I haven’t ranted in a while so, with all the snow falling from the heavens today and the pace of work a little slower than usual, I thought it’s time for a good old fashion diatribe. A screed if you will on one of my favorite topics from last year. 
On the day after the election I wrote about how California voters had outlawed gay marriage but, at the same time, approved a ballot measure giving egg-laying chickens more rights.
I believe my reaction was something like this: “Are you seriously fucking kidding me? What the fuck is up with that state? How the hell do you go into a voting booth and say ‘I think we need to be nicer to chickens and give them enough room to stand up, spread their wings and turn around, but screw those fags and dykes they don't deserve the chance to love someone and be happy.’ ”
Actually, that was exactly what I said. I checked.
Well, according to the news this morning, attorneys for and against Prop 8 are heading to the California Supreme Court this week to argue their case before that august and esteemed body. (I don’t know if they actually are august or esteemed, but I liked the phrase.)
To me it seems the basic question the court must answer is this: If a majority of voters approve, can they deprive a minority of their fellow citizens of what the U.S. Supreme court has already said is a basic civil right?
In Loving v. Virginia the Court ruled:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
I included the whole citation from Wikipedia here to point out that Loving v. Virginia was a case dealing with the right of a white man to marry a black woman in Virginia, hence the descriptions of racial classifications and discrimination. I know some don’t like comparing the fight for civil rights based on race to those of sexual orientation, the thinking being it lessens the importance of those successes. But the truth is a lot of people really didn’t like the idea of equal rights for people who didn’t look like them in the first place.
To make it even more clear that Prop 8 is a violation of all our rights (in my opinion, of course), Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Seems simple, states cannot make laws – like the ones that once prohibited interracial marriage – to deprive individuals of their rights. And, since marriage has been declared a right, they can’t prevent eligible citizens (i.e., those who are of age and such) from marrying someone they love.
(Personally, I feel marriage is a religious institution and the state has absolutely no business mucking around in it. Why the hell should people have to ask the state for permission to take part in a religious ceremony?)
Ballot referendums are a useful tool. They are often used to right wrongs elected officials are unwilling to pursue. But they can and are abused from time to time. The passage of Proposition 8 was one of those times. It’s easy to see how the term “racial classifications” in Loving can and should just as easily read “sexual orientation” today.
Or, better yet: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
While I try not to go back and revisit topics, I'm going to make an exception here. Every time I read an article in the paper or see one on TV about California's Proposition 8 my blood pressure goes up a point or 40.
With hopefully eight of the shortest days ever recorded in the history of mankind to go before the election next Tuesday, the bullshit in the Golden State is getting deep.
Like I said last week, I don't have a vote on this issue and I only have a few friends who do, and I'm pretty sure all of them are voting "no." But if you know anyone who does vote in California, I'd urge you to give 'em a call and a nudge in the right direction.
Or, rather, not the right direction, but the correct direction.
Here's a little sample of the rhetoric being used in support of an amendment to another state's constitution to codify discrimination:
“It’s more important than the presidential election. We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation. But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage,”
This quote in the NYT's story is from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based here in Washington. Gay marriage will bring down America, eh? I'm pretty sure if we survived the Soviet threat during the 40+ years of the Cold War, and Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan during World War II, we'll learn to adapt.
The scary part of the NYT article is how the proponents of Prop 8 are casting the fight in terms of freedom of religion and hate speech. Supporters claim if they fail, churches and pastors across the state will be forced to perform gay marriages. To back this up they've brought in Ake Green, a preacher from Sweden, who spent a month in jail after running afoul of his country's hate speech laws when he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality.
Now, if for a moment I thought the failure of Prop 8 would in any way trample on someone's freedom or religion or speech, I would be in the vanguard of those fighting against it. But it doesn't and won't. As the article stated Catholic churches haven't been forced to marry divorcees and rabbis don't have to do interfaith weddings if they don't want to. Prop 8 won't create a protected class, all it will do is allow people who love one another to claim the same government-sponsored benefits everyone else is eligible for in California .
Unlike some European countries, we don't have laws in this country against hate speech. There are hate crime laws (which I'm a little iffy on, personally), but you have to combine thoughts and speech with criminal action for them to apply.
Just like the Illinois Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, in America you're free to to out and stand on whatever soapbox you like and announce to the whole wide world you hate fags and kikes and niggers and spics and pollacks and micks and wops and chinks and wogs and crackers and Yankees and papists and towel heads and whoever the Hell else annoys you. All you risk is the same thing the suburban Chicago Nazis risked: an ass kicking of cosmic proportions that takes place in front of a cheering audience and, perhaps, temporarily indifferent police officers.
For those of you whose jaws are still hanging open, yeah, I really did use all those nasty words. Why? Because there are people out there who do use them to hurt, many of them are the same ones who were sure that letting blacks go to the same schools and vote was sure to be the end of this country. And we all know how that worked out so far.
The quickest and surest way to bring down this country is not gay marriage. The quickest and surest way is when one segment of the population is allowed to use the democratic process to take rights away from another segment.
America is the strongest country in the world because of our differences, not in spite of them. Our differences are, in fact, what give We The People our power.
