California H8ers, at least look them in the eye

Feb 17 2009 Published by under General Politics, Underrepresented Groups

On March 5th the California Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Prop H8ers to invalidate same sex marriages performed in that state prior to the passage of Prop 8 last November.
The Courage Campaign (here) has posted a public argument.



"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

15 responses so far

  • juniorprof says:

    That's beautiful. Please don't divorce my friends either!

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Gay couples are my friends, my family, my inlaws, my neighbors, my colleagues and my community leaders. Denial of marriage rights to them is a violation of basic civil rights and this whole thing is (obviously) still pissing me off. Sorry about the diversion from the usual DM fare but it is what it is.

  • Becca says:

    *gets all teary*

  • Dr J says:

    Bravo DM. The people like Star and his fellow H8ers are a disgrace to humanity. Hopefully the supreme court will rule California is the decent place it really is and not some hideous equivalent to a fascist regime. I mean what kind of place forces legally married consenting adults to get divorced?

  • Chris P says:

    Thanks for being pissed off and sharing important distractions like this. Let's hope that one day this memory will be an annoying detour on the road to progress.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Let's hope that one day this memory will be an annoying detour on the road to progress.
    It will, it will. The fact that these knuckleheads are on the wrong side of history is just so bloody obvious. It is still the suxxors for those who have to wait for the discussion to mature.

  • These theocratic scuzbuckets are a motherfucking cancer on our polity.

  • Dave says:

    I applaud the inclusivity here, but as long as this totally off-topic topic has been raised, can we at least raise the level of discussion beyond second-grade feel-good platonics?
    The Courage Campaign's movie was lovely but completely ineffective. They might as well have spent their money on ice cream. The problem is that the couples shown in the movie can't be 'divorced', because to Prop eight proponents, they were never (and never could be) 'married'.
    Regarding prop eight, the issue is not whether same-sex couples should be allowed to practice a certain lifestyle or enjoy certain legal status as couples (though I grant that many people actually do want to deny these things to same-sex couples). The issue is over the legal definition of 'marriage'.
    'Marriage' to prop eight proponents, is a status inexorably intertwined with, and defined by, traditional standards of [judeo/christian-like] religion. Basically, prop eight proponents are saying that homosexuals can never marry because marriage is a religious institution and religions don't condone same-sex marriage.
    Prop eight opponents, on the other hand, argue that marriage is basically a civil union between two people, and not allowing homosexuals is discrimination.
    Prop eight proponents counter that marriage is a special class of civil union defined by religious tradition, and prejudice has nothing to do with it. They say you simply can't change the definition of something with thousands of years of history.
    Prop eight opponents say it is society that defines marriage, and society can define it any way they want whenever they want.
    Which is why the whole thing went to a ballot initiative -- to give 'society' a chance to decide.
    As everyone here presumably knows, prop eight passed, and the legal definition of marriage in California is currently restricted to a union between "a man and a woman".
    People who don't like this (which includes me) should quit insulting prop eight proponents and/or making ineffective wishy-washy ads, and do something practical. A couple suggestions:
    1) Disconnect the legal and religious definitions of marriage. This is a toughie, however. CA already voted. Californians will likely vote differently in the future. But who wants to wait?
    2) Get past the word 'marriage', and push to make sure same-sex couples have exactly the same legal and social rights as different-sex couples. This may be unsatisfying, but it sidesteps the whole issue and achieves the same legal goal.
    Strategies for either of the above could pivot on the following argument: If 'marriage' is a religious status, then atheists can't marry either. But they can. So why not gay couples? (The law hates contradictions).
    Discuss. Even if you don't live in CA, the issue is likely coming to (or already is in) your state: http://theblade.net/archives/200

  • llewelly says:

    Dave, please read Ed Brayton's Why Gay Marriage Matters .

  • Dave says:

    llewelly: I agree with Ed. I was against proposition 8. My point was that the video is ineffective and calling prop 8 proponents names is even less effective.
    Personally, I don't give a flying fig whether a couple can be or is 'married' or not, as long as every couple enjoys the same legal and social rights.
    Personally, I think that in the long run, we as a society are better off abandoning 'marriage' and pushing for legal and social rights for all sorts of 'nontraditional' partnerships. This will allow us [in the U.S.] to leapfrog ahead to where Europe already is. In Europe, for example, marriage is less common, but 'cohabitation' is a legally defined and protected status. Basically, my point of view is that if religious people want to reserve 'marriage' for religiously-sanctioned unions, then let them have it -- along with communion and circumcision and all their other bizarre traditions. Enlightened people should move on. Abandon the fight for gay marriage. Take up the fight for gay rights.

  • Becca says:

    Dave- seperate but equal has a fabulous track record in this country.
    If we stop fighting for gay marriage, we better start fighting against straight marriage. Which would be ok by my nonhetronormative crazy standards.

  • S. Rivlin says:

    What DM (#2) said!!!

  • Dave says:

    I'll be damned. I think Physioprof and I might be agreeing on this one. Go read his links, Becca.

Leave a Reply