![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the way in to work this morning, was listening to a report on NPR about how today the Cali Supreme Court is going to examine the constitutionality of Prop 8. They were talking with supporters and opponents of it, and my brain (as usual) couldn't help trotting out its opinions.
To opponents: Civil disobedience is a big thing to get things done. I'm all for protesting or taking similar measures when you're unhappy with something. I dislike abortion clinic protesters, but that's usually because of their tactics (frankly, their principles escape me as well, on a personal level, but from an objective standpoint, I recognize it's their right. I suppose. I still think each one should have to swear to an affidavit that they've adopted at least two unwanted children, and not of the healthy, white, blue-eyed and blond Aryan Wet Dream variety - but I recognize that's just me). But when you get nasty or violent, that's another matter entirely.
It's not that I don't understand wanting to yell nasty things at those voters who have no problem denying an entire class of adults their right to marriage. Some people did this after last November. My only thing is, these are still people you have to live with, at the end of the day - they own businesses, live across the street from you, serve your coffee, buy your coffee ... whatever. Plus, getting irrationally pissed off doesn't exactly present the best argument for getting your way. (I know some people who would argue you have to wage anarchy or "shake up the system" in violent or offensive fashion to get things done. If that's what they think, that's their business. It's just that I'd still like to be able to talk to people after something like that is over with. That, and I personally think remaining logical and adult sometimes makes opponents feel two inches tall. But again, that's just me.)
To supporters: "Taxation without representation" is a powerful force in our society. It's a basic one, too - if we're going to be asked to pay for things, shouldn't we have a say in what gets spent/done? Majority rule and all that. I've no problem with it on a broad scale.
But there are times when individual rights trump majority rule. If you're going to say "these two adults can enter a legal contract to share their property, raise children, and will property after death," it's not really fair to say you're not going to allow any two other adults the same leeway. If you outlaw poly marriage, I can understand that, so long as you're outlawing it for EVERYBODY. But poly marriage is not the same as gay marriage. Gay marriage is not the same as a man marrying a horse or an 8-year-old - and frankly, it's insulting when someone makes that argument. (Plus, it's a straw man.)
"Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman." That's nice. Women and anything they owned have traditionally been under the ownership and control of their fathers or husbands, too, for most of the last few thousand years in most societies. Let's go back to that.
"Society's never accepted gay marriage." Southern U.S. society didn't accept blacks as equal 50 years ago, either. Let's us white people each go out and see if we can catch a few to put under a yoke to do our dirty work for us, for free again.
"Why aren't civil unions good enough?" Why isn't a civil union good enough for you or your parents? Who needs a church wedding? It's a superstitious ritual performed for the benefit of a nonexistent ghost in the clouds and far too wasteful of money that could be used for other things. (Now, how does that make you feel about your expensive and sacred Catholic or Baptist ceremony?)
I'm tired of "freedom of religion" being interpreted to mean "freedom for us to push our religious values on everyone else in the guise of enforceable law, and you're helping pay for it whether you're a believer or not." It's not the same thing at all. I know gay religious couples to whom a church wedding means as much as it does to their straight counterparts. I know straight couples who don't give a flying fuck if they ever see the inside of a church.
An American constitution has never been successfully amended to give the state broader powers over the individual; it has always been to protect the individual's rights against the powers of the state. This has worked for over 200 years and it's ridiculous to think it should change now.
I know I have f-listers who will disagree with me. You need to realize I don't dislike or disrespect you. I just don't understand you on this.
To opponents: Civil disobedience is a big thing to get things done. I'm all for protesting or taking similar measures when you're unhappy with something. I dislike abortion clinic protesters, but that's usually because of their tactics (frankly, their principles escape me as well, on a personal level, but from an objective standpoint, I recognize it's their right. I suppose. I still think each one should have to swear to an affidavit that they've adopted at least two unwanted children, and not of the healthy, white, blue-eyed and blond Aryan Wet Dream variety - but I recognize that's just me). But when you get nasty or violent, that's another matter entirely.
It's not that I don't understand wanting to yell nasty things at those voters who have no problem denying an entire class of adults their right to marriage. Some people did this after last November. My only thing is, these are still people you have to live with, at the end of the day - they own businesses, live across the street from you, serve your coffee, buy your coffee ... whatever. Plus, getting irrationally pissed off doesn't exactly present the best argument for getting your way. (I know some people who would argue you have to wage anarchy or "shake up the system" in violent or offensive fashion to get things done. If that's what they think, that's their business. It's just that I'd still like to be able to talk to people after something like that is over with. That, and I personally think remaining logical and adult sometimes makes opponents feel two inches tall. But again, that's just me.)
To supporters: "Taxation without representation" is a powerful force in our society. It's a basic one, too - if we're going to be asked to pay for things, shouldn't we have a say in what gets spent/done? Majority rule and all that. I've no problem with it on a broad scale.
But there are times when individual rights trump majority rule. If you're going to say "these two adults can enter a legal contract to share their property, raise children, and will property after death," it's not really fair to say you're not going to allow any two other adults the same leeway. If you outlaw poly marriage, I can understand that, so long as you're outlawing it for EVERYBODY. But poly marriage is not the same as gay marriage. Gay marriage is not the same as a man marrying a horse or an 8-year-old - and frankly, it's insulting when someone makes that argument. (Plus, it's a straw man.)
"Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman." That's nice. Women and anything they owned have traditionally been under the ownership and control of their fathers or husbands, too, for most of the last few thousand years in most societies. Let's go back to that.
"Society's never accepted gay marriage." Southern U.S. society didn't accept blacks as equal 50 years ago, either. Let's us white people each go out and see if we can catch a few to put under a yoke to do our dirty work for us, for free again.
"Why aren't civil unions good enough?" Why isn't a civil union good enough for you or your parents? Who needs a church wedding? It's a superstitious ritual performed for the benefit of a nonexistent ghost in the clouds and far too wasteful of money that could be used for other things. (Now, how does that make you feel about your expensive and sacred Catholic or Baptist ceremony?)
I'm tired of "freedom of religion" being interpreted to mean "freedom for us to push our religious values on everyone else in the guise of enforceable law, and you're helping pay for it whether you're a believer or not." It's not the same thing at all. I know gay religious couples to whom a church wedding means as much as it does to their straight counterparts. I know straight couples who don't give a flying fuck if they ever see the inside of a church.
An American constitution has never been successfully amended to give the state broader powers over the individual; it has always been to protect the individual's rights against the powers of the state. This has worked for over 200 years and it's ridiculous to think it should change now.
I know I have f-listers who will disagree with me. You need to realize I don't dislike or disrespect you. I just don't understand you on this.
