Sunday, November 02, 2008

Prop 8 opponents - unfair and desperate

A large number of "Yes on Prop 8" signs disappeared from my neighborhood over the weekend. I expected people here to be a little more tolerant than that. But perhaps I estimated incorrectly. It seems the primary tactic of the no-on-8 campaign is to attempt to silence the other side by stealing and presenting a one-sided debate.

Today, I received a call from the no-on-8 campaign. After a fairly long pause, the person gave a quick talk about "prop 8 would discriminate against a whole class of people. Can we count on your support to vote against it?" I asked the simple question "how does it discriminate against them?" Click went the phone on the other end. If I were undecided, I would like to at least have a reason for voting against it. A law requiring imprisonment for convicted murders would also discriminate against whole classes of people. However, without further information it is impossible to distinguish between the two. The no campaign could have provided a quick response that it eliminates same-sex marriage (heck, that's even in the Secretary of State's version of the title.) If they feel that it would prejudice their position by actually admitting what it was, then the least they could do is say "bye."

Both campaigns are using some questionable 'half-truths' in their literature. However, the no campaign seems to have the upper-hand on the dirty tactics. (Vandalizing homes, labeling opponents bigots, charging others with 'hate crimes' after stealing their yard signs.) And that is coming from a "no" campaign that can probably including a large majority of the bay area residents as supporters. I had hoped that such intimidation by a 'majority' against a minority opposition were limited to third world 'dictrocities'. But that may be a little too generous...

10 comments:

  1. I'll give you the answer to your question, and return will appreciate responses to mine:

    Just as I will not assume you are the same as the gay-basher who murders or the man who used a Yes sign to attack a No protester I will expect the same courtesy...

    1. Domestic Partnerships will not provide all of the rights as marriage will afford you: 1,000 federal and 300 state; This includes a domestic partnership requiring a living will to ensure that the 'real'family of the injured has the say over what happens next in treatment

    2. It is unfair that I have had the opportunity to be married this past summer to my wife, my soul mate of over 10 years when my friend, who has not yet met that person who she will spend the rest of her life with will not have that opportunity because it didn't happen by 11/2/08 - and yes, hearing "by the power vested in by the State of California I now pronounce you..." means SO much to those of us unable to have ever heard those words in the US before...so, 3rd, we lose the right to be visible

    And now for my questions:
    1. Where in teh Bible does it say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman (what about the ploygomous relationships in the bible?)

    2. What has my marriage done to infringe on your rights, your family, or anything else in your life?

    3. Why, if yes on 8 is in search of 'protecting marriage' and 'restoring traditional marriage' does the prop not also 'outlaw' divorce, single parenting, and parents who cannot/will not have children?

    4. If my love and my marriage is so threatening to your own, what does this say about your marriage?

    5. If marriage, which has only been permitted between straight people, needs to be restored, why aren't you looking at those reasons v. trying to take something away that already exists (whther or not you agree that the consitution should allow it)?

    Thank you in advance for the courtesy of your response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ms. s.t.h - Thanks for the comments.
    Regarding domestic partnership - do any of these federal benefits apply to a same-sex marriage? As far as I know, US code, only applies to man-woman marriages. Seeking to extend those rights may seem a better avenue.

    Also, what was the continuation of "by the power vested ... I pronounce you..."? Would husband and wife still be an applicable term? Or would you chose something else?

    You do bring up an interesting issue of society's standards. I found it doubly distressing that around the same time the California Supreme Court was ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, Texas was taking the children away from polygamous families. Biologically polygamous marriage can propagate, while same-sex marriage, without intervention, is a biological dead end. However, all three types of relationships are fundamentally different.

    In our society based on the supremacy of individual rights, I can see how same-sex relationships would be the first to be tolerated. After all, there appears to be very little difference between a same-sex couple and an opposite sex couple that chose not to have children. A polygamous relationship would create a hang-up in inheritance and other rights that are currently based on only two parties. There is a societal benefit in using different terminology to describe different relationships, whether they be monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, opposite sex, or whatever.

    The current court ruling attempts to "remove discrimination" by redefining a term for society. (Would racism end if the courts ruled that all African Americans could call themselves "Caucasian?") It also denies that there are differences between males and females. (Sexuality is one area where there is a strong biological difference.)

    If marriage is redefined to exclude the component of "accidental" (the court's word) procreation, and instead, become an individual relationship, then it has a different meaning. A new term would be needed to define "a relationship between a man and woman primarily for the purpose of producing and raising their own children." Terminology does play a key role here. (As I read it, it seemed to be the primary point of the court decision.) Creating a totally new term for everyone (as the state initially did for husband and wife) may have been a more palatable solution.

    A guess a similar question could be asked, If the term marriage is required to validate the love in a relationship, what does that say about the relationship? Unless there is a religious belief, a term should be of little significance. Perhaps a solution would be for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether, and just leave it to the churches.

    The unfortunate problem I have seen with the no-on-8 campaign is a general lack of civil discourse. Stealing signs is not productive. Declaring those who disagree with the view to "hate" or be "unfair" only serves to engender conflict (like elementary school name calling.) Unfortunately, both sides in this campaign have played to emotions instead of using reason to try to find a reasonable solution that would be palatable for all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeremy, While I can understand that your perception is a general lack of civil discourse, let us not forget that this is a group of individuals that either are personally or feel strongly enough for those that are affected negatively by the Yes side of this winning. There has been no supporting leg of the yes campaign that stands any degree of scrutiny. This, combined with the idea that what we have today is being sought to not only be taken away, but also to have that change [read: discrimination] written into our constiution is unfathomable.

    The word marriage is important not because the relationship itself is reliant upon it, however it is obvious by your question that you truly do not understand - which isn't a bad thing...it's actually a good thing, for you.

    I have 1st had the displeasure of realizing very early on that I was 'different' yet not sure how. I knew that somehow who I am - not the 'choice' of who I am - but at the core, who I am was in direct conflict with the church and school I was attending my entire life. When I was supposed to be 'confirmed' into the Catholic Church at 14 I expressed my concerns with doing so to my parents, but since I couldn't articulate why I felt like it was a lie, I had no choice but to go through it anyway.

    When I went through health class and we had to do the whole 'carry a 5-lb bag of flour for 2 weeks' (to experience what it's like to carry a baby around) I was told that I was the most promising mother of the entire class - and I felt like a fake: I didn't/don't want children, doesn't mean I wouldn't be great (if, in some people's eyes, we forget I'm a lesbian for a moment)...that part is a choice.

    Needless to say, coming out to parents, my nun aunt (who was the MOST accepting and loving), and friends...and losing many along the way, it's not an easy thing to just live who you are. It's not easy answering the question: are you married...especially if you're not legally married....no one ever asked me if I am in a domestic partnership or if I'm civil-unionized. People have always assumed as well by asking that question that I'm straight - now I have to figure out how to answer the question honestly (before I was) while indicating that I've been in a committed, loving relationship just as worthy of recongition as any other for over 10 years...and then come out all over again - instead of just answering the question: yes.

    I agree with the concern over both sides' behavoir - and I disagree and completely wish it wasn't/isn't happening. Just as I have disagreement, I do have empathy for the NO side as all I feel when I see a yes sign is rage...I don't do anything with it...but I feel rage and then I cry. I cry because the frustration of feeling like we finally were seen as equals is being forcibly taken away. Maybe you can help me understand the YES side and why those individuals act similarly?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:33 PM

    stop the hate,

    just because you do not agree with arguments for prop 8 does not mean that they don't have validity.

    you might want to visit this site:
    http://gr8prop8deb8.blogspot.com/2008/11/debunking-bunk-q-for-proposition-8.html

    i'm voting for prop 8 because i think the state of california should do everything it can to encourage children's right to grow up with a mom and a dad.

    gender does matter.

    government does not care about marriage because of love or sex, it regulates marriage because of the children involved.

    there simply is not enough scientific evidence to prove that two moms or two dads (no matter how lovely they are as parents) equal what a mom and a dad can do.

    the current studies have huge issues (mainly that they compare single-parent lesbians to single-parent moms).

    also, the scientific studies can never override what biology demands: a man and a woman.

    for anyone interested there is a coo discussion going on here:

    http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/gender-matters-children-have-a-right-to-a-mom-and-a-dad-day-7/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:34 PM

    um...that should say "cool"

    thanks jeremy for your post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. s.t.h -

    What happens with the follow-ups to "are you married"? It seems that it would just move the awkwardness to the next step. How's your husband? do you have any kids? Would marriage reduce the challenge in anything but the most superficial of relationships? I have heard partner used in both same-sex and opposite sex conversation. It produces some ambiguity, that is usually cleared up once the spouse is identified. (Unless it happens to be a Shannon or Lindsay.)

    As for the Yes campaign, all I can say is that I do not know anyway who sees it as a personal attack on individuals. Many have gay friends and family members who they love dearly. This is not about them at all. It is instead about deeply felt religious and moral beliefs centered on love and compassion. Marriage is not only a loving relationship between two people, but also about bringing up children. Redefining marriage changes the meaning of a contract that has already been entered. The terminology is held dearly, especially with regard to sexuality and child rearing. Having the state (and essentially one judge) arbitrarily rewrite something held so dear is seen as a giant affront. Even more disconcerting is the possibility that the state will limit the ability to freely participate in society. (The courts have already ruled in some limited cases that state rules override religious beliefs in certain medical professions. There is a real fear that other conditions could follow.)
    The Christian belief of "love the sinner, hate the sin" applies throughout the campaign. For many people supporting prop. 8, homosexuality is a sin, while marriage is one of the most sacred institutions. It would be sacrilege to condone a state combination of the two. Gays and lesbians themselves are still be wonderful people. They may subscribe to totally different sets of moral beliefs, so there is no point in judging them individually for their behavior. (Just as I doubt a Muslim would judge me harshly for not bowing down to Mecca to pray.)

    Just because we hold something dear does not mean we hate other people. Just because I have strong beliefs that are not popular does not mean that I hate others that don't have them. My heart sinks when I see the "hateful" "unjust" and "unfair" signs. (and the dark coloring made them even more foreboding.) The "equality for all" signs were the worst. I'd see them as I would ride on local roads because I was forbidden from riding on freeways. Doesn't equality for all include equality for bicyclists also? Why are they fighting for equality in something that I have strong beliefs against, while failing to support the discrimination that I run in to on a daily basis. (Though marriage may be something held much closer to my personal identity, most of that is within the family; commuting, however, occupies much of my 'public' time.) The signs helped turn me from a fence sitter to someone strongly in favor of prop 8. (And especially around here, where anti-8 signs are everywhere, and the few pro-8 signs tend to get stolen.) I felt like my religion was under attack, I was being called a bigot, and I was being discriminated against all in the name of equality - and that was just from the yard signs. Luckily, in public I haven't seen such personal attacks. (And I;m guessing that 'violent' fringes on both sides are probably just looking for an excuse for rage.) Hopefully the animosity can be cured after the election.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It saddens me to think of the children in the non-traditional households, especially considering only 14% of households meet this mold. I already see the hurt in the eyes of families - not only the children - who are in these non-traditional households. It's a shame that your religous beliefs could result in my rights to be discontinued. It's a shame that if this prop were to pass the increased gay-bashing in CA will only worsen because now it would be seen as 'justified.' I do not believe in your religion, your bible or even your version of god...and therefore I am NOT a sinner. You may view me that way, but I view your narrow definition of marriage and family to be the sin - I don't need to go after you or our constitution to believe this....why do you feel the need?

    Why are you only worried about the children in the 14% of households?

    It's going to be a sunny day in CA and the world when I and those around me, straight gay and otherwise know that all people are considered equally. And, unfortunately, there is no way to meet discrimination with tolerance....it hasn't worked in the past.

    And, while prop 8 may pass, even if it did it's only going to cost the country a great deal of emotional hardship and funds while the higher courts use the same federal constitution to come to the same conclusion - we cannot write discrimintation into the constitution and 'all men created equal' actually means what it says.

    It will be a sad day, commentary and reflection of the state of CA and its people if this passes. Again, while only temporary, it will hurt so much and so many.

    I won't blog on this again, as this has too much an emotional toll on me - one you will not be able to understand for some years to come. But I will leave you with just a recommendation: save this blog, all of it, and in 5-10 years revisit it. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts at that time.

    Thanks for the discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the discussion.

    I doubt this vote will mark the end of the discourse on the issue. Though, I would hope a reasonable truce would be worked out. People who like to bash others would probably continue to do so, regardless of what the law says. I bet most gay and religious bashers would keep doing what they are doing regardless of the law. They may also use the law as an incentive to attack a 'protected' class. We have seen in this country many times that the government cannot legislate acceptance. Blacks were granted equal rights 150 years ago. People responded with Jim-Crowe segregation. A hundred years later, the courts outlawed that. Yet, most people still live in communities of others like themselves. Though now they use more 'hidden' methods like zoning to get around it.

    In the case of same-sex marriage, the debate is primarily about acceptance. If it were simply legal rights, the courts could have ruled that "domestic partners will receive all benefits of marriage". However, in the opinion they found the word marriage to be key to the acceptance of same-sex couples. As the reconstruction-era showed us, legislating acceptance can provide a brief facade of 'equality', but quickly fades in to even greater internal strife. I would much prefer peaceful solutions to be worked out.

    The sin debate is why this is so emotionally charged. It would be unethical for either side to vote for what they feel is morally wrong. The choice is less about changing an opinion then changing a deep felt convictions. I'd hope that both sides would vote their conscience, but also be willing to accept that the others have a different belief set.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I came across this today: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/11/10/224646/52 that I thought you might find intriguing. Further, I also discovered that the original intent of the proposition was to also include the removal of domestic partnership rights. It begs the question of the real intent: religious definitions of marriage or something more disturbing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure who would spread rumors about prop. 8 eliminating domestic partner rights. The text of the initiative (from the Secretary of State's site) is "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It's hard to see how this could impact domestic partnerships. (Though there is no telling the thought process that went through everyone's head.) In fact, preservation of domestic partnership rights was one of the Yes on 8 campaign's arguments in favor of the proposition.

    Though perhaps this is just another symptom of the lack of communication between the two sides. Each side has very deep felt, convincing arguments that the other side rejects as nonsense. (It's almost as if one side is arguing that the "the sun is yellow and has always been yellow", while the other argues, "no, you bigot, we have the right to call the grass green") Hopefully, one day cooler heads will prevail in a reasonable dialog.)

    ReplyDelete