Posts
Showing posts with label prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prop 8. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Now That It's (Sorta) Over . . .
Well . . . we lost. Despite my fellow porn enthusiasts going out and buying to your heart's content, and despite voting (as I know you all did), we failed to defeat the ban on gay marriage here in California (a.k.a. Prop 8).
Of course, that doesn't mean defeat; the results were so incredibly close, support and opposition was huge on both sides, and, as Jiz Lee so wonderfully brought to my attention, the fight soldiers on. And hooray for that, because the last thing we need is to become demoralized and give up. We do not live in a democracy, where a majority rules our lives- we live in a republic, where the majority rules . . . so long as they don't infringe on our rights. I'd say refusing the right of marriage is one of those that we're entitled to (as citizens, taxpayers, and heck, human beings). So we'll turn to the blindfolded lady Justice and let her weigh it out in the times to come.
But now that all's said and done, I don't want an angry rant about homophobia, or a weepy rant about losing, or even an inspirational manifesto about overcoming. I want to ask: what are we doing?
It's incredible, I think, the amount of money we were able to raise in support of the "No On 8" campaign- a brilliant $38,432,873. We even beat out the other side with their $36,122,538 (not that it helped). I can hardly fathom these numbers- they seem fantastical. All for a few ads to try and sway the general public.
I don't mean to say that opposing Prop 8 isn't important- I hope that it's clear that it's a huge deal and one that certainly makes a difference in lives- it's not just about some abstract "rights", but about respect and tolerance and being acknowledged, in being able to be with your partner, and, for those already married, for staying that way. But was it worth such a price tag?
I'll admit that my thoughts have been seriously swayed by a book I bought a while back- Mattilda Bernstein's That's Revolting. In it are a bevy of essays asking the somewhat taboo question that doesn't get asked nearly enough in queer circles- the biggest of which is "Do we even need marriage?". Some will scream- of course we do! And on the other side of the divide is the radicals who would like to do away with the whole institution on the basis of what it used to be and maybe still stands for (the symbolic passing over of a bride from her father to her new husband as chattel?), or favor the philsophical approach that we don't need no stinkin' pieces of paper to prove our bonds. You've got queer folks who want to get married, queer folks who don't and never would, thinking it's too "straight", queer folks who want to have something but don't want to call it marriage, and those who won't stand for anything less than the M word. There isn't a queer around (I think) who says we don't deserve the right to marriage; that's a given. But as to whether we ought be fighting one of our many battles here, on this issue, and spending our money here, I just don't know if it's that clear-cut.
The various essays bring up strong, radical points that I don't always believe/agree with, but which are provocative nonetheless. Is marriage, and this fight for gay marriage, a fight that only benefits some queers? Does it represent a class of relatively elite, affluent, mainly white conservative (i.e. non-radical, not non-liberal) gays and lesbians, who have a vested interest in the institution of marriage, and the privileges it brings, both pyschological, in social reception, and least not in asset sharing and whatnot? How much of the fight for gay marriage has to do with wanting the status and privilege that comes with it, and the normalizing effect that goes with it? I'm not saying that queer folks are somehow less equipped or less inclined to go hand-in-hand with marriage. Gay marriage naturally belongs on the list of the gay agenda list (you know, the real one, not the one that has 'recruit and convert all the innocent chitlins on it).
My question is this: could that money have been put to other, better use? How many lives could have been bettered if the money went to helping the queers that get left out of the HRC meetings, or blatantly turned away? What if instead of waging a neverending battle against the lies thrown out by the Prop 8 supporters, the money was used for organizations with outreach and education? What if we created more and helped keep the public queer spaces open? How about providing aid to the GLBTQ homeless and at-risk youth?
Those are just some of the thoughts running through my head. Hmm.
Of course, that doesn't mean defeat; the results were so incredibly close, support and opposition was huge on both sides, and, as Jiz Lee so wonderfully brought to my attention, the fight soldiers on. And hooray for that, because the last thing we need is to become demoralized and give up. We do not live in a democracy, where a majority rules our lives- we live in a republic, where the majority rules . . . so long as they don't infringe on our rights. I'd say refusing the right of marriage is one of those that we're entitled to (as citizens, taxpayers, and heck, human beings). So we'll turn to the blindfolded lady Justice and let her weigh it out in the times to come.
But now that all's said and done, I don't want an angry rant about homophobia, or a weepy rant about losing, or even an inspirational manifesto about overcoming. I want to ask: what are we doing?
It's incredible, I think, the amount of money we were able to raise in support of the "No On 8" campaign- a brilliant $38,432,873. We even beat out the other side with their $36,122,538 (not that it helped). I can hardly fathom these numbers- they seem fantastical. All for a few ads to try and sway the general public.
I don't mean to say that opposing Prop 8 isn't important- I hope that it's clear that it's a huge deal and one that certainly makes a difference in lives- it's not just about some abstract "rights", but about respect and tolerance and being acknowledged, in being able to be with your partner, and, for those already married, for staying that way. But was it worth such a price tag?
I'll admit that my thoughts have been seriously swayed by a book I bought a while back- Mattilda Bernstein's That's Revolting. In it are a bevy of essays asking the somewhat taboo question that doesn't get asked nearly enough in queer circles- the biggest of which is "Do we even need marriage?". Some will scream- of course we do! And on the other side of the divide is the radicals who would like to do away with the whole institution on the basis of what it used to be and maybe still stands for (the symbolic passing over of a bride from her father to her new husband as chattel?), or favor the philsophical approach that we don't need no stinkin' pieces of paper to prove our bonds. You've got queer folks who want to get married, queer folks who don't and never would, thinking it's too "straight", queer folks who want to have something but don't want to call it marriage, and those who won't stand for anything less than the M word. There isn't a queer around (I think) who says we don't deserve the right to marriage; that's a given. But as to whether we ought be fighting one of our many battles here, on this issue, and spending our money here, I just don't know if it's that clear-cut.
The various essays bring up strong, radical points that I don't always believe/agree with, but which are provocative nonetheless. Is marriage, and this fight for gay marriage, a fight that only benefits some queers? Does it represent a class of relatively elite, affluent, mainly white conservative (i.e. non-radical, not non-liberal) gays and lesbians, who have a vested interest in the institution of marriage, and the privileges it brings, both pyschological, in social reception, and least not in asset sharing and whatnot? How much of the fight for gay marriage has to do with wanting the status and privilege that comes with it, and the normalizing effect that goes with it? I'm not saying that queer folks are somehow less equipped or less inclined to go hand-in-hand with marriage. Gay marriage naturally belongs on the list of the gay agenda list (you know, the real one, not the one that has 'recruit and convert all the innocent chitlins on it).
My question is this: could that money have been put to other, better use? How many lives could have been bettered if the money went to helping the queers that get left out of the HRC meetings, or blatantly turned away? What if instead of waging a neverending battle against the lies thrown out by the Prop 8 supporters, the money was used for organizations with outreach and education? What if we created more and helped keep the public queer spaces open? How about providing aid to the GLBTQ homeless and at-risk youth?
Those are just some of the thoughts running through my head. Hmm.
Friday, October 31, 2008
$2,096 Closer To Equality!
Well, first off, Happy Halloween! Be sure to be safe and all that tonight as you celebrate this delightful Paganistic holiday, flouncing around in your incredibly slutty costumes, as I'm sure you are.
Secondly, rock on, you awesome people! Of course you remember my urging you to buy porn AND simultaneously support "No On Prop 8" campaign, and ya'll came through.
The official numbers are out:
Comstock Films raised a whopping $1,596! Pink & White Productions raised $500! Both numbers are awesome!
Together, we can keep Shine Louise Houston (and many, many others!) married and able to do so.
And even though it's not directly Prop 8-related, I did a little something on my part (other than donating and blogging, that is):
It's not much, but it's something, right?
Secondly, rock on, you awesome people! Of course you remember my urging you to buy porn AND simultaneously support "No On Prop 8" campaign, and ya'll came through.
The official numbers are out:
Comstock Films raised a whopping $1,596! Pink & White Productions raised $500! Both numbers are awesome!
Together, we can keep Shine Louise Houston (and many, many others!) married and able to do so.
And even though it's not directly Prop 8-related, I did a little something on my part (other than donating and blogging, that is):
It's not much, but it's something, right?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Prop 8: The Question Nobody's Asking
I really don't want to get political on this blog. That is to say, I don't want to mention the names of any politicians, unless they're doing something sex-related. I just don't want to be dragged down into that bog, because I've seen too many non-politically-focused blogs get overrun by political opinion posts. I don't want to be that blog, losing all of its fun with rants that can typically be found elsewhere, and often by much more informed folks than myself.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
