EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
California Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
But 18,000 Same-Sex Couples Who Married Before Prop 8 Can Retain Rights
At the same time, the ruling will allow about 18,000 same-sex couples already married, to retain the rights they attained during the brief six-month period that gay marriage was legal in the state.
Outside CA Supreme Court just before Prop 8 ruling. (flickr photo by Steve Rhodes) "There it goes," said Jim Schnobrich, who married his partner of 27 years in Pasadena, Calif., last September. "We have to keep going."
Still, the couple, who have two children, aged 12 and 16, said that they are now in a "weird class," as the ruling preserved their 8-month-old same sex-marriage.
"That's good news, but the bigger thing is that now we have this weird status that other people can't have. There is this kind of equality situation where people are maybe thinking we aren't really married."
Christian groups that applauded retention of the ban say that the ruling on those same-sex marriages could create a conflict -- not only in the marital rights of Californians, but in adoption and income tax laws.
"It's disappointing that the court will continue to uphold the legality of those who married during May to November of last year," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family in Action. "We don't know what the situation will be like, but it's likely to cause havoc in the courts as they try to deal with a class of individuals that look totally different."
Gay rights advocates, disappointed with the ruling, said their next step would be to "take it back to the voters," said Jennifer Pizer, director of the marriage equality project for Lambda Legal.
Lambda has already launched an educational campaign, Marriage Watch California, that will specifically target the communities of color and diverse church groups, which overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8.
"We will give education and legal support as part of a broad effort all over the state to provide greater visibility on why this issue is important and why there is no basis in the fear mongering from the other side," Pizer told ABCNews.com.
The contentious campaign pitted gay rights activists against Christian church groups including the Mormons, who raised a record $83 million to pass the referendum.
Justices considered a series of lawsuits to overturn the ban, which overruled a 4-3 June court decision that briefly legalized same-sex marriage. Those suits claim Proposition 8 was put on the ballot improperly.
Gay rights marches began early this morning in California and have planned rallies tonight, preparing to be arrested in a mass demonstration of civil disobedience.
The Family Equality Council, which has fought to overturn the gay marriage ban, said they will be organizing national grassroots protests in Day of Decision rallies.
Putting a new question on the ballot to legalize gay marriage could take months, and many gay advocates say it might not be viable until 2010 or later.
"We have a lot of educating to do to convince [voters] that gays and lesbians are equal," said Lambda legal's Pizer. " It's very important that people agree on that point and that the people of California share that belief."
But Focus on the Family's Hausknecht said pro-Proposition 8 groups are already preparing their "talking points" for a new referendum on the issue.
"How gay marriage effects my (tradtional) marriage is entirely the wrong question," he siad. "The right question is how is gay marriage going to effect society in general and religious liberties and the rights of conscience?"
"Across the country we've seen the impact on religious freedom, not just same sex marriage but nondiscrimination statutes," he said.
Waiting for the decision "has been an absolutely gut-wrenching experience," Molly McKay, a spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA, told the Associated Press.
"As Californians, we are all under tremendous strain worrying about the economy, our jobs and our families," she said. "On top of that, gay families have been living for months with the fear that the court will allow a bare majority of voters to strip gay and lesbian families of their constitutional protections and eliminate our marriages -- or just as bad, eliminate new couples' ability to get married."
Opponents of Proposition 8 argued that it revised the California's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that its sponsors needed the legislature's approval to submit it to voters.
But several justices at a March hearing said they were skeptical of that argument and many legal experts say the Supreme Court would not likely undermine the state's citizen initiative process by reversing the gay marriage ban.
Since the passage of Proposition 8, gay marriage has gained momentum around the nation. Iowa, Maine and Vermont have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in recognizing same-sex couples. Similar proposals are under way in New Hampshire and New York.
If California's court upholds the gay marriage ban, gay rights advocates hope to have it repealed in a 2012 ballot initiative. Groups have already begun raising money and airing television ads.
Gay Marriage, Adoption
If the justices strike down the lawsuits, Proposition 8 supporters could ask for a legislative proposal to limit marriage to between a man and a woman.
The Democratic-controlled California Legislature has twice passed measures to legalize gay marriage, but they were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
With passage of Proposition 8, California amended its constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.
In June 2008, the state's Supreme Court overturned a gay marriage initiative. That decision allowed thousands of gays and lesbians to be legally married in that state; gay couples across the state decided not to take their chances, choosing to marry before voters took up the measure.
The passage of Proposition 8 set off a backlash that rippled across state borders. Organizers used Internet sites such as Facebook to draw huge crowds from New York to Los Angeles and cities in between.
Advocates turned the vote on Proposition 8 into a countrywide referendum on gay rights, calling it "the new frontier in the civil rights movement."
The protests lining the streets were a contrast to the joyful celebrations of same-sex weddings at city halls throughout California last summer. Those ceremonies were filled with a sense of hope and acceptance. Now that has given way to anger, defiance, and a war of words.
The Mormon Church has become one of the key targets of protestors after it was revealed that their members contributed millions of dollars to defeat gay marriage.
Many like Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, joined in the fight to pass the ban, saying it was "more important than the presidential election."
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation," Perkins said. "But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."
Advocates on both sides of the issue spent $83 million on the ballot campaign, the most ever on a social issue in the nation's history.
"It's a staggering amount," said Matt Coles, director of the LGBT Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the ban. "California is a cultural trendsetter. If voters decide same-sex couples can marry, it has an enormous influence."
Other states that had gay marriage on the ballot in 2008 included Arizona and Florida. Voters in both states passed measures to amend their constitutions to specify that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage.
In Arkansas, residents approved a measure aimed at preventing gay couples from adopting children. The measure, Proposed Initiative Act 1, goes further than just barring same-sex couples from adopting; it bars any individual cohabiting outside of a valid marriage from adopting or providing foster care to minors.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllOnward to a theocratic US.
The California Supreme Court (whom are elected) passed this political hot potato on to the voters (there will be another initiative fight) and upwards to the US Supreme Court. This is merely another battle in a long war.
This jewel of jurisprudence will someday rest in the Amerikan Jurisprudence Hall of Shame-- right next to the Dred Scott decision and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Welcome to "The Age of Stupidity"...
Another bigoted homophobic victory for the LDS.
Will their agent silence Suu Kyi forever as well?
Focus on the Family's Hausknecht said pro-Proposition 8 groups are already preparing their "talking points" for a new referendum on the issue.
"How gay marriage effects my (tradtional) marriage is entirely the wrong question," he siad. "The right question is how is gay marriage going to effect society in general and religious liberties and the rights of conscience?"
"Across the country we've seen the impact on religious freedom, not just same sex marriage but nondiscrimination statutes," he said.
---
It amazes me that a person can argue for discrimination. This is really a young soul, still more invested in winning than in life and freedom for all. How small and mean spirited religious extremists are; a type of sociopath really.
I'd like to paraphrase a famous quote from the mayor of San Francisco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55cG7EytB7M
(Get rid of the propaganda that this amendment was "the will of the voters." It was the will of the Mormon church, the Catholic church, and other fanatical christians that spread their fear propaganda to vulnerable people who generally don't know enough or care enough about their country to even vote, except for the special election of Obama.)
But Focus on the Family's Hausknecht said pro-Proposition 8 groups are already preparing their "talking points" for a new referendum on the issue.
(I'm ready to fight them!)
"How gay marriage effects my (tradtional) marriage is entirely the wrong question," he siad. "The right question is how is gay marriage going to effect society in general and religious liberties and the rights of conscience?"
(The effects of gay marriage has proven it changes absolutely nothing in traditional marriage, so once again they change their tune. It won't affect society any more than it has marriage. But religious liberties and the rights of conscience? Meaning what, exactly? That just because they believe some idiotic thing every one else must live with their mandates? And what exactly are the "rights of conscience?" the right for them to decide how others must live, what they must believe?)
"Across the country we've seen the impact on religious freedom, not just same sex marriage but nondiscrimination statutes," he said.
(And how has religious freedom been impacted? Because they aren't allowed to take over every public place as well as having their big churches? Nondiscrimination statutes? What's that - preachers might have to watch their mouths? Wouldn't that be nice!)
(On a Yahoo site I read before coming here, about the court's decision, there was a poll. 53% were in favor of the court overturning Prop 8, and 32% were against.)
The Moron Church !
WOW! What an intelligent comment. Did you think that up all by yourself? Does you mommy know you are on the computer at this hour?
Hate and Bigotry lives. Shame on California's voters who supported this and the supreme court who upheld it.
This whole affair leaves me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Some nuts claim that giving gays the right to marry will bring about the end of the world and everybody caves in. It reminds me a bit of the way the Nazis gradually whittled away the human rights the Jews had.
Many like Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a fascist Christian lobby based in Warshington, joined in the fight to pass the ban, saying it was "more important than the presidential election."
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation," Perkins said. "But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."
Marriage was, and still fundamentally remains, a business arrangement. Husbands and wives think about other men and women. Sometimes they cheat. Sometimes they divorce. Children are hurt. Ozzie and Harriet are long dead and they too did all the things mentioned above because they too were human. What is this fool Perkins talking about?
Yes, because with a 50% divorce rate, and most of the rest of the other 50% that should be divorced, it's such a wonderful institution to uphold.
They have to keep the "institution" (read: crazy) of marriage going because where on earth would they get all those little consumers if everyone stopped needing to buy, buy, buy to furnish their lovely homes?
How would the "institution" of gay marriage be any different than the "institution" of hetero marriage?
Gay relationships fail or succeed in much the same way as hetero relationships.
I guess I don't know what point you or Mordi are making.
I believe they are pointing out an error in reasoning. If fundamentalist Christians were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage, we would not see them divorcing, cheating, being involved in domestic abuse, and raising children who flee their culture and never come back. They would be a picture-perfect model of a happy, healthy, functional family -- and that's how they'd like to imagine they are. But it's not true. They don't have the answers and claiming that gay people marrying will "destroy marriage" is ridiculous. The only people who can destroy a marriage are the two people in it.
(Unless they mean they are all gay and the split second gay marriage is made legal they will leave their spouse and children to take up with the first cutie they find. In which case it's still their problem; they can pass all the laws they want and it won't stop their internal personal struggle.)
Martin Luther King did not press for, or use language like, "black rights" because he knew firstly, that such usage would be detrimental to the cause, and secondly, that it was basic civil rights, not black rights, that he was fighting for. I think this can be instructive in framing the gay marriage debate. It seems to me a very compelling case can be constructed for this also being a civil rights matter.
Of course, the opposition will be openly hostile in rejecting this notion, just as MLK's opposition was.
What a shame we're still struggling with such fundamental principles as the question of whether or not to confer basic civil rights to ALL humans.
Interestingly those marriages undertaken during the 6 month window of opportunity stand. I imagine that marriages undertaken in other jurisdictions will therefore also be recognized. So I suggest that any Californians looking to undertake a same sex marriage visit Canada. Vancouver is a scenic city with a vibrant and diversified culture.
I care not about their conduct. Not a speck, not an inch, not a minute. In my mind it is a much ado about nothing.
But marriage is another matter. Legal entitlement under the law? Never!
Sanctified as Holy by God? NEVER!!.
"God is bigotry" has replaced "God is Love", eh?
Your "love" is a perversion. Keep it in the closet.
"Your 'love' is a perversion. Keep it in the closet."
Bigotry is a learned behavior, and there are many good qualified professionals out there who have helped people overcome it. Telling LGBTQ people to keep their love in the closet is confusing us with someone who takes orders.
Prop. H8. That's the 'Christian' life style for you.
Be fair -- my Christian church (and many other denominations, too) are more than happy to marry same-sex couples. Our religious rights have been trampled by the fundamentalists because Prop 8 says we cannot marry whom we choose. Isn't that the state reaching right into the pulpit and dictating religious policy? And isn't that supposed to be forbidden to the State in this country?
This is a LIE. You can perform marriage ceremonies for whomever you choose. Try it. Marry two gays, and then wait for the police to bust in. you will wait a long time.
But will the state acknowledge that we have married them? No, it will not. It denies the validity of our sacred rites while it rewards the sacred rites of other churches. That is not right.
You can keep your hate in a jar, and seal it tightly. If you worried more about who you love, rather than who you hate, then you'd be happier, less lonely, and more loved by others and yourself. When you have a true connection to the Divine, you'll understand this. [NPI]
melonman
Your self granted adulation within sentence 1 and allegation of caring not is blatantly belied by sentences 2 & 3.
I don't know what God you call Holy. Me, I worship Jesus who teaches me not to Judge, over and over and over. He teaches me also that people whose hearts are filled with hate and judgement will never know him.
Out of curiosity, what God do you call Holy that teaches it's followers to Judge others?
You mean "sanctified at my church -- never." And that's fine. You and your church have a right to worship as you see fit. MY church, OTOH, is loving and reconciling. We also have a right to worship as we see fit and that includes marrying same-sex couples. So stay out of my religious rights and stick to working on the log in your own eye.
California: so blissful, so Orwellian.
I understand why this debate exists; people have differing ideologies, often held preconsciously. But I don’t understand *how* the debate persists in the legal context -- I’ve never heard a single concrete, specific example as to how a same-gender marriage would actually harm the rights or values of someone else.
Evidently, it’s religious folk, mainly self-identified Christians, who have a problem with updating the definition of marriage. But the Bible doesn’t *prohibit* a revised definition. It appears there’s no rational argument to be made. Whereas the institutionalizing of pair-bond relationships among more adults would produce clear benefits to society in terms of stability, productivity, etc. -- values that Christians supposedly share. So I don’t understand what they think they’re voting against. Is it simply that these people have some deep unexamined feeling that it would somehow be wrong?
If so, I wonder how much of that feeling is attributable to enculturation (i.e., indoctrination) -- and of course much of it is -- versus some biological, genetically-influenced aversion to homosexuality (analogous to how the “incest taboo” may be hardwired and/or genetically determined, as suggested in studies of various animal species).
Apropos, I’d be curious to know the percentage of people opposing same-gender marriage who don’t self-identify as Christian (or religious).
To my LGBTQ brethren, sisters here in California:
Don't despair. The ruling is troubling but not unexpected since the justices signaled several times with their line of questioning during the oral arguments in March that they were unmoved by the challenge.
This particular case only addressed a narrow, technical scope about whether or not Prop H8 was a revision, and the court's majority said it wasn't. Today's ruling leaves it in-tact as an amendment. Just to re-cap a bit: constitutional revisions require 2/3 support from the state assembly but amendments can be adopted by a simple majority at the ballot box. State Attorney Jerry Brown's office certainly didn't help matters by making weak and contradictory statements for our side that ended up bolstering this ruling. The court's majority clearly failed to consider what I thought was one of the strongest and most compelling, central arguments that cited the state's constitutional convention with incredible detail as an outline for throwing out Prop H8 on reasonable grounds. Instead, the court clung to Brown's wobbly argument that he didn't see this as a revision without offering much of a precedent. Yeah, thanks a lot for that one, Jer.
Justice Moreno gave the lone version of sanity with a rational dissent by questioning the obvious core issue of discrimination. In stark contrast, the court's majority offered a weak rationale for their decision, stating they could accept Prop H8 as an amendment because it did not disrupt the function of government. Oh, really? As if dysfunction is a hallmark of a functional government, indeed.
For those on the receiving end, the disruption of government is obvious in their daily lives; a glaring double-standard. The state will now apply this injustice by separating Californians into two camps using gender and sexual orientation as the formula: those afforded the right to make their own autonomous decisions, and those who aren't. Never mind, the pro-Prop H8 camp wouldn't have their lives affected in any outcome from this case, just in their heads. Superstitious discrimination is not a right. It's paranoid entitlement and would be more appropriately addressed with the guidance of a qualified professional than at the ballot box.
There are two ways to remedy the court's weakness. First, is to start looking for a pool of viable candidates, and vote out the three justices (Corrigan, Baxter, and Chin) who voted against treating us as equal citizens last year in May. They're not qualified to sit on the bench after weaseling out of taking the only ethical and principled stand on our basic, fundamental rights. They certainly don't deserve our support. The second will be to overturn Prop H8 at the ballot box.
On a more positive note, time is on our side, and both sides know it. We've made miles of progress since the dark days when Prop 22 was passed with 60-some odd percent of the vote back in 2000. Prop H8 squeaked by with only a few percentage points or a little more than 600,000 votes in a state of roughly 38 million, and off-hand I believe the turn out last November was somewhere around 13 million +/-. Considering the millions their side spent to to peddle common prejudice as an empty campaign slogan, it's not that impressive of a victory.
I support the idea of putting another proposition on the 2010 ballot to overturn Prop H8 and a change of cast on the next campaign trail. There will be unique challenges in any approach, and anything less than equality is not acceptable. Strategy will be another discussion to develop from community participation. Our opponents didn't bother getting our consent to take our rights away, and we certainly don't need apologize or walk on eggshells in order to take them back. Keep hope alive and keep up the good work, my friends.
"I hope they all lose the next election and get a flat tire on their way home." -- Molly Ivins.
Liberty and justice for all.
For more info, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The Mormons, Catholics, and Black Baptists can take their place with all those white racists who kept Afro-Americans from having their civil rights for a hundred years. They should be proud.
Don't forget PG&E.
Just to help out, I'll buy my imported fruits and vegitables from Canada
rather than California or Utah.
How funny is that? Catholics take their guidance on marriage from a man who cannot marry and his minions who also can't marry.
Yeah, give me my civil rights but not those gay folk! They're queer you know, God don't like queers! If only Black civil rights had been put to a vote, I wonder if Blacks would enjoy their civil rights? What do you think?
It's easy to push someone to the back of the bus when one can sit in the front now.
prop-hate proponents include self-hating closeted gay men --
at night they dream of coney islands slathered in mustard --
during daylight hours, they vote against that sort of thing
Democracy has been upheld. It is truly a great day in America. Now the gays should start what they SHOULD have done in the first place. Try to convince, via rational argument and not shrill screams of homophobia and insults, 50% plus 1 of their fellow Californians to DEMOCRATICALLY ammend this ammendment out of existence.
Try democracy. It works. You will like it.
In the US it is not up to ignorant people like you to decide the Rights of others. The Constitution (Federal one) will prevail.
In my view, this was a bad decision all round. From justice to common sense to constitutional rights and to simple decency, The Court has ruled against all those things this time. However, we will persevere until the battle for equal rights under the law is won on this issue, and Proposition 8 is removed from the books. It is a bad bigoted piece of legislation, and we must not let it stand.
God = Hate
Oh dear, oh dear, what to do, what to do?!! There hasn't been such frustrated self-righteous angst and indignation since the Palestinians went and democratically reached the "wrong answer" by electing Hamas to run their government.
For the LBGT community the answers should be clear:
The majority of Californians who bothered to vote on the matter do not approve of "gay marriage".
California law allows them to change the existing law by a referendum passed ammendment.
For the true defenders of democracy as a form of government the only solutions left are to either renounce your confidence in the democratic process or to just deal with it and work within the system you have.
The LBGT community has no Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X as did African Americans. Nor do they have have a Betty Friedan or Andrea Dworkin as did the feminists. Such people who could not only galvanize their own, but also speak to the conscience of the rest of the nation don't just haqppen, they are made by their circumstances.
Therefore, comparisons to the civil rights or feminist movements are invalid. The truth is that most of the Californian voting population doesn't like what they perceive as either the personality or lifestyle of the LBGT community. The truth also is that most LBGT community members (for all their complaining) are not nearly as bad off as they would like the rest of Californians to believe they are.
Poet
Poet
Poet
If Black Civil Rights were left to a vote of the People...Blacks would still be in the back of the bus...especially in the Red States. Whether or not the Gay Community has strong leaders or not is irrelevant. Your Civil Rights should not be put up to a vote by your ignorant neighbors. BTW, we live in a Representative Democracy not a pure one. Oh and one more thing...Gays won't have to go and beg ignorant homophobes to raise their consciousness because the younger generations are already beyond this issue. It is you who are on the wrong side of history. They will look back on you like we look back on the twisted faces of the White racists who promoted Segregation.
ipresumelikely asserts:
If Black Civil Rights were left to a vote of the People...Blacks would still be in the back of the bus...especially in the Red States.
*********************
It is exactly as you assert. This would still be going on were it not for the likes of MLK and Malcolm X (the "good cop", "bad cop" combo) who first of all galvanized militant unity among a sizable following and next of all confronted "business as usual" and declared that it would not be allowed to continue.
When they did so, President Calvin Coolidge (who famously said "the business of America is business")was proven a true prophet of profit and suddenly stuff started to happen. The media was charmed by MLK and troubled by Malcolm X and gave sympathetic (in King's case) and worried (in Malcolm X's case) coverage to them and made sure all of America knew of their existence and causes. There are neither such charismatic leaders extant in LBGT America nor is there similar militancy among the LBGT community.
ipresumelikely further asserts:
Whether or not the Gay Community has strong leaders or not is irrelevant. Your Civil Rights should not be put up to a vote by your ignorant neighbors. BTW, we live in a Representative Democracy not a pure one. Oh and one more thing...Gays won't have to go and beg ignorant homophobes to raise their consciousness because the younger generations are already beyond this issue.
**************************
Dude! Where do you think you we are talking about--the land of the gumdrop fairy (no pun intended)?!! This is America--or more specifically California--the land of Ray-gun, the Governator, Howard Jarvis, and Ward Connerly.
California law allows for its amendment by popular referendum. California voters did and it was--quite legaly and democratically so. Animosity against "gay marriage" in California is just as intractable as was opposition against public facility integration in the Jim Crow South.
The problem of the LBGT community is not the majority of California voters who rejected their desires on this issue. The problems of the LBGT community is how they are perceived by the rest of the Calilfornia population and their inability to halt "business as usual" in California. Sadly in the US, just like justice, you get about as many rights as you can either pay for yourself or make your oppressors pay for to oppose you. It has always been so and remains true to this day.
ipresumelikely concludes:
It is you who are on the wrong side of history. They will look back on you like we look back on the twisted faces of the White racists who promoted Segregation.
*********************
All the bitching and complaining about "homophobes" will accomplish you no more than it has in the past. You must never forget that "they" don't owe you anything unless you make it otherwise.
Poet
"For the true defenders of democracy as a form of government the only solutions left are to either renounce your confidence in the democratic process or to just deal with it and work within the system you have."
The tyranny of a majority is not a democracy or even a democratic process when it becomes a standard.
"For the true defenders of democracy as a form of government the only solutions left are to either renounce your confidence in the democratic process or to just deal with it and work within the system you have."
Apathy is not a solution, but a prescription to justify systematic or institutional failure.
"The LBGT community has no Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X as did African Americans. Nor do they have have a Betty Friedan or Andrea Dworkin as did the feminists."
No gay MLK? How do you know? Even recognizing a visible, more familiar figure from a movement isn't the full story since no movement is a monolith. Just because more people don't know who Ida B. Wells was or what she did doesn't mean she isn't worth learning about. Isn't the reason for learning history to learn from it, pass it along, and not repeat the same mistakes? We only know as much as we learn.
Many feminists don't share the same level of regard toward Andrea Dworkin. Passion is a much different animal than the effort or results that follow, and Dworkin certainly had a lot of passion.
"Therefore, comparisons to the civil rights or feminist movements are invalid."
Coretta Scott King gave an amazing speech a year or two before she passed and spoke powerfully about same-sex marriage being very much a part of the civil rights movement. And, that's just one example from the top of my head. There are countless examples. Unless you're familiar with the LGBTQ movement itself and its history, it's unclear how anyone can have such adamant views about a group they know so little about.
"The truth is that most of the Californian voting population doesn't like what they perceive as either the personality or lifestyle of the LBGT community."
Are you suggesting the state supreme court was right to follow public opinion with their ruling? If popular opinion is sufficient for a court to base its rulings on then, by the same token, they were they wrong to overturn anti-miscegenation laws in in California. Popular opinion at that time did not support the ruling. Yet, if popular opinion prevailed, what would history look like today? Where would we be?
Those who supported anti-miscegenation laws were equally as passionate as those who oppose same-sex marriage rights, even citing Biblical scripture as an absolute justification to support their view. If we accept the notion of popular opinion deciding who gets rights and who doesn't, what happens when we go back to the day when the one-drop rule was an acceptable, popular standard - assuming it becomes popular again?
Popular opinion can go in any direction. You either support equal rights protections for everyone in a democratic society or you don't. It's that simple.
See response below to similar contentions.
Poet
How dare the fundamentalists talk about "religious liberty" when they support discrimination? My church is more than happy to marry same-sex couples. Prop 8 tramples all over our right to religious liberty and lets the State dictate church policy. Yet none of the Prop 8 supporters I've talked to understand that means the State can also dictate their church policy. They only understand they have successfully imposed their will on others.
So these people wonder why so many are turning against religion. Why no one has any respect left for them. We are tired of someone's religious belief's being injected into our laws.
I see alot of passion and anger here. Of course, I also wonder how marriage is a civil rights issue at all. I've read alternative solutions that suggest we abolish marriage altogether to fix the problem. By watching this battle unfold, its goal is clear. Its not about gays having 'rights'. Its about homosexuals unions being cultural viewed as equivelant to heterosexual unions. I am not against this, mind you. However, I think the problem I see here is far to many have actually begun to believe their own spin.