Wednesday, November 5, 2008  

A Change Still Needs To Come

So, it's the morning after...  and I remain so very proud to be an American.

Yet, so deeply ashamed to be a Californian.

Today, the Constitution of this state has been amended.  Amended to strip rights away from one group of people.  Amended to say that one type of marriage is legitimate, and thus, the other types are not.

Shameful.

Last night was a microcosm of this country.  It showed how far we'd come, and how far we have to go.

How did this happen?

How did California vote for Barack Obama 61% to 37%, yet vote for Proposition 8, 52% to 48%?

For that matter, how did Florida vote for Obama 51% to 48% yet vote to ban gay marriage with 62% of the vote?

The answer is pretty clear, when you look at those numbers.  Failure of leadership.  Failure by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama has said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.  He supports civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Yet, when Yes on 8 ads showed his picture with the quote "marriage is between a man and a woman," he argued with that, called it misleading, because he was against Proposition 8.

But why was he against it?  His public statements match the language that the proposition added to the California constitution.  Almost word for word.

The same for Joe Biden.  He, too, says that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he's against redefining it.

And he too was used on Yes on 8 ads.

Don't they get it?  Don't they see?  You can't walk this issue down the middle, guys.  There is no middle.  Either you think marriage should be available for all citizens, or you don't.  There is no third option.  Now, you can (and they do) argue for a separate but equal status, such as civil unions.  But don't pretend to be against Proposition 8 if that's what you're after.  Prop 8 didn't outlaw civil unions.

And, really, how is it moral leadership to say you're in favor of 'separate but equal'?  Is that what the civil rights movement taught us?

The bottom line is, the Democrats have failed to lead on this issue.  They want to be pro-gay rights, yet they don't want to alienate those who are against it.  That's not leading, that's following, and it's following two groups going in two different directions.  Which leads to meandering aimlessly in an ill-defined middle ground the way McCain wandered the stage in the second debate.

I want real leadership from the Democrats.

When Jews were being driven from country to country, it would not have been leadership to say, "I don't think they belong here, but I'm against people chasing them out."

Or during the battle for desegregation of our schools, it would not have been leadership to say "I don't want black kids in my kid's school, but I think a law preventing them from going is wrong."

Do those two stances sound half-assed and pathetic?  They should.  Do they sound remarkably like the Democratic stance on gay marriage?  As the woman who will (thankfully) not be our V.P. would say...  you betcha.

The saddest part was that this was the year for real leadership.   The economic crisis meant that fear-mongering and wedge issues wouldn't work.

South Dakota and Colorado defeated measures that would have limited or removed a woman's right to choose.   Why?  Because the Democrats won big (even though they lost in South Dakota, they did better than usual there), and the party has taken a clear stand on this issue.

Imagine what could have happened if the Democrats had said "let's make all Americans equal" on the subject of gay marriage.  Imagine if the Republicans tried to make an issue of it, and Obama simply said, "they're trying to distract you with issues that don't affect your day to day lives because they have nothing to say on the economy."

He could have made people see the wedge issue of gay rights for what it is.  A smokescreen.

Really, what straight person's life is in any way affected by whether two gay men or two lesbians have the right to marry?  How does it affect anyone but those two, and their families and friends?

It doesn't, it never has, and it never will.

And the fact that the party that gave us an African American president refuses to say that tells me that as proud as I am of my party and my country today... we have a ton of work to do.

Comments:
Couldn't agree more. This discrimination is utterly shameful and fell victim to national politics this year. How did this even make it on the ballot this year?! The work is far from over on this and it will take extreme vigilance to fight it. I think we need to begin calling this what it is LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION. We pride ourselves of moving past the Jim Crow era, but we are lurching right back into a different yet equally shameful one now.
 
Couldn't agree more. This discrimination is utterly shameful and fell victim to national politics this year. How did this even make it on the ballot this year?! The work is far from over on this and it will take extreme vigilance to fight it. I think we need to begin calling this what it is LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION. We pride ourselves of moving past the Jim Crow era, but we are lurching right back into a different yet equally shameful one now.
 
I know how you feel. As much as I wished to, I couldn't take much joy in Obama's victory because I was watching the ballot measures trickle in and it made me sick. I knew Arizona was going to pass; the only reason we didn't get this two years ago was because folks in this red stretch of sand decided that they liked their civil servants more than they disliked homosexuals -- by a 51-49 margin. Florida had me braced for the worse, but California just broke my heart. Arkansas forbidding homosexual couples from adopting was just the extra kick in the ribs. Nice message: we'll put a black man in the white house so long as there's still someone we can look down on as a nation.

*sigh*

The GBLT groups in California haven't conceded defeat yet, but there are already lawsuits starting up to keep Prop 8 from tearing newly formed families apart again. I sincerely hope that this bull gets sorted out on a federal level within the next few years. Having civil rights decided on a state-by-state basis is ridiculous.
 
ideologically, i'd like to have it settled by the states because then it would have more of a mandate, it would show that people are accepting. but personally (and practically), i don't care what level of government does it because individual rights come first, especially minority rights. the entire purpose for having a republic as opposed to a straight democracy is to protect the rights of the minority.

the most elegant, and thus unlikely, solution i can see is to simply abolish the notion of marriage as a legal institution altogether. under the law, it's all civil unions. you enter into a legal contract with one another and everyone shares in that. marriage becomes a wholly religious institution and it's up to the churches and denominations to decide who can and can't get married within their congregations.

but yeah, when the only Democrat actively adovcating gay marriage is Dennis Kucinich...it's time to examine the party platform.
 
So any "on the ground" updates for those of us on the East Coast? I'm seeing protests on tv, but what's the mood on the street? I hear there is a chance that the propostion won't be accepted despite the ballot result?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This site uses blogger.
© 2007 - 2008 (site feed | archives)