mixed emotions

[eirias]

Okay, so I am totally thrilled about the presidential results. I have to get that out there. This victory was all the more wonderful for its unsurprisingness. I could have gone to bed at eleven but I couldn't bring myself to do it.

But the night wasn't all victories. It looks like Prop 8 is going to pass in California. I don't want my frustration about this to be lost in the joy today. I remember two years ago when the anti-union amendment passed in Wisconsin and part of the reason it was so awful was that none of my friends seemed to understand that even though the Democrats had won in Congress, I lost.

I want to state publicly: the success of these amendments does not protect my marriage; it makes me feel less secure in it. When other people get to set boundaries on who we can and cannot love, we are all diminished in power and possibility. I do not cherish the feeling that my marriage is a contingent thing, dependent for its existence on the consent of others. That's not the reality, of course. We would love each other even without the tax break. But government-sanctioned marriage is so entrenched in this culture that when they parade their ability to deny it to people for no good reason, I feel naked and vulnerable and small.

If Massachusetts has the right to go one way, California has the right to go the other (legally speaking). But make no mistake: California, you deeply, deeply suck, and I will hold this against you until you make a change.

Comments

[ksledgemoore.livejournal.com]

I'm very upset about this as well.

On the plus side, Michigan's important ballot proposal passed narrowly. We will now be allowed to use IVF embryos for stem cell research. This will help our screwed economy, too.

By the way, we had the same thing happen in 2006. Everyone was so thrilled about dem victories, but in MI the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" passed, meaning that we eliminated all forms of affirmative action in the state. That sucked.

The gay marriage thing is horrible. I think a similar proposal passed in some other states, too. :(

[chilimuffin.livejournal.com]

It's a weird feeling to be directly legislated against.... I take comfort in the fact that even if prop 8 passes, it will fall under the gavel of the CA Supreme Court at some point. Conversely, I'm always sad that Kelly's parents are some of those responsible for such a ban passing in the first place - it seems to be such a cruel form of "I love you, but...."

(it also makes me love Wisconsin's continual re-election of Tammy Baldwin all the more).

I find the Arkansas ban on non-married people adopting/fostering being far more horrifying because that cuts such a huge swath of possibly good homes out of the reach of children in need. Sad.

[kirin]

Wait, I'm confused on this point. Can the CA SC actually overrule a CA constitutional amendment? I thought the idea of an amendment was to get it in above the state courts, though I thought perhaps SCOTUS could still shoot it down. But I haven't actually researched it and am prepared to be enlightened.

[chilimuffin.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't really know. Perhaps I'd just like to think a state supreme court can do that. But I suspect you're right, since that how it was in Wisconsin. I don't think the US Supreme Court has much jurisdiction, but I really have no idea....

[roamin-umpire.livejournal.com]

In general, the constitution is the end-all and be-all of legal decision-making. The courts have the ability to interpret items that are vague and to strike down laws that are counter to the constitution, but my understanding is that Prop. 8 is pretty clearly worded, and the CA courts will have no ability to change it.

Under Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution, states can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it is not in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to intervene.

That said, someone will presumably bring a federal lawsuit claiming that Prop. 8 violates Amendment I (specifically the clause about "no laws establishing a religion"), or possibly Amendment IV (upon which our right to privacy is based), or if they really stretch it, the interstate commerce clause in Article I, Section VIII. Such a suit likely won't make it past the district court level; challenges in other states have not fared well, and the precedent is established at this point.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Prop 8 may conflict with other parts of the California Constitution, giving grounds for a hearing. It's going to be a hard battle though.

However, given that California moronically allows Constitutional amendments with a 50% majority of votes, we can put a new prop to fix this on every single ballot until we fix it. And I think we will.

[trygve.livejournal.com]

You put this really well: "I want to state publicly: the success of these amendments does not protect my marriage; it makes me feel less secure in it. When other people get to set boundaries on who we can and cannot love, we are all diminished in power and possibility. I do not cherish the feeling that my marriage is a contingent thing, dependent for its existence on the consent of others."

It reminds me of the famous Martin Niemöller "First They Came..." poem. Rights like these are important to support, even if you're not directly affected.

[nein09.livejournal.com]

Word.

I and my relationship would only benefit from the definition of marriage being expanded.

[narya.livejournal.com]

Yes, very well said!

[evil-fizz.livejournal.com]

Seconded. It makes me so sad to think that a loving relationship should be the subject of a statewide vote.

[miang.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

Please don't hate us? :( California is not so very different from Wisconsin (which you'll recall passed its own gay marriage ban a scant four years ago despite Dane County's best efforts) or most other states in the union, in terms of its political makeup -- it has it's urban coastal liberal hippie cities and its...less-urban inland jerkoff bigot cities. It's just that our jerkoff cities are more heavily populated than the rural towns of the Midwest, and their voting patterns reflect that. :|

This thing is crazy far from being over, though. I laid out a few of the paths to success for marriage rights here (http://darthparadox.livejournal.com/182319.html?thread=856367#t856367), and comments to recent posts on los_angeles have suggested even more. Even if Prop 8 is found to have passed after the final tally, it shouldn't hold up for long, and it will have passed by an incredibly small margin and as a result of a number of sucktastic outside forces and pathetic internal organizing on the No side. Indeed, I'd argue very strongly against the notion that this represents some kind of mandate from the people...

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin (which you'll recall passed its own gay marriage ban a scant four years ago despite Dane County's best efforts)

Ohhhhh believe me, I remember (http://eirias.livejournal.com/131717.html). Not even so long ago as that.

[miang.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

*headdesk* Right, of course it was 2006 -- 2004 was Ohio's ban (which probably resulted in the second Bush II term). Bah.

Anyway, take heart. I have a number of friends and coworkers who are highly active in the No on 8 campaign, and they have no intention of letting this ride.

Rejoice for Colorado

[cos]

Colorado:
- Kicked Marilyn Musgrave, who authored the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a few years ago, out of Congress
- Rejected a ballot question eliminating worker protections ("right to work")
- Rejected a ballot question to ban affirmative action even though it was deceptively worded as if it were a "civil rights" anti-discrimination amendment
- Rejected a creepy ballot question to define a fertilized egg as a legal "person"
- Flipped from Republican to Democratic for the presidential race
- Elected an avid environmentalist mountain-climber Democrat to the US Senate to replace a retiring Republican

Re: Rejoice for Colorado

[eirias.livejournal.com]

So yeah, it's not that I'm immune to good news. There was a lot of it for me this time around and that's good. I am not sure I have felt this optimistic about politics since I started paying attention to them.

But the point of my posting this was to acknowledge this bad news -- because the only comfort to be had in losing politically is knowing that you're not the only sad one out there.

[minkoflove.livejournal.com]

(Speaking as myself, and not the mink.)

I spent the day in mourning. I spent 15 years in California, and I *thought* better of the state. And even though I'm happy for Obama's win, I was expecting it. Prop 8 is just so deeply hurtful though, and it's a flashback to 2 years ago. Then, too, more of the right people were voted in, but at the same time people in one of my states were abusing their gay neighbors. It's angering.

One possibility, legally speaking, is to say that this amendment is more than a simple alteration--it's a major change--and therefore requires the backing of the legislature too. I believe there's an ACLU lawsuit claiming this going forward. I don't see that happening though. First, the amendment *is* a very short sentence. And secondly, such a path might backfire severely, given the current strategies of the religious right.

They've defined "activist judge" to mean "judge who makes a ruling with which I don't agree." I think it really needs to be spelled out to these people: we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The latter is not necessarily as responsive to the people, but it *is* better at protecting minorities. And that's something about which the constitutional framers were very worried. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was a common one in the Federalist Papers. And that's what we're seeing--a tyranny of the majority, lead by your friends Don Wildmon, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell (still influential), etc. Even if we find a way to nullify this legally, it will anger the right and they'll redouble their efforts. Welcome to 21st century America.

We'll get this overturned in 10 years or so. For now though, I'm deeply, deeply angry.