Last night something amazing happened. For the first time in history, we have a true world citizen as our president. For the first time in American history, a black man is moving into the White House.
But something else went down last night. And that was equal rights in California. The right for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, to marry the one they love was defeated by Proposition 8.
I cannot illicit how sad this makes me, but I will try.
“All men are created equal.” That’s pretty fucking clear. Proposition 8 not only writes discrimination right into the constitution, but according to the sample ballot, will cost the state of California tens of millions of dollars.
Who are these people? I’ll tell you what: you want to protect your marriage? Listen to your significant other. Kiss your significant other. Make love to your significant other. Denying the right of marital status to same-sex couples will not make your marriage any more sanctimonious.
In fact, what does that say about marriage if all that we need to do to undermine the power of wedding vows is to go to the ballots and say, “Your marriage doesn’t count. Your marriage isn’t real.” There are couples in California that have married with trepidition, excitement and uncertainity three times. Their love and perserverance truly breaks my heart and I cannot help but wonder at the people, the majority of voters in California apparently, who cannot see that love.
The wonderfulness of Sen. Barack Obama’s victory is combat with Proposition 8’s. A proposition that relies on fear and ignorance. This is not the direction of progress.
I would like to throw a giant “FUCK YOU” to the Mormon church for funding these lines of discrimnation. For making the road to equality that much harder. For instilling fear in their members regarding homosexuality. For propagating false information about gay relationships. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
To those in California whose vows have been challenged: your love is more powerful than this vote. And one day, it will overcome.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 5, 2008 at 1:39 pm
J
Yeah, Florida passed the same thing. There were a few states with such measures. I wonder if the others passed as well. It’s so fucked up. I was listening to NPR the other night on my way home from and event and a Mormon priest was on and I guess they are trying to get him thrown out because he came out against the amendment publicly. Even his son won’t talk to him because of it. It’s insane.
November 6, 2008 at 7:09 am
(S)wine
Hey Janet,
You might find this column interesting: http://savvyextremeidealist.blogspot.com/2008/11/forgive-them-they-know-not-what-they-do.html
This is the site to which I sometimes contribute socio-political stuff. It makes a good point about passing Prop. 8 and how financially debilitating it can be to the state of Cali.
November 6, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Laura
I live in Orange County. We’ve been protesting for weeks. I shed tears when they announced that Prop 8 had passed. I witnessed people getting beaten by police yesterday as people protested in Hollywood at the passing of this. I’m so sad that I am at a loss of words. I want to die because social justice has died too. Thanks for your blog, it’s very well written. And thanks for believing in equality.
November 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Casey
You know, as much as I hate any sort of tyranny of the masses, I fear more the tyranny of the judiciary. I read some very insightful opinions leading up the vote that revolved around people voting for 8, not because they cared about gay people marrying, but that they cared about activism and legislation from the bench. I mean, it isn’t without precedent for the judiciary apparatus to do something like this, the US supreme court has done it before with bussing and Jim Crow laws. While I support that, I do not support a state supreme court creating new laws that effect other states in the union. It expands the powers clause to the breaking point.
This is not to say gay people should not be able to get married. I think they should. I take the true conservative view here, which is the government needs to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives. I support their struggle and their efforts, but in this case I would have had a hard time deciding the lesser of two evils–expanding further the bloated and dangerous role of unelected judges in law making, or keeping people from a fairly basic and sensible right.
A similar ammendment was voted on back in 2006 in Colorado. I voted no for sseveral reasons. They also had a proposition I, which was very reasonable and probably just a little too sensible to ever pass. It gave marriage-like benefits (power of attorney, next of kin, etc.) to homosexual couples under the name of “domestic partnerships.” I voted for that one, and if they put it up to a vote to allow gay marriage, nationally or statewide, I will be the first checking yes.
But that is my right and my privilege as a citizen, not an unelected judge’s.
November 8, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Jennifer Hughes
Hello Janet,
I have a lot of respect for your views. As an attorney, I am a strong proponent of the First Amendment; I believe we should have the right to speak our minds.
In practice, however, life is a constant process of balancing one’s own rights to pursuit of happiness and freedom of speech with the well-being of others. In other words, we have to determine how well our interest is being served, especially if it is infringing on the interest of others.
My missive is not about the subject matter (Proposition 8 which was extremely close, so you can figure barely less than half of the state was against it, and barely more than half of the state was for it… and that was with no effective opposition mounted against its passing, and a lot of money spent by people who believed it should pass).
My message to you is about the choice to use the word “fuck” in the title. In the body of the message, it would not show up but of course, the title, “What the fuck?” shows up as the very first Goggle search for Literally Speaking.
I have recently published two books on verbal humor, Literally Speaking and Literally Speaking Too. It took me eight years to complete these books and another year to publish them. My website is http://www.GetLiterallySpeaking.org and .com because, as you know, http://www.LiterallySpeaking.com and .org were already taken. I was thrilled to see my website come up 4th in a Google search. However, because of the title of my books (Literally Speaking), it is my great hope that people will not be deterred from considering purchasing my books via my website should they initially confuse it with yours.
It is my further hope that you will consider revising the title of the blog to something which will foster open debate without polarizing inquisitive minds which venture into your site. I understand you are frustrated at the result; a lot of people are. California was, sadly, not the only state to target limiting gay rights in this election.
My opinion, though, is that you will do more to further the cause of your views if you inundate people with facts: over $73 million was spent to endorse Proposition 8. $37.6 million was spent to oppose it. The Proposition 8 election was the most expensive election outside of the race for the White House. Why are people so vested in this? The California Constitution will be changed to provide that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Why? What is the threat? What is the fear? Over the next few years, this will lead to substantial revenue loss for the State of California. What effect, if any, does Proposition 8 have on Registered Domestic Partnerships, which give gay couples the same rights as a married couple in California, but call it something different? Talk about the facts.
So, I am offering a suggestion on how to reach more people with your views, and really have them consider what you think… really have them question what they think is right and why. You can seldom talk a person into another point of view, but if you give them enough information and enough leeway, they may come to find that, upon careful consideration of the facts and examination of their motives, they agree with you.
And, I am asking you to consider whether some other phraseology in the title of your blog would equally suit your expressive needs while being kindly accommodative of my interest in selling my books.
Best regards,
Jennifer Hughes
November 10, 2008 at 5:06 am
(S)wine
Ms Hughes,
Maybe your sales will increase; there is that other side of the equation, isn’t there? For example, I may have been one of those Google searchers. I dig this site, as well as the idea of reading your book. So there’s that.
In my opinion, most minds–inquisitive or not–are already polarized. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, the point of an argument is not to convert, but rather to streamline your own position, much like sharpening a pencil. The fallacy with argument is in the inherent desire to convert the opposition to your own line or way of thought.
Now, let’s talk about the Church of Latter Day Saints sinking in millions to pass Prop. 8.
November 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Janet
J- In fact in Arkansas, they passed a prop that denies same-sex couple adoption rights. It strikes me a little ironic that the far right is pushing adoption as the only option if you don’t feel you are ready for a baby, and then they push away the largest group of would-be parents to those children. I’ve come to the conclusion that much of conservative ideology is not based in reality.
(S)wine- Thanks for the link. The fiscal side of the issue is a hot topic. Apparently, even when in a recession, millions gone in California’s revenue is perfectly acceptable if it’s going towards keeping gays from enjoying equal rights under the law.
Laura- I cried too. Pictures of the protest: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg,0,937229.photogallery
Casey- Agreed. However I do not think that an entity that does not pay taxes (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ and all other sects involved in this proposition) has any right to place anything on a ballot or spend money to promote it. If their members want to donate to their fearful cause, fine. They pay taxes and they can do whatever they want with their money. The lines between church and state keep being crossed over and that should not be tolerated.
Jennifer I believe you’ve already received my e-mail.
FOR ALL OTHER READERS, FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE I’M NOT GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN: I don’t censor myself. This is my personal site. Get over it.
November 11, 2008 at 10:29 am
mssc54
I just figured since today id Veterans Day….
http://mssc54.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/veterans-day-2008/
Enjoy your day.
M
November 12, 2008 at 10:30 am
(S)wine
This just came in literally 30 mins. ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/gay.marriage.ap/index.html
November 17, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Jennifer Hughes
(S)wine, thanks for your remark. You make some valid points. Additionally, those that would be deterred by the “F*** you” remark would probably take issue with two of the drawings: baked potato (which has a joint) and running behind (which is anatomically correct though gender neutral).
Janet, I read your cannon: “Tolerate opinions and belief that differ from my own.” Tolerate: to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction. Though I didn’t receive your e-mail, I can reasonably surmise what it says based on the intolerant remark which follows and states that you will not repeat yourself; you do not censor yourself. At any rate, I took your cannon quite literally and believed that opinions contrary to your own would be “tolerated.” You purport to be more approachable than you are, or at any rate, than you have been in this interaction. It is truly a challenge to actually tolerate or consider positions contrary to your default, but from reading your bio, I took you to be a young idealist and thus figured it might not be an entire waste of time to write you and ask you to consider how your freedom of speech may affect my business expectancy. (A lot of people don’t really understand that aspect of the First Amendment; you can say anything you want; that doesn’t mean you won’t get sued for it. This is not a veiled threat, but neither is it a waiver should there come a point that it becomes an issue.)
I heard a phrase when I was much younger; I cannot say to whom it is attributable, but it is this: “Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.” I believe there is a lot of truth in that. Sure, I swear too at times… usually when I am so angry that I cannot effectively articulate a viable resolution.
Censoring oneself, in my opinion, is productive for several reasons. First, if we can eloquently convey our positions without profanity, we reach more people. We can be caustic about issues, dissatisfied with results, bittingly sarcastic and critical of the system, but as long as the language remains professionally acceptable, the discourse is tolerated or even applauded. It takes an intelligent AND disciplined mind to create such discourse.
Finally, the word “fuck” is so entirely overused that it lacks the sort of significance I feel you would like it to have in the context in which you use it. The people to whom it remains significant are the people who would be offended by it… of which I am not one, but very aware of the present sociopolitical dynamic nonetheless.
November 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Jennifer Hughes
My bad, “canon”… 1 n. Pays to proofread.
November 17, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Janet
Your opinion is that, since my forms of expression are base and therefore disposable or revisable, you have a right to request that expression be silenced so you can potentially sell more books.
I am a tolerant person. I published these comments, though it might have been a tad more polite to ask for my personal e-mail address and carry on the discussion there as this discourse about censorship has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8. But here is the problem: due to some coincidental wording (i.e. “Literally Speaking”) Google represents both of us on its search engine. I put “Fuck” in the title because I feel it is the most adequate expression to give my readers an idea on exactly how I feel about the issue. “California Did A Bad Thing” or “California Now Totally Sucks in My Book” did not have the punch I desired. Furthermore, no matter the reason I choose to use profanity, this is my personal blog and I have every right to say what I would like.
I believe in tolerance as long it does not infringe upon the rights of others, and that includes myself. You do not have a right to more sales, though I hope you many. I do, however, have a right to write uncensored. I do not write this blog to appease the masses. My readership is a rather small community and they have been with me through all of the “fucks” and “whores” and details of a really bad finger job. (Ouch.) I do not want readers who will be offended my me. That negates my purpose. A blog, in all its many forms, is primarily a personal anecdote and observational post. Personal being key.
The Internet is a very big place. There’s plenty of room for both of us.
November 17, 2008 at 6:58 pm
mssc54
Janet, your position that Churches not be able to put anything on a ballot because don’t pay taxes is an interesting one.
How about people who don’t pay taxes… should they be able to vote or is it just Churches that should be left out? And since Churches are ultimately made of people, should they be kept from voting as well?
Isn’t it interesting that the “black vote” voted (90%) for President elect Obama and they also voted (70%) for Prop 8.
In your view which of the black votes should be discounted? The ones you don’t agree with?
I thought you may be interested in this.
http://blog.legacycathedral.org/?p=103
November 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Janet
mssc54 Churches are private entities funded by their members. Thus, they have every right to refuse marriage to those they don’t wish to marry. What the state recognizes as marriage is not their business. This is what we call Separation of Church and State. Not only should they be barred from passing legislation because of their Tax Exemption status, but because they are churches and Separation of Church and State insinuates one shouldn’t be imposing policy on the other.
That twist on my words was fun. Church members can vote however they want. They are citizens.
Regarding the black vote: it is ironic and disappoints, but note that the black community is considerably more religious than the average white voter and are emulating the intolerance towards homosexuality traditionally found in religious institutions.
“In your view which of the black votes should be discounted?”
Yeah… none.
I’m upset that the intolerance, lies and money the Mormon church (and other churches) poured into prop 8 was able to sway the vote in a state that had just legalized same-sex marriage in June.
Also, I read the article in the link and it may surprise you to know that actually, I’m not terribly interested in the article at all. Anyone who still thinks that homosexuality is a choice (because deciding to become a member of the most persecuted group next to atheists totally makes sense. Gay men on YouTube just love death threats) does not warrant serious peruse.
November 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm
mssc54
Janet, would I be correct in assuming that (since you are against intoerance) you would condem the gay rights activists who have attacked others with oposing views and have also entered churches too disrupt their services.
BTW that “Seperation of Church and State” does not appear any where in the Constitution or bill of rights.
The IRS is the agency who (during the Lyndon B. Johnson senatorial years) told the churches to zip it. Of course we both know that means only conservative churches. President elect Obama’s former pastor J. Wright is a blazing example.