “No on 8″ campaign was every bit as guilty for the loss as the wi9ngnut right was for the win. We must not operate from the place of “We deserve these rights”- even if we do- and consider our activism as a form of education. We will never (most likely) change the minds of the most far right. But it is the moderates in the middle on bioth sides of the center where we must continue to make progress. This holds true for every type of rights activism for members of the GLBTQ community- from nondiscrimination and hate crimes legislation to marriage equality.

Please do not misinterpret that last idea. We must continue to demand the rights we deserve- because we do! But rather than just demand them, our gaol has to be education others as to why these rights are important and how they impact people.

Religious Right Admits Using Schoolchildren Won Them Prop 8 | The New Civil Rights Movement.

Grabbed this over at Joe.My.God.  The linked post describes a link to Frank Rich’s column in the NYT. The Rich column is really good, and this blog a good intro. Check it out!

Joe. My. God.: Justice Is Gathering.

This is a wonderful video that talks about gay marriage, but in doing so discusses in some detail 4 cases that are ofte used by the religious right to attack any form of legislation dealing with GLBTQ issues. All 4 have been cited in terms of the PA HB 300 battle.

UPDATE:

As confirmed by the comment added to the blog post below, the date of the decision has not been released. The Queerty article appears to be incorrect.

Looks as if the CA Supreme Court ruling may be announced next Monday, April 20th.

Proposition 8 ‘Day of Decision’ Set, We Think / Queerty.

I find this commentary disappointing on many levels starting the implied position that one way is the right way to obtain rights and the other is the wrong way. In addition, the desire to compare struggles seems poorly considered. An argument worth exploring, but here, not given enough thought or evidence. Consider Loving vs Virginia (I hope I have that right) that turned the tides in terms of inter-racial marriage, or consider what role the courts played in a social acceptance of divorce.

I don’t deny that patience may be a virtue, but at the same time, we must work the system, and taking cases to court is a part of the system. We need to work all sides of it, not just one side. So, I think the role of patience is to remind us not to expect any one victory or set back to be the “end all.” but rather one step along the journey.

Lastly, I think it is really narrow to think the california passage of Prop 8 was due to the earlier court decision. The set back can be tied to a few things: 1) Failure by the No on 8 campaign to wage a reasonable and winning campaign; 2) The influence and money from outside CA that was a part of the struggle; 3) The success of the Yes on 8 campaign to spread lies and provoke fear in such a way that was never adequately countered; 4) a ballot initiative worded in a potentially confusing way. These things, in addition to being a state widely divided politically was responsible for the loss.

History demonstrates that patience alone does not being equality if we look at the black civil rights movement in america. While I do not fully subscribe to the notion that Gay is the new Black, I do believe the struggle for ful equality will parallel that movement more than say, women’s suffrage. The legal, the social change, the changes due to the ballot box, are all a part of the whole. But our time is coming for action. What will be our “lunch counters?” What will be our “sitting in the front of the bus?”

PoliGazette » Gay Marriage: Tactical Wins, Strategic Blunders.

New Hampshire Blue Bozos | TWoPolitics

Researching things to write brings me to blogs and websites I would never otherwise see. That is both a good thing, and a not-so-good thing. This morning it brought me to this pile of BS. Which brings up a few questions for me:

1) Who is the dumbest group of American’s?

Answer Log Cabin Republicans. If these gay republicans EVER think that their party is going to have a place for them, they are even dumber than I am giving them credit for being. The Republicans stopped being, (maybe 30 years ago?) a party focused on fiscal responsibility and good judgement, and is solely and completely the party seeking the return to the dark ages. Wake up and smell the coffee gay republicans!

The verbiage in the blog about gay-marriage may hav simply been written to come off as semi-humorous, but illustrates the lunacy of the party.

And why not? Shouldn’t homosexual couples be just as miserable as heterosexual married couples during a messy divorce?

LOL. This is the pro-marriage  party of the family! Or maybe it is just a ploy- Hey same-sex couples: why do you want to marry and just turn out to be as miserable as we are? Perhaps the fear is we will do a better job of marriage than they do now, which is a pretty safe bet. The gays tend to be over-achievers and want to make the most of anything.

2) What is democracy all about if not discourse and many votes?

I remember loving Civics class in high school, and the whole notion of democracy. But when I read blogs like this, I have to wonder if “we” all want the same thing: a strong democracy? If we do then, wouldn’t we all be supporting  lots of bills and lots of dialogue and debate?  Central to a democracy is a belief that the rights of all are important, and that having many and diverse opinions at the table is essential to protecting the rights of all.

waste time voting on as many of the liberal issues of the day as they could squeeze into a week.

The ease with which conservatives display no interest in even hearing the needs of the other side is startling. That isn’t democracy, it is arrogance and the desire for totalitarianism.

New Hampshire Blue Bozos | TWoPolitics.