Protesting the passage of Proposition 8. AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian
Shame on you Californians.
With the passing of Proposition 8, you have relegated me and my queer brothers and sisters (and everything in between) to the margins of society while reaping all the benefits we bestow upon you.
In one fell swoop you told us that we are not fit in your eyes as deserving the same rights as you. Even though we wouldn’t have gotten the same Federal rights thanks to Clinton’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, you could have allowed us to take one step closer to that ever elusive goal of equality.
The campaign supporting Proposition 8 bemoaned the sanctity of marriage. How is marriage sacred anymore with divorce rates being what they are? It’s pretty unnerving that it is you heterosexuals who have made a mockery of marriage jumping in and out of it like last year’s cashmere sweater set. And now you are claiming that we will destroy the institution of marriage?
And the children. Oh God THE CHILDREN! Well never mind the Catholic Church has done more to harm children what with their priests and all. And the Mormons? Well just ask those teenage brides.
Do you really believe that children learning about gay people will convert them into card-carrying depraved homosexuals? If that were true all of my cousins would be gay. Hell, all of my neighbor’s kids would be gay.
In the end you chose to impose your beliefs on me. You think it’s wrong that I have relationships with other men, so you chose to exclude me. But to keep up appearances you let us have “domestic partnerships” that sound more like a maid’s union more than anything else.
We’re not asking for all that much. All we’re asking for is the right to be able to have the same rights when we decide to share our lives with that special person. We’re not demanding the Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Synagogues, the local preacher to marry us. We just want equal rights, not that other water fountain.
So as happy as I was Tuesday night that America has voted in the first black man as President, part of me is very disappointed that us queers are still not afforded the same rights as everyone else as proscribed by the Constitution.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Beautifully written.
amen.
Thank you for writing this; I've posted it for my friends to see.
Separate is NOT equal!!!
I'm amazed that not everyone saw through the subturfuge of "Yes on Prop 8" ads to realize that to vote in favor of this thing, YOU ARE TAKING AWAY PEOPLES RIGHTS.
I'm tired of the claws that religion has in America's politics and would have thought California had progressed beyond that kind of selfish tunnel vision. Freedom of religion is the right to practice your own beliefs, not hoist them upon the entire country and expect to govern them by your own beliefs.
Religion, marriage and sex are things that should be left in the privacy of our homes, not splashed onto billboards and television ads. If the Christian right and the uber conservative Republicans afforded that courtesy to Governor Palin's own disfunctional family, then they should do the same for everyone.
Instead they chose to hide behind their children and the Bible and their anonymous votes in order to not own up to their own bigotry. There's not enough self-righteousness in the world that justifies what took place on November 4th.
I'm was raised Catholic, I'm straight, and I believe in the safety of our children. When I get married and have my own children, the future I want for them is one that allows them to feel equal in this world, not to feel that their rights may be taken away because of their identity.
This measure should never have been on the ballot and I am embarassed to be an American because it passed. California should be concerned for it's own prosperity. Last night's march was a drop in the bucket compared to the masses of people that could do some real damage to this state. Think about what happened on A Day Without A Mexican. Think about the possibility of A Day Without A Gay and what it could do.
I support the LGTB community in their anger and willingness to show their faces, make their voices heard and protest this injustice. No American should ever deny the rights of another fellow law-abiding citzen. After all this country has been through with our past issues with race relations and women's rights, this is not a legacy we wish to continue.
here, here, Jimmy!
I felt so proud being there last night, walking from Santa Monica and San Vicente, yup that little street, and across the Sunset Strip into Hollywood in solidarity with everyone. Except for two or three haters, it was awesome, and a sense of empowerment.
If only the rest of California (and the world) understands the struggle we go through, day by day.
This is just a message that we will no longer be complacent, but stand up for who we are, and what we deserve, and not be relegated to the frims of society.
As some of the signs said last night,
"NO MORE MR. NICE GAY"
Why didn't people listen to Ellen?
Great words.
Can religious people just worry about their own and not force it into every aspect of society!?
For what it's worth, I'm heterosexual, and I support same-sex marriage. I voluntarily called for the No on 8 campaign.
I, too, have a bittersweet feeling towards the outcome of this election. I am sorry that you do not legally have the same right to marriage as I would. This, too, will change.
I assume you are talking specifically to folks who voted "Yes" on Prop 8 when you say...
"It’s pretty unnerving that it is you heterosexuals who have made a mockery of marriage jumping in and out of it like last year’s cashmere sweater set. And now you are claiming that we will destroy the institution of marriage?"
Just in case you or anyone who feels the way you do want to know, there are heterosexuals out there who voted "No", and who still support gay marriage. I, too, am disappointed.
To the next step of the fight....
Those prop 8 ads were very effective. They didn't mention anything about taking away rights - they pounded away on kids being taught about gay marriage in school - and even sited the school district website about regular marriage is mandatory in school (granted, I never actually looked to see if the url was valid - but when you put a url up on tv, most people will believe it really is).
Day before election during lunch, someone asked "what's prop 8 all about" which a few responded with "i think that's about not teaching gay marriage in school - that's a yes"
I quickly corrected them - as apparently none of these mothers saw the No on Prop 8 commercials.
I got them to change their minds - because ironically, the one that said yes - her brother IS gay.
I'm guessing there is a good chunk of people that voted yes - that were unaware that they were taking away rights.
You gotta remember - majority of people are lazy - they're not going to dig in too deep on what exactly each prop really stood for - they're going to go by (esp in this case) what friends/family/tv says. If someone gets the message wrong, everyone will vote wrong. How much can you blame them? This is America...home of the fat and lazy!
Before anyone goes crazy on me - for the record - I voted NO.
Without the Latino vote,” Mr. Rodriguez said, “Proposition 8 would never have succeeded.
As a married straight woman, I find it ridiculous that someone can feel that their union is threatened by gay marriages. I am no less married in the eyes of the state. I woke the day after one of my gay friends got married, and realized, whether I liked it or not, I was still married.
It's time there is true separation of church and state in American politics. You can get married in a church, but it won't mean a thing without the license issued by the state. I think the state should stop handing out marriage licenses in full--civil unions for all. You want "marriage", that's between you and your church. The state should only recognize secular unions.
Maybe we should ban divorces too. That'll show'em.
Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban. Slightly more than half of Latino voters, who made up almost 20 percent of voters, favored the ban, while 53 percent of whites opposed it.
If this country wasn't in a choke hold by religion maybe Obama wouldn't have felt the need to say "I'm a Christian and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and then the YES on 8 people wouldn't have been able to use that sound bite in their dirty campaign to confuse supporters of Obama into voting for 8. It saddens me that one can't really be elected to a public office unless they tell everyone about their relationship with god. One thing at a time, I guess. We've broken the race barrier now we need to get over the dogma of religion and accept that atheists and agnostics can make fine public servants even if they don't think that they got the job because god wants them in the oval office a la Bush. But I digress...
BTW, galaxiekat is 100% correct about "civil unions" for all. You want a marriage? Go to your religious institution.
I just wish someone would let us all know the percentage of Black voters that backed the ban. If only...
Hahah, caliking01. It's like lahipster thinks we can't read or something; or that we haven't already been discussing these statistics (and the reasons behind them) for the past two days.
lahipster is living the neocon wet dream. Not only did Prop 8 pass, but it's the "fault" of the minority vote. As if now "liberals" would become racists because of this.
Sorry, pal. Not going to work.
I'm a straight woman about to get married and I can't believe we'd eliminate anyone's right to that. I will very proudly tell my children that I voted No on 8 and be glad when they learn about all walks of life on the playground (because they will still learn it outside of the classroom!). It saddens me immensely that so many people would vote against a civil right to equality for all. The only encouragement is that this time was better than last and one more push and I think we'll win. I'm behind you for that push and I've started my letter writing to our representatives up in Sacramento.
@galaxiekat - I also think a movement to outlaw divorce would do much more to protect the "sanctity of marriage".
I wish everyone would stop being so negative and just get more geared up to fight the good fight. It's not over.
paul, you're right. it's not over. we need to get ready to fight this further. my question is, what's the next step?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVgkGej4Ck
This is far from over. I was on the ground last night where thousands took the streets. Walking down Sunset Blvd. side by side across all lanes of traffic on both sides of the road was a powerful moment.
My Photo Set From Last Night's Rally & Protest
Perfectly stated JB...
I couldn't agree with your points more, for the record. I completely support you.
However, "proscribe" means to forbid, and the whole point is that the Constitution doesn't forbid it. Nitpicky but you shouldn't let spelling undermine the beauty of your sentiment.
@spelling nazi: it'll be used for one of our drinking games where we take a shot for every grammatical, spelling and usage error we see.
Other numbers paint an even grimmer picture. If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin. Los Angeles County, heavily minority, went 50-50 on Prop 8. These results have shocked gay activists, who knew from earlier polls that black voters favored Prop 8, but they were seeing much smaller margins, closer to 50 percent."Avoid all you want but at some point, you will have to address those black and hispanic voters. And "pushing" them will only enhance their resolve...trust me.
Also, the gay community might want to avoid further comparing gay rights struggles to the civil rights movement.
Believe it or not, many blacks find that highly insulting.
If my candidate had just won the most historic presidential election in our nation's history, I'd be celebrating instead of being sore losers
Blacks Americans have endured centuries of inequality before reaching this moment. You might do well to remember that by expressing a bit more appreciation for how far you come rather than what you didn't get.
What do teenage brides have to do with Prop 8?!
And the children. Oh God THE CHILDREN! Well never mind the Catholic Church has done more to harm children what with their priests and all. And the Mormons? Well just ask those teenage brides. by Jimmy Bramlett
Lets address these comments.
The Catholic priests you mentioned. No you didn't. You either are lying or are deceived. The catholic priests who molested children were 95% homosexual, so it was not their Catholicism but their homsexuality.
The Mormon Church and its followers contributed to Yes on Prop 8, but who contributed to No on Prop 8. That would be the Polygamist Mormons, who were expelled from The LDS, with their teenage brides.
Yes, these Polygamist who donated millions to the No on Prop 8 want the same rights that you No on 8 people want and that is why they contributed millions. GET THE FACTS JACK.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE:
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would limit marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing polygamy.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs
Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”[
FROM AN EVANGELICAST-
PROP 8: "Only marriage between a man and woman is valid in the state of California."
The uninformed can argue all the day the effect of the proposition, but those 14 words spell out the entirety of the proposition.
It does not place a ban on same-sex marriage, it defines what marriage already was, just like DOMA does on the federal level.
DOMA says Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”[
DOMA passed in the senate by 85-14 vote and 342-67 vote in the House of Represntative.
Why don't you try focusing your attention on the Domestic Partnership law of California which gives same-sex couples the same legal rights.
No, because the Gay Activist leaders want to attack marriage, and make it an unholy alliance of multiple partners, men and little boys, and teenage brides.
Mormon Church “I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
"If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
paul, you're right. it's not over. we need to get ready to fight this further. my question is, what's the next step?
This is funny, because if you knew the facts then you would know the next step. Here are some facts for you and only you:
Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would limit marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing polygamy.
YOU THINK THAT THIS IS A NEW FIGHT. MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN GOES BACK TO GENESIS.
-At the start of the human race, at the outset of Sacred Writ, is ordained the divine origin and Sanctity of Marriage. One man and One Woman, One Flesh.
Genesis 2:22- And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a Woman, and brought her unto the Man.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with man-kind, as with womankind (homosexuality); it is an abomination.
YOU WANT TO FIGHT WITH GOD, GO RIGHT AHEAD.