Nov 09 2008
On Rescinding of “Rights”
One thing I heard some liberal commentators say, as to why Proposition 8 would fail, was that it was much harder to contemplate taking rights away than it was to contemplate conferring new ones. The argument was that as people went to the polls, they would find it hard to take away rights.
I remember finding that argument less than persuasive, but not thinking about it much, being neither gay, nor a Californian. In retrospect, how do you square that idea against a vast number of people who don’t believe that the right to “gay marriage” exists in the first place? Asked to vote should the right be taken away - the answer isn’t “obviously no” because it is far from “obvious” that the right existed in the first place.
Indeed - by going to proposition - the inherent statement is - the right isn’t actually a right. The Supreme Court’s judgment is rendered on the law as written, but the question is “is the law written right?” And the people of California said “no… it’s not. It needs to be better written to make clear that there is no such right as “gay marriage”.” Well - we can argue about that, and I guess we will, but I just wanted to go on record about the dubious thinking - the utter failure of those supporting the gay marriage issue of understanding those who would vote against it.
QT
2 Responses to “On Rescinding of “Rights””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Two importante things-
I totally typed my name wrong when registering. It’s supposed to be Nanotyrannus. Ah well.
Secondly, I don’t think you are lecturing to me, but I honestly feel that coming from Stran. It’s hard to describe the feeling, but for me it amounts to “You’re doing it wrong, and when you do it right, we’ll accept you.” I agree that the Obama win was phenomenal, and deserved because of all the hard work so many supporters put in, but it wasn’t just the organizing. He was running against a dingus that had carefully attached himself to the hip of a man that has spent the last seven years wrecking the country. John McCain was no leader, had no real following but instead just party loyalists that felt they had to do it. We even missed our chance at a real record turnout because it looks like the Republicans, horribly demoralized, stayed home. My point is, it wasn’t won just because he had lots of volunteers and a sturdy email server. There were other factors, too.
For me the advice “just learn to do it like Obama did it” is kind of pointless. Obama just had to convince you, me and the country that John McCain would take the nation further down the road to ruin. We, on the other hand, have to convince you to set aside your religious philosophy and that’s a much tougher challenge. Perhaps we should stop referring to it as “marriage.” In my opinion, it’s a civil issue, not a religious one.
Again, maybe framing it as an “equality in marriage” issue rather than a “gay marriage” issue would help things, but I don’t know how I could help you get past your religious objection to allowing gays to participate in society. For us, that’s what it is. The full participation of gays as citizens in society. Right now we’re not allowed to.
We’re asking to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law. What happened in California last week was that people decided to let religion decide a civil issue. Civil law is supposed to level the playing field so that everyone is treated equally no matter race, religion, sex or national creed. Religion is all about including only those that agree to subscribe to a particular dogma, and excluding all others.
Ok I’m taking forever to make my point so I’ll leave it at that for now. This is helping me, though, to better articulate my feelings.
–Nano
P.S. Awesome pic of you
Nanotyrannus:
I fixed your display name. Unfortunately, your username is set in stone. So if you log in again, it’s Nanotyarnnus as a username, but I’ve set your display name as you prefer it.
Thanks for the compliment on the picture. A woman in my community did a photoshoot for me, which was so much fun, because she is, and this is one of them. I’m only sometimes that pretty in real life. LOL!
Well, I am not going to write my magnum opus on this subject tonight, I’m sure, because I’m behind in everything, and also fighting a bit of the doldrums. But I did want to respond to you - especially since you took the time to share so much.
I don’t have any objection to gays participating in society - or rather, not too many. I’m slowly coming around - and that’s a result of my faith. Baha’i faith doesn’t permit shunning of homosexuals - but it does forbid homosexual acts, along with a suite of other sexual acts that fall outside the sphere of marriage, which is understood as between men and women. That’s not particularly relevant to our conversation, other than that I want you to know where I’m coming from personally, and why I’m not precisely the best spokesperson here. I grew up Christian - with the whole “abomination” thing, and had to shed that kind of thinking in light of my new faith. Other Baha’is come at the faith in the totally opposite direction - having never seen any problem with homosexuality, they struggle with this aspect of the faith. And of course, Baha’i Faith is to Islam what Christianity is to Judaism - a separate religion that started as an “offshoot.” So many Baha’is come to the faith from the background of Muslim tradition - and whatever holdover prejudices that brings.
BUT, as a former Christian, having grown up in a mainstream Methodist church, but heavily influenced by such influences as Jimmy Swaggert, Jim & Tammy Baker, Freddy Price, and the other pentacostalists, I have a inbred sense of what goes on with Christians around this question. People think that it is about ‘hate.’ Undoubtedly, for some that’s true. But for many - it isn’t… it’s about what the Bible says, and a Christian belief that Christians must spread their faith as a blessing to the world.
Consider the abortion issue. If the terms are defined sharply as “murder of the unborn” vs a “woman’s choice” - hands down - a woman’s choice loses. Who can honestly vote for murder of the unborn? Similarly, asking Christians, and probably many others to vote for gay marriage is asking them to vote for something that God has already forbidden - according to their faith. This is why I wonder myself how I would have voted. I still tend to think like a Christian about some things, but on the other hand, Baha’is are actually quite a bit removed from political processes. Baha’is expect the world to be doing one thing and Baha’is to be doing another - and so it’s entirely possible that confronted with the question, I would have interpreted it as strictly a worldly issue, not affecting Baha’is in anyway whatsoever, and would have therefore voted against Proposition 8. And that insight is what leads me to believe that the best way for the homosexual community to advance this issue is to A. remove it from the sphere of voting, or B. organize (as Lee is advocating) with the Christian ministers - especially the black ministers - to get them to sign on to a strict separation of church and state.
Interestingly - Rev. Wright would have been such an ally. He was a strong advocate for gay rights, and he has the preacher’s cadence and respect to be able to preach on this subject - to be able to preach against any other congregation impeding on his right, as a minister, to preach the gospel as he believes, and to join in matrimony as he believes - including his right to join gay couples.
OK - I’m no where near saying what I needed to say yet, but it’s a start. I’m glad you’re here, anyway.
QT