We did it... sort of
Last night, Barack Obama was elected the next President of the United States. It's the first time I've really paid attention to an election -- in 2004, I was living in Scotland and all I knew was, my country was an international punchline and there was no way the American people would let it happen again. I was confident enough to pretty much ignore the process entirely (after voting, of course). And then this happened.
So, I am just young enough to barely remember the last time our government wasn't a circus of bozos whose main accomplishment was keeping The Daily Show spoiled for Bushism montages. Oh, not to mention running our economy into the ground, lying about multiple wars, and inspiring an Oliver Stone movie. THANKS A LOT, George.
I believe Barack Obama is not messing around when it comes to change. The hope he inspires in us should remind us how long it has been since we felt such a thing for our country. It's easy to imagine him going down as one of America's greatest Presidents just by the way he speaks about working together, healing together, and putting aside our differences to make our nation great. It's incredible what he's accomplished just by getting elected, but we're only at the beginning.
That's the story of how, last night, I was inspired to believe in America again. But it wouldn't last. Because in the same night that we elected the first black President, California voters passed Prop 8 eliminating marriage for same-sex couples. Because at a time when America finally seems ready to set aside our petty differences, and come together to elect a man President who at one point would not have been allowed to vote in this country, at least everyone can agree that we hate queers.
The passing of Prop 8 sours this entire experience for me. Electing a great leader as our next President doesn't feel like a monumental achievement anymore. Many of you, like us, could hear vocal support for Obama up and down the street from our home. Out there, people believed in what was right and I was one of them.
But, as it turns out, most of those people still hate me and my partner. They love their new black President, but faggots don't count as real people yet. Undoubtedly, gays are part of their circle of family and friends. Even Sarah Palin stood in front of America and proclaimed that she had gay friends, but she did not believe in same-sex marriage. First of all, Sarah Palin is lying. She does not have any gay friends. Please.
Second of all, if you have friends or family members who are gay, and you voted to pass Prop 8, you should be ashamed of yourself. And if you don't know a single gay person, you shouldn't have voted on Prop 8 at all because it is obviously none of your business. Same-sex marriage has been legal in California for 4 months -- can anyone honestly step forward and argue that it threatened their heterosexual marriage? We don't put a single iota of effort into illegitimizing your partnerships. It would only be decent to show us the same courtesy, thank you very much.
Last night was indeed historic, and incredibly emotional. I am thrilled and relieved that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, and I'm not suggesting that the passing of Prop 8 undoes that victory. But I'm not filled with hope anymore. I have hope for the future, and I believe that Obama will do great things with his Presidency. But this is a harsh reminder that America has a long way to go, and the change we hope for is not actually here yet.

22 Comments:
Well said, Eric. Bittersweet.
5:09 PM
There weren't any items like that on WA's ballot... if so I would have happily pissed off all of my church friends and voted it down like no one's business. Yeah. I gotta say... I am a little shocked by that... I didn't think that would go over in California of all places. Anyway, I'm sorry. Just thought I'd let you know not everyone is suffering from a serious need to mind their own business in the law-making department.
-Lisa
5:46 PM
The conventional wisdom is that is is the Obama voters in particular who caused the Prop 8 situation. There was a great increase in African American voters coming out to vote for Obama. Statistically, these same voters that came out specifically for Obama are predominantly against gay marriage - this is not a racial comment, merely a statistical one. It seems that the people who voted for Obama and would have voted under ordinary circumstances were against prop 8, but the influx of pro-Obama, anti-gay-marriage voters was high great enough to tip the scales.
If you believe the rights and equality for all comes in steps, and you believe that Obama is a step in the right direction, you should be encouraged by his election. As much as prop 8 seems like a step back for the gay community, you should hope that an Obama presidency is 2 steps forward for those seeking equal rights as a whole.
12:02 AM
I know I will be in the minority here, but may I remind everyone that the origin of marriage IS a RELIGOUS ceremony in which a man and woman are joined together.
Please spare me divorce rate statistics etc...
Marriage, MANY people still believe (even in California), is a religous ceremony between a man and a woman, and their repsective religions (Judiasm, Islam, Christianity, Catholocism, Hinduism, etc..) judge homosexuality as a sin.
To permit homosexual marriage would be to make a mockery of thousands of years of religious belief and tradition.
Homosexuals have the same protection under law with domestic partnership laws, as married couples do (insurance, taxes, health care etc..).
However, this doesn't seem to be good enough as homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage because they don't like it.
This is not an issue of "hate", "bigotry", or "homophobia".
It is an issue of protecting the religous meaning, of what many people still consider and revere as (even in California), a holy institution.
7:27 AM
Hi there. I'm on board with your religious view of marriage (or rather, I don't see any reason to argue with you about it), but I guess I'm a little confused as to why, in a government that CLEARLY seperates Church and State, the laws should be restricted to the views of a religious insitution.
I have no problem with your church having the right to refuse to marry two men, but I can't understand why the government should.
California amended its consitution to take rights away from people. That, regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, should scare the hell out of all of us.
7:49 AM
Hi, anonymous. When your "holy institution" comes with massive legal perks granted by the state, it needs to be available to all consenting adults. Churches may discriminate (and this is why I don't belong to one, incidentally), but government may not.
Eric, I share your disappointment; all I can say is hang in there. Obama is widely expected to appoint several Supreme Court justices during his term, and they're going to be on your side.
8:24 AM
I was devastated when the numbers started coming in and I refreshed my LA Times page obsessively for four hours. I can't believe that the state that is generally referred to as the most liberal in the union has suddenly sided with the likes of Utah.
But don't worry. This fight isn't over. I have no intention of letting this rest. Join the protests. Sign the petitions. Don't stop talking about this injustice. We won't stop until this is a state that does not legislate love.
8:44 AM
"This is not an issue of "hate", "bigotry", or "homophobia"."
1. Yes it is.
2. Don't put these terms in quotation marks as if they don't exist. You can split the religious-vs.-municipal hair if it makes you feel better about yourself, but don't pretend the Yes voters did the same.
9:10 AM
No, marriage is not a "religious ceremony." It is a LEGAL CONTRACT. You do not need to be married in any religious tradition to be truly and legally married. This is a question of law. It is illegal in this country to discriminate on the basis color, sex, religion or disability (physical or mental). And these "advances" have been a long time coming. With the election of Mr. Obama, I am hopeful that antidiscrimination laws against gays are not far behind.
Love you Dan,
AC
9:11 AM
p.s.
Beautifully written, Eric!
AC
9:14 AM
"I know I will be in the minority here, but may I remind everyone that the origin of marriage IS a RELIGOUS ceremony in which a man and woman are joined together."
And as a deeply religious person, I am here to tell you that my very mainstream religion teaches that marriage between loving same-sex couples is morally right. Since 2000, Reform Jewish rabbis have had the option to officiate at same-sex wedding ceremonies...not civil unions, not domestic partnership ceremonies, but full on Jewish weddings. The efforts by any state to take away the rights of same-sex couples to marry is a privledging of some strains of religous thought over others, not to mention just plain dispicable.
2:56 PM
Ditto the Quakers. Ditto a number of other faiths. The idea that "religion" doesn't accept same-sex marriage is hogwash. You're referring to the definition of marriage you get from YOUR religion, not from "religion."
And if you're suggesting that the law should be based on your religion instead of my religion, I'd be interested to hear where you found your religion rather than mine mentioned in the Constitution.
3:10 PM
For a long time I considered myself religious and I started curiusly nodding as I read Anonymous' post about religion being undermined. I could see the point being made about decades of history being put into question by this monumental decision.
But then I remembered ... atheists get married, in a court house. I believe they call it a 'civil service'?
This is now 2008, aren't we overdue for some substantial questioning of religion? Isn't it about time that we brought it forth from the archaic and redefined it for the future generations?
Why are we hiding behind religion to avoid making a decision that past generations have tried to tell us is "wrong"? Past generations also told us that we can't play with the black children and look at how that turned out. The black children now get to live in a fancy white house with a labradoodle.
Due to religion, parts of the world still stone women, kill them, mutilate them. I hope the church isn't going to be making us do the same to the gay men and women in our families. I'm quite partial to my gay friends, they're lovely, smart, compassionate, honest, kind, generous. They have amazing souls and spirit and God would be proud to call them his children, his friends, his family.
Or I should say, God IS proud to call them his children, his friends, his family.
I now consider myself Spiritual rather than religious. Religion causes too much heartache.
3:26 PM
If your argument is that marriage is an exclusively religious ceremony, how did I get legally married here in a completely non-religious ceremony? How is it possible that the state of California will officially deputize anyone (not just religious officiants) to perform marriages? You can believe what you want, but the religious argument holds no water. The state of California doesn't believe marriage to be a solely religious institution, or it would have called my marriage a domestic partnership.
It IS an issue of hate, bigotry, and homophobia, and no amount of pious moralizing makes it anything else.
3:58 PM
i thought this was a good article explaining what went wrong with prop 8:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/obama-teaches-the-gays_b_141705.html
6:19 PM
Anyone who has a problem understanding the issue should see a film called "Saving Marriage". I had no idea how difficult things in Massachusetts had been, and how important it is not to give voting power on minority issues to a majority. The Supreme Court ruled; let's hope they stand up, flip the religious right off and reinstate their ruling.
10:13 PM
I am a hetero Christian who, as of November 5th, moved her marriage plans to Connecticut because I am disgusted by the passage of 8 and refuse to sit in the front of the bus. Separation of church and state, people: look into it. And while you're at it, see if you can locate some basic human decency.
And well worth noting, especially if you are the bigot above who is too afraid to post his or her name: the Christian Bible only mentions homosexuality a few times. Once is in Leviticus, where we are also told not to practice onanism, eat certain forbidden foods, or wear clothes of blended fibers. So, anonymous fool, if you have jacked off, eaten bacon, or are wearing a cotton-poly blend shirt, you, too, are screwed. And if you're a Christian, you should know that one of the big deals about Christ is that he made it so that those who accepted his new covenant no longer have to follow those rules. So Levticus is out, anyway. Then you've got the other biggie in Romans 4, which was written by Paul. Paul wasn't the Messiah, anonymous, and he wasn't infallible. That's why he told slaves to obey their masters rather than saying something along the lines of "as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, do not own one another as chattel," which would have been nice. So unless you're down with human trafficking, you are ok disagreeing with Paul on at least some things, and should maybe consider looking into disagreeing with him on others as well. He also forbids women to cut their hair, which means that pretty much all women are out of luck (and oh yeah -- we need to shut up in church and let the men talk, but maybe you're cool with that, anonymous; you seem like the sort who would be. Unless you're a woman, and then whoops!: you need to have your husband do your typing for you when discussing religious matters). And he was referring to activities practiced at pagan orgies, not loving, committed, monogamous relationships. Also, see above about him not being infallible. Paul rocked in many ways, but he was a man of his times and boy, did he screw the pooch on some things.
And while I won't even presume to compare it to being told you can't marry the person you love, I'd like to thank jerks like anonymous for another lousy outcome of Prop 8: restricting RELIGIOUS freedom as well. My (large, organized, centuries-old) church, which I would be proud of except that you shouldn't be proud of just plain being decent, wants to be able to perform marriages for homosexual couples, and now we can't. A big part of why we don't involve the church in the state is that, down the line, the state will inevitably get involved with the church, and that has happened here.
Eric, I'm so sorry for how lousy this makes you feel. I'm doing my part to get this travesty overturned, and I believe that in time it will. And when it can, and when you can get married, I'll be throwing mental rice in your direction and dancing until dawn in my happy, happy head.
11:40 PM
I'm so glad to hear from the posters who consider themselves religious and are still aghast at the passage of Prop 8. All too often, the civil rights issues surrounding homosexuality are presented as religious vs non-religious, yet all of the religious folks I know (including my hard-core church-goin' parents) are against Prop 8 and similar measures because they are an affront to human rights.
This isn't a religious issue--it's a bigotry issue. Not the same thing.
6:06 AM
just wanted to say: awesome post/comment by kate h., above.
and, as ever, awesome blog entry by one of my favourite people. xo.
2:41 PM
I join with those who can't understand why people can't distinguish civil marriage and religious marriage. Nobody's going to make you accept a gay marriage as valid within your religion -- just like many religions don't acknowledge the sanctity of other kinds of marriages, including interfaith marriages. Some faiths don't accept interfaith marriage, but they manage not to try to make it illegal.
I don't understand why the same thinking doesn't require the outlawing of marriages between men and women who are divorced, which is defined in the Bible as adultery, which means you're breaking a commandment.
If two people can get married and BREAK A COMMANDMENT and nobody loses sleep over its being legal, I don't understand any of this, really. It's never BEEN the rule that only marriages churches care to bless are legal. That's not even how we do it now, putting aside that it's unconstitutional and it's cruel and it's bullshit and it's based on questionable theology.
It's been true for a zillion years that churches don't accept every marriage that can be legally performed; why is this different?
4:25 PM
kate h is my new hero.
1:44 PM
I've said this elsewhere but it bears repeating: "traditional" marriage was generally one where the woman's father sold her to her husband, whereupon the husband had the right to beat and rape her while she pumped out as many kids as her body could bear before she died from disease or exhaustion.
We've come a long way from that point. We've got beyond dowries, marital rape and the lack of contraception and advanced to the point of accepting interfaith and interracial marriages. All of which could be seen as an attack on "traditional" marriage. So why are same-sex marriages different?
If you live in one of those "traditional" marriages, you have my sympathy, and I guess I can understand your bigoted views. Otherwise, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
7:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home