The Author – Bart Busschots
Creative Commons
Unless otherwise stated, the content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works 3.0 License
Nov
5
Pondering Proposition 8 – “us” and “them”
Filed Under Polemics & Politics on November 5, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Most of the world’s attention is focused on Barack Obama today. I can certainly understand why, but I’ve been pre-occupied with something else today, proposition 8 in California. The proposition was to add an article to the Californian Constitution to revoke civil rights for gay people. It passed, not by much, but it passed. The Californian constitution now discriminates against gay people. In the US that’s not a first. But there is something very different about the vote on proposition 8, in CA gay people COULD marry. They HAD rights. They fought long and hard, but they had won the basic civil rights that regular people take for granted. And today, over half of the voters in California choose to revoke those rights, to take basic civil rights away from their fellow Californians, their fellow Americans and their fellow human beings. To make an effort to actively take away rights from your fellow human beings is a hell of a lot different to failing to grant rights in the first place, or even to taking steps to make it harder to grant them in future. Failing to move forwards is sad, but moving backwards is tragic.
Make no mistake by the way, the people who voted to strip basic civil rights from gay people have caused real and genuine hurt to their fellow human beings. Of those people who voted yes to proposition 8 I’m sure the majority were married. They get to go home to their partner and reap all the legal benefits of marriage. If their partner falls ill, they get to see them in hospital, if things go very bad and a decision has to be made about life support, they get to make that decision, after the death of one partner the other gets inheritance rights and pension rights. All simple things, but all things that these self-same people who snatched them away from gay people today, would never tolerate being taken from them.
This got me thinking, what kind of person makes it their business to deprive others of the basic rights they cherish and demand for themselves? What kind of person sets out to harm others? The easy answer is to assume that a little over half of the population of California are evil heartless gits who take pleasure from causing pain. That’s the easy answer. It’s not the right answer though. The people who voted yes to proposition 8 are regular family people who love their partners and their kids, are probably great neighbours, and are probably religious people who believe in a message of love.
Yet they can hurt others so callously. Why? The only conclusion is that gay people are still seen as being sub-human to some extent. Gay people are “them”, they are not “us”. It’s very easy to do terrible things to people who you see as being below you, or even just different to you. If you don’t believe me, take a look at world history. In the US you don’t need to go back too far in the past to find people being denied their civil rights simply because of the colour of their skin. We’re no better in Europe, we just tried to annihilate an entire race! The message is the same though, it’s easy to hurt “them”.
The obvious solution is that gay people have to become a part of “us”. We have to be visible in society, and we have to stop hiding away. We need to engage with our neighbours, and not hide who we really are. We can’t keep locking ourselves in the closet, keeping our heads down, and keeping our love lives secret from the world. We love just like everyone else does, and all we want is the same basic rights everyone else has. When your child, or your sibling, or your next door neighbour, or your friends are openly gay it becomes impossible to view gay people as “them”. When that happens only the truly heartless and evil will be able to discriminate against gay people and cause pain to their own children, siblings, neighbours, and friends.
If you’re reading this and you voted yes on proposition 8, you need to understand that you are causing pain and suffering to your fellow human beings. If you personally believe being gay is a sin, don’t be gay. Choosing not to condone or support or take part in gay marriage is no reason to enforce your beliefs on everyone. That’s what happens in theocracies, places like Iran. They are not nice places, and substituting your religion for theirs doesn’t make it any more right!
If you’re gay and reading this, you need to understand that the only way things will change is if we stand up and live our lives out in the open. There’s no need to scream that you’re gay from every roof-top, but stop hiding, start living like every other couple out there. Take part in society, as a couple, just like regular people, because that’s exactly what we are.
I agree wholeheartedly Bart. I bike around a lot in my neighborhood in Southern California, and for the past two weeks I’ve seen dozens of ‘Yes on Prop 8’ signs in people’s yards. The yards don’t belong to people who are old and cranky and want to actively deprive others of rights, they belong to families with a mom, dad, son, and a daughter. Yesterday morning I rode by a house with a car pulling out of the garage and a kid came running out half-naked to give his mom a kiss and a hug before she went to work. Most people that voted yes on 8 are normal everyday families that were lied to and tricked into voting yes. The ads made outrageous claims about education, tax-exempt status, and more.
It’s disheartening to think that so many people could think some way, but it’s even worse to think of what this proposition passing here means. Because California is a beacon for social change in the country, proponents of same-sex marriage bans around the country will now work harder than ever to have similar measures passed in every other state. Because heck, if it passed in California, it can pass anywhere.
For the moment however, the constitution will remain unchanged. This morning, 3 lawsuits were filed in the state to overturn the proposition, saying that it is an illegal constitutional revision, not just an amendment. Hopefully these cases will win and we can continue to have the right to marry.
Thanks Ryan. I guess it’s good news about the court cases. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out. It’s sad when the courts have to step in to protect minorities, but I guess that’s just one of the reasons you want separation of powers.
Bart.
I’m feeling tired. When will they give up. How do you re-educate a man who can picket a soldier’s funeral. Who can thrust a placard into a grieving mother’s face, a placard that says “your son died cos God hates fags.” How do we re-educate those people ?
Hi Rose,
There will always be extremists. You’ll never get people like Felps to see sense. That doesn’t really matter though, what matters is getting regular people to see that gay people are just regular people too.
Bart.
Bart,
Great article. As long as we use fear to motivate our citizens we will continue to make mistakes. I think the country made a good step towards moving away from these type of politics on Tuesday. It was too late for this proposition but I am hopeful that future attempts will be more successful.
This should be handled by a judge and not a proposition in the first place. Do you think that we would have ever ended slavery or given women the right to vote if we left it up to a vote? Sometimes a learned person in a position of power has to right the wrong.
A well written article, and one that makes me think.
I believe the real issue is that society is not yet *used to* the fact that two people of the same sex can constitute a ‘couple’. If we look at the issue of race, we can still see America isn’t fully used to people of all colours being equal. It obviously takes a long, long time for society to change at such a fundamental level.
What you say, therefore, is dead right. So long as this is hidden, society cannot get used to it. Sure there are openly gay people including some with very high profiles (e.g. Ellen DeGeneres, Stephen Fry) but this is still ‘niche’ as far as society is concerned.
The issue of religion clouds many levels of society and frequently makes people think a certain way despite it most likely being against the basic tenets of the religion they ‘believe’ in. After all, is not one of the central tenets of the modern Christian “Love thy neighbour”?
I can fully understand that a gay relationship can be described as “unnatural”. But the thing that makes this true is science. The science of reproduction and survival of the species. Biology, if you will. Which makes it all the more hypocritical for those who “believe in God” – AND THEREFORE CREATIONISM – to say that “gay is wrong because it is unnatural”.
For the record, I am a straight, married male with no religious beliefs.
Nice post! I wrote about this too on my blog (corcaighist.blogspot.com) and I agree with everything said you except this below:
——–
And today, over half of the voters in California choose to revoke those rights, to take basic civil rights away from their fellow Californians, their fellow Americans and their fellow human beings.
——–
In fact, there was only a 64% turn-out. 52% voted in favour so that makes just 33% of California’s registered voters voted against gay marriage.
Good point Corcaighist! I’ve heard it said that the fact that Obama was going to win CA comfortably probably helped prop 8 pass because many Democrats didn’t bother to vote. That certainly seems like a sensible analysis.
Bart.
Great post Bart! I’m gay and I’m adding a vote in California with my wallet. As much and as often as I can, I’m buying on Amazon. Even everyday things like toilet paper. Amazon Prime shipping is free (after enrollment and certainly the more I buy, the cheaper that gets). More importantly, NO SALES TAX. Los Angeles city (80% voter turnout btw) and CA state will not be getting that revenue from me.
PS – I need to bookmark Allison’s Amazon link! 🙂
Cheers!
Bart, in response to Democrats not voting as much being a reason why Prop 8 was passed, it’s unfortunately not quite true. One of the big reasons it was passed was because Obama brought out more of the black vote than ever before, most of whom are democrat, but also deeply religious, and so while they voted for Obama, they also voted for Prop 8, despite Obama himself saying that he was opposed to it. This is an issue that’s been in the Los Angeles Times several times since the election and what a lot of people have been talking about, we didn’t connect with them as much as we should have, and so lost their support.
Great essay Bart. I’m on a lesbian mailing list/discussion group and a big topic just lately has been “why are black people so homophobic” Generalisations are not good but polls seem to back this up. We need to remind black homophobes that it is just over 50 years since inter-racial marriage was allowed. It somehow hurts more to see one abused minority attack another.
Hi Bart. I found your site via Allison/Nosilla and thought I’d comment on this topic. Thanks for the opportunity.
Fred Phelps can not be educated – he’s a nincompoop (harsher words come to mind but I’m trying to be polite in polite company.)
Women’s rights came about in the US by President Wilson urging Congress to pass a law after civil disobedience became widespread, not by a judge’s decision. Rights for slaves came by a bloody civil war, a president’s proclamation and states ratifying the amendment, again, not by a judges decision. Judges here can’t come in agreement and that’s why we have the system of appeals we do. The buck stops at the top, so to speak. If a judge tried to dictate civil rights for gays then 5 others would disagree and another 10 would agree and it would be chaos… it really does need to be legislated and, I believe, at the state level.
Another reason for laws is that in the US, if one state says X and Y are married then every other state has to accept that as a marriage, right down to taxes, health care, etc. It’s an awkward situation that has many people emotionally involved.
The issue of religion does not cloud issues for those who are partakers of it. It is what they base their beliefs on and is no more or less “clouding” than the love one gay person has for another. They just have another set of things they use to determine the definitions of right and wrong or good and bad. If they are sincere then it is who they are and not something auxiliary to muddy the waters.
Not every religious person believes homosexuality is unnatural. Many believe it is natural and pleasurable like many other things God wants us not to do. Not that everything pleasurable is sin but most things that are sin are pleasurable.
Love thy neighbor is a command, but if we are going by commands then so is don’t fornicate, lie, steal, have intimate relations with the same sex, etc. It is not compelling to cherry pick one command and ignore another when trying to make a solid argument for/against things like this.
Another reason for the opposition is not just morality but economics. The fear, warranted or not, of the health system being unduly burdened or a family being overruled in the decision of their loved one’s health by a gay lover, etc. I live in Florida and there was discussion at the water cooler along the lines of “If gay marriage passes here then a gay lover living with someone has more rights than a heterosexual lover that’s not married does because the state doesn’t recognize civil unions.” In this past election the voters ruled out all civil unions regardless of orientation so it has become moot… but those fears and the moral beliefs of people are what the gay community faces.
Bottom line: Bart, you bring up many good points in a well-written post that prompts considerate thought. Perhaps if people can’t agree with each other’s life choices then at least they will treat each other with respect and dignity.
I look forward to reading more. Peace.
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for your comments.
I think you bottom line gets to the heart of the issue. Live and let Live is pretty much the only route to peace. This is something I’ve blogged about before: http://www.bartbusschots.ie/blog/?p=871. It’s for that reason that states should not enshrine the religious views of one group over another in law, or worse, the constitution.
I don’t know enough about US legal history to comment on the role judges have or have not played in civil rights struggles. I’ve been lead to believe that one of the functions of the courts is to protect minorities. I could of course be wrong. I do know that the courts played a big part in gay rights in Texas when they ruled that the government has no right to interfere in the bedroom. I guess the reality is all branches of government are needed to get anything really done.
As for all states having to recognise gay marriage if it’s legal in one state, I thought the DOMA put an end to that? If not, CA was not the first state to legalise gay marriage anyway, so how does prop 8 change anything in this regard?
The religious points you raise are interesting, but I have a few to raise to counter them. Firstly, the bible has very little to say about homosexuality. Very little indeed. With the exception of Leviticus all other references are both exceedingly scarce (one or two I believe), and debatable. I believe the one(s) in the Paul refer to what was in effect pederasty, rather than a committed homosexual relationship, and I think we can all agree that pederasty is not a good thing! That only leaves Leviticus, and that’s a book where Christians have done some SERIOUS picking and choosing. The exact word used to describe a man lying with a man as with a woman is that it, and hence homosexuality, is an abomination. Pretty strong stuff indeed. However, Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! The reality is that you HAVE to pick and choose, because not picking and choosing is simply not possible in the modern world. Going around beating your wife & kids and stoning your neighbours is simply incompatible with modern life!
So, all churches pick and choose. Indeed, there are Christian churches which bless gay marriage. The scriptural case for persecuting gays is very week indeed, and can, very cogently, be argued not to exist.
Anyway, the bottom line remains the same. If some Christians want to consider homosexuality a sin that is their right. Muslims consider drinking alcohol a sin, Jews forbid the eating of bacon. All religions have their extra laws. However, that’s no reason to enforce those beliefs on everyone. Just look at how well prohibition worked out!
There is no way to get around the fact that denying civil rights for some based on sexual orientation is discrimination. Gays are not going away. Gays are not going to stop fighting for their basic rights. The only way the constant battle can stop is if Christians can learn to live and let live in the same way that Muslims and Jews are doing in America. Do you see Muslim or Jewish religious groups organising ballots to get alcohol made illegal or pork banned?
Sorry for waffling on a bit, and thanks again for your well thought out and very politely argued comments.
Bart.
Quite simply, gay marriage is an unnatural construct. Yes, I know this statement probably offends a great many people but it is nonetheless true.
Marriage is a natural by-product of male/female relationships. Heterosexual coupling would exist (in one guise or another) even if the term ‘marriage’ were to totally disappear. Can the same be said of gay couples? Obviously not, since they feel they are unable to form lasting relationships without a piece of paper.
Gay marriage can only prosper in places where the law condones/requires it. It is a creation of law, nothing more. Worse, it will forever require law to sustain it.
People often accuse Christians (or other religious sects) of causing bigtry against gays. Well, if that were true then why has there not been one pre-Christian society that sanctioned gay ‘marriages’? Where is the evidence that so-called pagans practiced gay marriage?
I’m sorry to say that reality does not agree with you. You state as fact that homosexuality is not natural but you don’t back it up at all. It’s just a dogmatic statement. Observations of nature and human history flatly contradict you.
Your statement that gay people can’t form lasting unions without gay marriage is also simply false. It is of course true that not sll gay relationships last, and that some gay people sleep around, but that’s no different than straight people. Just look at the divorce rate! However, your statement proves my point that gay couples need to take part in society more and refuse to be bullied into hiding.
From a personal point of view, I am in a long-term stable relationship and I don’t have or need a piece of paper to make it work. What I need the piece of paper for are the practicalities of life that staight married couples take for granted like inheritance rights and visitation rights.