Some thoughts and some links

Bryan's got a really good post regarding the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which, appallingly, constitutionalizes allowing one group of American citizens fewer rights than the rest.

The Associated Press reports that the legal challenges have already begun, and I wish them Godspeed, because legislation like this strikes me as not only discriminatory and un-American, but ironically, I also think it's unchristian and fundamentally anti-conservative: it violates our constitutional separation of church and state, impedes American citizens from pursuing happiness as they see fit, and it denies people who love each other the right to make a commitment before God and the community.

Personally, I don't see what any government has to do with marriage, per se, as marriage is a religious sacrament, and in my mind, if a church will marry two people, the government has no business putting them asunder. The government should oversee nothing but the legal ramifications of the union, and that goes for any couple, gay or straight. It's amazing to me that conservatives would support greater government involvement in the private lives of American citizens, but the unholy marriage between fundamentalist Christianity and political conservatism (whatever that is,in view of recent history) isn't always logical, is it?

Here's what I say, though: those of us who oppose government-sanctioned moral judgments and support all Americans' right to dignity and equality have lost a battle in California, but not the war. Time is not on the side of discrimination, and in 6 or 8 years, when the baby boomer culture warriors are no longer the largest voting demographic in America, this kind of thing will not fly.

The other link I have for you is to an article by Andrew Sullivan in the Times online on the role "identity politics" played in the election. Sullivan interestingly points out the way the left mostly gave identity politics the slip this year while the right embraced it, to it's detriment. It's a good read, and I'm interested in what you think about it.

I'd only add that I think a big part of Obama's accomplishment this year is that he really did sideline race as a topic, but not by ignoring it; he managed to put the focus on his own individual human identity, rather than taking on the mantle of "black identity" -- he treated it as part of what made him what he is, but as one factor of many. He rightly gave the lie to any efforts to box him in. It's interesting to note, I think, that we consider the role of identity when we think about electing a woman or a black man, but does anyone think that John McCain's "identity" as a white man is germane to whether or not he can do the job?

Finally, this article is hilarious.

Comments

[Jason]

Perhaps you're right, but it's hard for me not to be despondent about millions of people going into a voting booth and happily saying "no" to my equal rights, among them, very likely, people I count as friends and family. It hurts.

I'm also a bit frustrated with the marriage equality movement itself. We simply have not been focusing on the correct message or talking points. In my view, this argument should be framed along the following lines:

1. The only clear and present threat to marriage is divorce, a social problem about which gay marriage foes are doing nothing (in fact, they have some of the highest divorce rates in the country). They are certainly not promoting constitutional amendments banning divorce.

2. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that public acceptance of homosexual marriages will lead to a diminution in the number, quality, and stability of heterosexual marriages.

The separation of church and state argument holds no water with most voters because those who oppose gay marriage have devised the euphemism of "protecting families" to cleverly disguise what is, at heart a distaste for homosexuality.

Finally, I'd like to point out that in every single debate throughout American history involving the expansion of liberties (from the abolition of slavery, to the right of women to vote) the judgment of history has always sided with progressives, not conservatives.

We will win.

[Jason]

That Onion article made me pee myself, especially this:

"Citizens with eyes, ears, and the ability to wake up and realize what truly matters in the end are also believed to have played a crucial role in Tuesday's election."

[Jaime]

Yes, but how does it "protect families" when legislation like this effectively reduces the number of people who are allowed to form legally recognized families? Also, how is the cause of conservatism advanced by preventing people from taking what is, essentially, a conservative step, and committing themselves to a monogamous relationship for life?

I mean, as someone who is divorced and who currently lives not only in a European country with socialized medicine, but also IN SIN, I have to say that the very fact that gay couples want to have the option of marriage, an option many straight couples eschew in favor of cohabitation, strikes me as something that conservative, family-values touting folks would be able to see their way clear to supporting.

But, what do I know. I'm a coastal, city-dwelling liberal elitist.

[Jaime]

I liked this part: "Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked."

Oh, and I forgot to add that in addition to being an coastal/urban liberal elitiest who has never lived in "real America" I am also, I would imagine, guilty of America-hating and godlessness.

[Tara H.]

I don't think there's a single quote from Jesus that says anything against same-sex marriage. But, there is this...

“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."