The Disgrace of Prop 8

WAP riled me up a little about something I was already riled about: California's disgraceful vote on Prop 8 and gay marriage.

I'm not going to link to any articles here - you can go do the research yourself. Several news outlets have reported the ultimate irony, which is that the high African-American turnout is part of the reason the vote went the way it did. Apparently an overwhelming number of black voters stood in the booth on the historic day this past Tuesday, and voted for a minority candidate for president with tears in their eyes and joy in their hearts... right after giving gay Americans the middle finger on Prop 8.

Now, I'm not going to lay the blame for this disgrace at the feet of black voters alone - that's unfair. But apparently they missed the irony of deleting civil rights for one minority group whilst celebrating the ascendancy of a member of another long-oppressed minority on the same damned voting ticket. How a minority group could be so self-centered and lack perspective on such an issue is amazing to me.

But I want to take this all one step further. I will not put the blame on one group. The blame is on us all, even those of us who are in favor of gay marriage. We aren't doing enough to protect the rights of this group of Americans. When we let a people be oppressed or denied rights that we enjoy, we are as guilty as those that put on pointy white hoods. We are oppressors by apathy.

I am pro-gay marriage. In fact, I consider it a national disgrace that gay Americans cannot get married. It's a black eye to our society that - mark my words - one day your children or their children will look at you and shake their heads in shame about. They will wonder how we could have possibly denied this right (yes, RIGHT) to a select group of Americans for reasons that are so absurd, petty or downright ghastly that it begs the question: what the fuck is our problem?

So I invite anyone - anyone - out there to take me on. Tell me why gay Americans should not be allowed to marry. Pat Bateman invites all dissent. Give me your reasons and I will prove to you that you're a bigoted idiot for having them. Please - I beg of you. The comments section is open for business.

Let's look through a few in advance though, shall we?

The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, first of all, the Bible says a lot of things, and if this is your argument, I expect you're following everything in that book to the letter. Otherwise, keep quiet. Do you take the Lord's name in vain? Do you covet? Have you ever stolen anything? Right, now go ahead and throw that stone and let's see if that house is made of shatterproof glass. I'll bet it isn't. But leaving that aside, using religious reasons for government policy is something that smacks to me of being verboten in this country. I'm no Civics professor, but I seem to remember something about the separation of Church and State. I feel like that's prominently featured somewhere in some sort of important document. If your argument for a law is based in religion, do not bother making it here in America. Move to a country where religious dogma and state policy can be one and the same, and such a dovetail is even encouraged. Might I suggest some countries in the Middle East?

If we let gay people marry, it's a slippery slope to other things. I love this one. It's a short jump to marrying your dog or your sister if we allow gay marriage, some say. This is my favorite argument. I just love it. It would be wet-my-pants funny if it weren't so frightening that people say it with a totally straight face. I'm still waiting to see the statistics proving that legalization of gay marriage fosters a jump in the incidents of man-pet love. If someone has those numbers, please send them my way.

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage. You mean like our national divorce rate of approximately one in four... or is it one in three? Or has it even crept higher than that by now? Good thing we aren't letting those gays get married. We straight people are doing a pretty solid job of wrecking it ourselves. I'm always confused how letting people who want to spend their lives together get married destroys the fabric of marriage. This hasn't been adequately explained to me, so perhaps someone out there can do a better job. If so, please enlighten me. It's dark in this cave of ignorance.

Marriage is meant for reproduction and gays can't reproduce. Well, again, I think this mostly comes back to the Judeo-Christian admonition that thou shalt marry and multiply. Which, again, is not a valid basis for law in this country. But I think this is a good point. This argument has merit. But why are we stopping here? While we're at it, let's not let impotent men or men with low sperm counts get married. Or women who have had cervical cancer and cannot have a baby. These people are getting married for entirely the wrong reasons. They will be unable to reproduce and thus should also be banned from getting married. Sure, if they want civil unions, that's cool, but marriage? If they cannot have children? Inconceivable! Weirdly, nobody ever suggests this - it's only gays that are subject to the reproduction argument.

Gay people are morally wrong and we shouldn't countenance their lifestyle choice. I respect this opinion, actually. You see, at least this line of argument doesn't hide what it really is saying - it is outwardly bigoted, but at least it's honest. It doesn't dress up its message in pseudo-science or quasi-legal terms. It says what it means - you're wrong, I'm right and thus you shouldn't be able to do what I am permitted to do. I respect that honesty. But it doesn't make it any more right than any of the other "reasons" listed above.

This reason also often has an element of "gay people choose to be gay, and if they just would choose to be straight we wouldn't have this problem." Frankly, I cannot speak to this even though it's absolutely amazingly ignorant. I am not gay and cannot explain why someone who is gay cannot make themselves not be gay. I can, however, offer this: I am a guy, and I'm a guy who likes women. It's just one of those things that has always been. I don't know if I was socialized to like them from all those beer commercials, or if it was the presence of a strong father in a positive relationship with my mother that made me this way... or hey, maybe I was just born to want to have sex with women. I don't know if it is genetic or I've been socialized. Whatever the reason, that's just kinda how it is. I really wouldn't appreciate it if someone tried to change me. I kinda like women. I really don't care why I do. I'd bet gay Americans don't really care why they like sleeping with who they like sleeping with - I would bet they simply would appreciate you leave them alone to their sex like they leave you alone to yours.

These are the "justifications" offered most often when I see opponents of gay marriage open their pie holes and spout their dumbassness. And for anyone reading this and saying "just another typical liberal who thinks they know better than I do." Well, know what? Guilty as charged. It doesn't make me smart or eggheaded. I don't live in an ivory tower. It doesn't make me a genius. It just makes you a bigoted idiot. Someday I look forward to celebrating and toasting to the equality of gay Americans just as I toasted to the historic moment America had on Tuesday. But I am sad and also angry that day is not today.

That's my rant and I needed to say it. We came a long way on Tuesday, but Prop 8 and others like it in two other states prove that we still have far to go as a nation before all of us are equal and able to enjoy the rights due and owing to all Americans.

California Propositions

For our California readers, here is the current rundown of proposition voting with 95% of precincts reporting:

Propositions Precincts reporting: ~95.0%
1A: High-speed rail Yes 52.2% No 47.8%
2: Farm animals Yes 63.2% No 36.8%
3: Children’s hospitals Yes 54.7% No 45.3%
4: Abortion notification Yes 47.6% No 52.4%
5: Drug offenses Yes 40.2% No 59.8%
6: Criminal justice Yes 30.5% No 69.5%
7: Renewable energy Yes 35.1% No 64.9%
8: Gay marriage ban Yes 52.0% No 48.0%
9: Victims’ rights Yes 53.2% No 46.8%
10: Alternative fuels Yes 40.1% No 59.9%
11: Redistricting Yes 50.5% No 49.5%
12: Loans for veterans Yes 63.4% No 36.6%

Crying shame on Prop. 8. You let the Mormons bully you around. What's next? Marriage is between a man and a woman, woman, woman, woman and woman? Crying shame.

Those Spooky Mormons!

I have a gay cousin in California. Because both sides of the Proposition 8 debate refuse to directly speak to its express terms, instead using oblique references to "fundamental rights," "preservation of marriage" and "our children's future" in their advertisements, my cousin wanted me to shine the light on this important proposal - far too important to befuddle and stupefy voters into a tainted victory.

From my cousin's voter information guide issued by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Here is the official "background":

"In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state."

Here is the official Proposition 8 "proposal":

"This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California."

This is a constitutional initiative - meaning Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution and eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. There is no judicial bypass. Heterosexual marriage becomes enmeshed into the fabric of state law.

I would vote "no" on Prop. 8 if given the opportunity. Why? Because I don't want the spooky Mormons rummaging around in my underwear draw when they happen upon their next divine mandate.

Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr Predicts Deep South Win For Obama

ATLANTA, GA – "Senator John McCain will not win Georgia," predicts Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee for president. "His shrinking poll numbers are an indication that McCain is losing touch with the American public as we get closer to November 4th."

"Sen. McCain never connected with the fiscal conservatives in Georgia," says Barr. "His lack of a principled stand on issues such as reducing the size of government and cutting spending bothers Georgia voters. Sen. McCain can't say with a straight face he will not raise taxes or increase government spending, given his support for such extremely expensive federal government programs like the recent massive bailouts for Wall Street. Clearly, McCain has failed to attract the hearts and support of Georgia voters."

"Sen. Obama will not so much win Georgia, as Sen. McCain will lose the state," Barr adds.

Right . . . and John McCain will carry California, New York and France.