A Different Special Comment
OK, a lot of people have stopped listening to Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, because after the first few, he has occasionally gone over the top, expressing a level of umbrage not necessarily justified by the facts.
But this one... this one is not politics, particularly. It's about California's Prop 8 and propositions like it around the country.
For what it's worth, I was on a discussion board of fellow Obama supporters as the results came in on Tuesday last, and I recall saying that the results on Prop 8 were preventing me from feeling much joy at Obama's win, that all of the change that the Obama win represented for me was overshadowed by the narrow minded public support of hate inherent in the passage of Prop 8. Sure, there have been other such measures in other states, but this one was different. This was California. Tolerant, liberal, inclusive California, telling the gay members of their state that they were no longer full citizens, and telling those who had already been married under the state's gay marriage rules that their marriage didn't really count. Technically, the proposition doesn't retroactively un-marry those people, it simply says that the state "does not recognize" those marriages. A distinction without a difference.
And one wonders what will happen when the first of those marriages head to divorce court, as happens in half of heterosexual marriages, so we can hardly expect gay marriages to fare any better. If the state no longer recognizes those marriages, does that mean it can no longer legally recognize them enough to perform a divorce? Must those gay couples married under California law now travel to MA or CT or NH or one of the other gay-marriage supporting states in order to obtain a divorce of a marriage which is in a sort of legal "limbo"?
No, this is the sort of institutionalized bigotry and hatred I simply cannot understand, and so it made me ever so happy to see this Special Comment out of Mr. Olbermann.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 11/10/2008 11:31:00 PM
3 Comments:
I saw Olbermann's comments too and was glad to see it so impassioned.
Seeing this sad election result, I wondered, given this was California, if there had been subterfuge to confuse the voters. Whatever. The fact is that there is a lot of hate in this country and I don't seeing it going away any time soon, if at all. I was told Sunday by a worker at a local television station that there had been a staggering number of hateful, sickening messages against Obama's election. No, hate isn't gone.
The thing is, I view the gay marriage thing as no different as the Civil Rights issue of equal accomodations back in the 60's. Some blacks were criticized for boycotting referendum elections on allowing local integration of accomodations, before federal law was instituted. They felt that an issue of simple equality of human life should not be put to a vote, a referendum. I feel the same here. It shouldn't be a choice, it should be protected, by law if need be.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:30:00 AM
I suppose I don't see the point of comparing gay rights to civil rights. I don't see apples to apples here. Can you explain?
Democracy is tough sometimes.
Monday, December 01, 2008 10:19:00 PM
How are they different? Honestly, it relates to the treatment of a minority group who really only want the same things everyone else has.
Whether it's African Americans or women getting the right to vote or homosexuals getting the right to marry, it's the same basic thing.
Homosexuals have endured some of the same harassment that African Americans traditionally have. They are discriminated against, they are sometimes denied employment, they've been beaten up and murdered for being who they are.
And the point here is that the government should have nothing to do with the religious ceremony of marriage. If you want to have your union blessed by the pastor of your choice, you are free to do so, and if your church doesn't agree with homosexual unions, as a private institution it doesn't have to.
But the arguments against gay marriage largely come down to religious ones, and not all religions condemn homosexuality, and so legally enshrining those arguments in law is essentially violating the church/state separations.
I've said for a long time, I wouldn't mind if we changed the laws so that there were two different classifications of formalized unions: Marriages and Civil Unions.
Marriages would only be performed by religious groups, and (as today) those performed by groups the government recognizes would also confer legally binding civil unions.
On the other hand, a couple who just nips on down to the justice of the peace only gets the civil union, which conveys all of the legal benefits which are currently associated with marriage, but none of the religious blessing, just as today.
Allow gay people to formalize their relationships and gain the same benefits that straight couples who marry get: assumption of inheritance during probate-without-will, ability to stay with a seriously ill or dying partner in the hospital even outside of "visiting hours", ability to share benefits (medical, dental, retirement etc. as well as social security and/or military).
The government really has no business being involved in "marriage" as it's being defined by those on the "no gay marriage" side of the issue.
So separate them out. I would have both a civil union (for legal purposes) and a marriage (for religious purposes) with Janet. If (and I hope and pray this never happens) we were to end up getting divorced, we could, just as today, obtain the divorce (sundering of the civil union) through the state, but would have to follow the rules of the church we were married in to obtain (as necessary) the annulment of the marriage.
By the way, democracy can be tough, but there are also rules in place to prevent the sort of "everyone gangs up on the minority" sort of behavior common in large groups of people. It's why we're not a true democracy but rather a representative republic.
And it's also why I expect Proposition 8 to be stricken down by the California Supreme Court: The constitution of that state can be clarified (through amendment) but not fundamentally changed (ie revised) through a simple majority vote a la the proposition.
To affect a fundamental revision, you need a 2/3s majority of the legislature and THEN a simple majority of the electors, which did not happen.
Had this proposition passed before the CA Supreme Court ruled that the CA constitution conferred the rights of homosexuals to marry each other, its passage would have been an amendment and would likely have been upheld.
But since this fundamentally changes what has already been ruled to be within that constitution, simple amendment rules do not apply, and so if I understand the rules correctly, I believe the CA Supreme Court will strike it down as an illegal amendment, and the backers will have to start over trying to first get the 2/3 majority of the legislature, and then (if successful) go back to the ballot box, which is unlikely to be successful again.
Why do I make that last statement? Because there was a lot of confusion, and a lot of people who voted "yes" on the proposition thought they were voting "yes, I want to allow gay marriage", and recent polls of the populace indicates that if the election were re-held today (and with a fairly worded proposition), the results would be different.
But... I don't believe the 2/3 majority of the legislature (both houses) will ever approve anyway, so my best bet is that gay marriage returns to CA permanently, just as soon as the Supreme Court hears the case (which they have already said they would hear).
Liam.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:06:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home