The Same But Different: Anti-LGBT Ballot Measure Victories

Well, it is not odd that you are depressed Joe.

It is truly ironic that the same segment of the population that felt themselves liberated by Obama's victory . . . should have been so intergal to denying an equality right to others.

Obama's victory is clearly not a triumph for liberalism in all respects. I also note Affirmative Action went down in flames in some jurisdictions.

Given Jerry Brown's unequivocal wording, the scale of the California loss is very sad.

BTW: Do you know what the legal impact of this will be for gays/lesbians already married in California? If such unions are now not only illegal but, worse, unconstitutional in the state . . . are existing unions voided?
Can insurance companies, for example, use this as an excuse against gay/lesbian couples?

Joe, thanks for the update. Ultimately, like Sen. McCain, I believe this issue must be decided as close to the electorate as possible. That means each state must decide this issue for themselves. It is noteworthy that Florida went for Obama, but also enacted a constitutional measure prohibiting gay marriage. When voters get to decide this issue, the majority breaks in favor of marriage, traditionally defined. When courts get involved, however, as you know, it breaks the other way. This issue will almost certainly be decided (at least superficially) in the SCOTUS, but if it is, it won't really be decided, I'm afraid, if Roe v. Wade is any example. Such a decision would only launch a new, intensified era in a pitched battle that shows no signs of abating. If it's unity that we're after, let referendums stand, as a reflection of local values, whether you agree with them or not. Folks can relocate where they want, to communities that reflect their personal values, whether conservative or progressive. That's not an ideal situation, but is probably the best we can do on a heated issue where we'll likely have to agree to disagree.

I was at a lovely heterosexual wedding in L.A. over Labor Day weekend. The man who with his wife was sitting next to me offered his San Francisco home for a honeymoon if I would marry my partner of 10 years while there.

I answered that even if I would have married then I could not have what my friend and his new wife had at their wedding that day: friends, extended family and the state all coming together to celebrate, acknowledge, endorse and share in the loving commitment represented by their wedding vows.

I came out of the closet in 1973 at the age of 18. I live in the still ruby red bible belt heart of Georgia (though my county did turn blue). When Georgia passed the anti-gay marriage amendment some years back I asked a friend here how she voted. She answered that she voted for it. I was nonplussed! How could a friend who knows me and my partner vote against me having that right?

She answered that it was her church. And I still go out to lunch with her. I don't have the state or the church or my family's endorsement of my relationship. I don't need it; I've done fine without it. Still, truth be told, I can't help but want it.

Marlowecan, I will be following up on what this means for those who have already married in California. Manchester2, I still have hope that NY or NJ will soon legislate marriage rights for same sex couples. Maybe one day I'll get to go back to my NYC home and marry.

I have to say, Joe, that was a very moving comment.

The gay weddings I have attended have actually been very lovely affairs. . . people crying . . . mothers weeping . . . the whole nine yards.
Yes, we are all very similar in our aspirations and dreams.

A sad day for equality in America.

There is clearly a lot of work left to do on the issue of civil rights.

It's just bizarre that blacks and Mormons would ally themselves to curb the marriage rights of another minority group.

Although the level of injustice is on a different scale, it reminds me of how odd it is that the Jews in Israel, who rightly draw much of their unity and identity from the horrors visited upon them by Nazi Germany, would force the Palestinians to live in what amounts to kinder-gentler concentrations camps in Gaza and on the West Bank.

The problem is, to me at least, that the attempts to equate gay marriage to racial marriage issues just don't fly with the electorate as a whole. The majority continues to see a distinction, and continues to see something fundamentally different between the two situations.

I personally do not think that bias will be overcome using these tactics, and to continue to try to use that justification will almost always spell defeat.

What is the correct strategy to win the hearts and minds of the general populace (and this issues has clearly shown itself to cut across ideologies and race)? Damned if I know, but I do know that repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting different results is insanity.

But here is another question to be considered. If indeed there is a strong resistant to gay marriage that cuts across all those lines, and a general repudiation that it is a civil rights question rather than a lifestyle question (I know that is another whole discussion, but I am just making the case for what the voters seem to say most of the time), at what point does the majority opinion get to rule? Does the majority ever get to say, "we have heard your arguments, but we reject them"?

Please, no flames towards me on this - I am simply asking the questions that need to be asked and discussed.

AR,
First off, I think it's wrong to say that the current tactics have failed miserably. Moves toward equality with legal constructs like civil unions are steps in the right direction. A few states outright allow full marriage equality. There have been setbacks for sure, but gay people have come a long way in merely 20 years.

That doesn't mean the strategy can't be improved, but I don't know how to be honest. I think equality will come partly from the top down as well as from the bottom up. Maybe in 4 years a new ballot initiative will show up in California and gay marriage will be legalized? It's possible.

As for majority rule, in cases like these it makes me question my belief in direct democracy. Like everything else, it's murky. We simply can't have the majority of people impugning the rights of minorities, it's just wrong. But at the same time, the majority is usually in favor of doing so. We've had slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, discrimination against Muslims and now this move to specifically hamper the rights of gays.

It may open the floodgates, or be a slippery slope or whatever metaphor you want to use, but sometime I think the courts or the President or Congress has to act in contradiction to the majority.

This was truly my one disappointment this election. Country-wide, abortion limitations and bans were shot down, we're getting a bullet-train in CA, the Republicans were given their walking papers, all around. Change and hope and all that. I'm so, so disappointed in California, though. I thought that if there was any state where we could forcefully affirm our faith in our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, it would be here. In my head, I saw California couples who chose to move to other states challenge the recent rejection of the Good Faith clause. We can all talk about "states rights", but while California and the federal government have to recognize the marriage between two 15-year-old cousins who got married in Arkansas and moved here, somehow it's fair to deny marriage rights to couples who married in Massachusettes?

I too am worried about the married couples I recently watched walk down the aisle, and in some cases signed as witness for, and their ability to remain married.

Some positives, at least here in California, with respect to this issue: 1) When California voted in 2000 to pass the law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it won overwhelmingly, yes votes at 62%. Just 8 years later, there's been a 10% improvement, and this was knowing that, should the ban not pass, gay marriages would definitely continue. 2) Young people overwhelmingly voted "no" and old people overwhelmingly voted "yes". The demographic is changing, and it's changing quickly. Out with the old, in with the new. 3) While I'm angry now that our Consititution can be changed by a simple majority vote, it does mean that in 4 years or 8 years when there is a true majority in California who believe in equality, it will only take a majority vote to pass another constitutional change that says that the definition of marriage as passed yesterday no longer stands.

Anyway, keep up the fight, this ain't over yet. That long arc of history pointing toward justice and equality cannot be stopped.

Chris - I actually overall agree with you, except to the point of using the courts to force the issue. That is what was done with Roe v. Wade, and we still argue about it 35 years later. When the legislative process gets shortcut, then there is much less acceptance of the results.

Congressional acts are not a shortcut, even when they fly in the face of the will of the majority (see the Civil Rights Acts of the 60's as a great example). Of course, that requires politicians with the backbone to do what is right, even if it threatens their re-election possibilities. Those are few and very far between, unfortunately.

And to your point of civil unions and the few states that do allow gay marriage. How many of them have been accomplished by either legislative or direct democracy vs. court decisions?

Well, it could end up like Roe, or maybe it'd end up like Brown. I don't know how exactly we could predict that, but I just get the feeling it's more like the latter.

And I don't know the answer to your last question. I'd wager that none of them are the result of direct democracy.

I can't disagree more with the idea that this is an issue that should be decided by the electorate. The very basis of the US Constitution is that while most laws will be made by the majority, there exist some basic issues that are not determined by a vote- there are some basic freedoms that no one can take away from you, even if you are a minority of one. Some of those rights are enummerated in the Bill of Rights, but the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that those are not the only ones.
Is this a free country? If it is supposed to be, what do we mean by free? I was always told that freedom means you can do anything you want, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. We have laws to clarify what it means to hurt someone else. A choice of marriage partner can in no way hurt anyone else. It is the quintissential personal matter. It is not an issue to vote on. It is a basic freedom, and therfore an issue for the courts. To attempt to win this battle in the court of public opinion, to win majority approval, is to denigrate the concept of freedom, for it should require no one else's approval. It is none of their business.

I would like to speak for myself, and I believe the majority of the people who voted for traditional marriages. I in no way mean to disrespect any one, but to simply state what I believe the issue really is, since I have not seen anyone actually say it. I think it comes down to individual rights vs. public perception of morality. The fact is, the majority PERCEIVES homosexuality as being immoral. I am not saying that perception is correct, just that it seems to be the feeling of the majority.

If you will forgive a poor analogy, I vote no on any initiative promoting gambling, because I think gambling is wrong. Even if it creates jobs, or funds education, which I support,the moral issue trumps with me. ( I am not comparing homosexuality to gambling).

I think the issue can only result in one side or the other being deeply offended, unless there is a compromise. I believe civil unions are a great compromise, provided they give total equality under the law. Give equal rights to all, and let religious beliefs keep the title of marriage. Better yet, make everyone have a civil union, and those who see marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman can have a religious and non-legal traditional marriage.

Tim,

I beg to differ on your idea that "it does not hurt anyone else." As I understand from my reading today, what really tipped the scales on the approval of Prop. 8 was the argument that allowing gay marriage to stand would be condoning the indoctrination children in public schools re. the normalcy of gay marriage, regardless of the religious convictions of parents. As a parent of two, I resonated with the interview from Rob and Robin Wirthin and their nightmare experience in Massachusetts on this score. Not every parent can afford to pull their child from public school and enroll them in a private or religious school, particularly when school vouchers are blocked by the lobbying of the NEA.

Tim - those very Bill of Rights were themselves voted on and ratified, too, by the various State Legislations, like all Constitutional Amendment.

Better yet, make everyone have a civil union, and those who see marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman can have a religious and non-legal traditional marriage.

That's fine by me, in fact it makes more sense than having government involvement in what has traditionally been a religious construct.

As I understand from my reading today, what really tipped the scales on the approval of Prop. 8 was the argument that allowing gay marriage to stand would be condoning the indoctrination children in public schools re. the normalcy of gay marriage, regardless of the religious convictions of parents.

Well that's a weird/sad argument against it.

I suppose these social conservatives would rather their children grow up and be like Ahmadinejad who famously denied gay people existed in Iran.

Newsflash to these folks, if your kid is gay he or she will probably end up A) in a same-sex relationship, stripped of the rights you enjoy as a heterosexual, B) in a straight relationship that's marred by emotional problems or C) alone will feelings of guilt and shame over his or her sexual orientation.

Chris -

There is a huge difference between Brown and Roe that cannot be denied.

Brown was well grounded in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (and was a much needed repudiation and reversal of the abhorrent ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson).

Roe created a new constitutional right whole cloth to meet a social objective, where none had existed before.

That is the reason one continues to be contentious to this day, while the other is utterly non-controversial.

Chris -

I find it hard to characterize almost 52% of California as 'social conservatives', unless that definition is to mean 'those not as liberal as me'.

I tried to make the point before, and other are as well - many people, even many who otherwise consider themselves social liberals and progressives, nonetheless oppose gay marriage on ethical and moral (not just religious) grounds.

As long as supporters of gay marriage refuse to accept that it is more than just 'backwards, ignorant, religious nut-jobs' that oppose this, the longer it will take to make any additional progress. And as some gay activist leaders warned, using the courts to try and force the issue on the American public is backfiring.

AR,
The distinctions you draw between Roe and Brown illustrate my point further. I think legalizing gay marriage falls under equal protection and isn't about creating a right where there was none, it's about making existing laws blind to sexual orientation.

And sorry again for my imprecise language, I meant socially conservative in terms of this specific issue.

As long as supporters of gay marriage refuse to accept that it is more than just 'backwards, ignorant, religious nut-jobs' that oppose this, the longer it will take to make any additional progress

Maybe it will slow progress, maybe it wont. But I won't stop using appropriate labels, because people that oppose gay marriage are ignorant, backwards and often religious nut-jobs, at least regarding this issue.

AustinRoth---

Yes, the Constitution and its amendments were voted on by various bodies, but the process was much more laborious and required supermajorities. I'll concede I should have noted that.

Manchester2--

No concession for you. If you find it uncomfortable to explain to your children that your religious beliefs require you to discriminate against others, you are being hurt by no one but yourself. It's nothing but cowardice on your part. Schools don't indoctrinate- they educate. They inform the children that some people have different beliefs and that the law requires that those others be treated equally. The schools do not and cannot force the students to adopt any moral opinion about those others. You are simply afraid that your child will look you in the eye and ask you, "Why do we believe those people are bad?" You have no valid answer. Nor do you have a right to impose your morals on those others.

Tim, the imposition in Massachusetts was already present and coming from the side of the government via public school instruction. On the other hand, there was no effort on the part of the Wirthins to impose their family (and faith's) position on the other children in the class by insisting that teachers present homosexuality as wrong. They were only asking the topic not be brought up as age inappropriate. That is a reasonable request, but apparently, a concession that the public educational system was unwilling to make. And no, the Wirthins' position is not not teaching our children that homosexuals are bad as such, only that the behavior in which they engage is not one that our family condones. To place a young child in a tug-of-war of values between authority figures, i.e. a teacher and parent, is unconscionable. Apparently, a majority of the citizens of California agreed.

Tim -

"Nor do you have a right to impose your morals on those others."

Then why do you hold the reverse to be a legitimate exercise of imposed morality?

They were only asking the topic not be brought up as age inappropriate. That is a reasonable request, but apparently, a concession that the public educational system was unwilling to make. And no, the Wirthins' position is not not teaching our children that homosexuals are bad as such, only that the behavior in which they engage is not one that our family condones. To place a young child in a tug-of-war of values between authority figures, i.e. a teacher and parent, is unconscionable. Apparently, a majority of the citizens of California agreed.

I'd like some more information on this. What age is the cutoff you propose? And if a child grows up under a married couple, then they are already being exposed to straight marriage. Is it inappropriate for children to see their own parents show affection for one another?

As for the tug of war, I say, "oh please." Say our parents are staunch supporters of slavery or opponents of women's suffrage, should schools be expected to leave the Civil War and the Seneca Falls convention out of the curriculum?

"Nor do you have a right to impose your morals on those others."

Then why do you hold the reverse to be a legitimate exercise of imposed morality?

You know that equivalence is false. No one is forcing you to enter into a same-sex marriage, no one is forcing you to legally preside over one. Same-sex marriage advocates merely want you to keep your illogical prejudices to yourself, and not create laws based on them.

Chris - that last post of mine, and the previous couple, were around the teaching of homosexuality in schools, not gay marriage itself. So, the equivalency is not false. The pro-gay marriage and pro-homosexuality side ALWAYS makes the claim of 'don't force your morals on others', while failing to acknowledge the irony of the fact that they are doing the same.

It is my main problem with the gay marriage movement, in fact. I support civil unions, but I do not support gay marriage, simply because I do see the latter as as forcing the majority of Americans to accept something that is morally unsound to them.

Society does define norms, and also does need to tolerate those outside those norms (within logical reason, of course). But tolerate is not equivalent to legitimize. There are plenty of cases throughout history of societies that are tolerant and accepting of homosexuality, but very few that embrace it as the equal of heterosexual relationships or marriage.

that last post of mine, and the previous couple, were around the teaching of homosexuality in schools, not gay marriage itself.

I'm not sure what that means, so I'll take it off the table for now.

It is my main problem with the gay marriage movement, in fact. I support civil unions, but I do not support gay marriage, simply because I do see the latter as as forcing the majority of Americans to accept something that is morally unsound to them.

Too bad for them. Equality does not require acceptance, it requires legal protection. No one is forcing anyone to "accept" anything, only to recognize it legally.

Society does define norms, and also does need to tolerate those outside those norms (within logical reason, of course). But tolerate is not equivalent to legitimize.

And our society once thought that black people weren't normal. So what?

Tolerating may not be the same as legitimizing, but equality requires legitimization even if it doesn't require toleration. Ask the people who protested the integration of schools about that one.

I started out the day depressed but will end it much less so. The level of discussion here has been heartening. I hope we will continue it in the weeks and months ahead as this issue will not go away anytime soon. A couple points...

On children, we don't teach heterosexuality so I certainly don't want homosexuality taught. Kids tend to naturally accept and use the language of "two daddies" or "two mommies" when they see same sex couples. And when they do it's the parents who freak out at it. Those kids are not thinking sex. They are thinking couples. It is the parents who are thinking sex and the religious right and social conservatives who literally insist on keeping the word sex in the discussion. Remember the LOL story of their auto-replacing the word "gay" with "homosexual." I know of no one who wants gay sex taught in schools.

We do have a societal interest in addressing these issues in public schools because we want to provide a safe environment to educate our kids. And we know that gay kids tend to get beat up! It was suggested above that gay people could move to get marriage rights. I guess we could divvy up the country and evangelicals could move too. I am obviously biased but inclined to think that if gay marriage had passed we'd find our way to a negotiated tolerance that might even lead to mutual acceptance.

On the comparison of same sex marriage to miscegenation... In his excellent book, The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse, Richard Thompson Ford argues that "in the 1960s when the Lovings challenged Virginia’s antimiscegenation law, they weren’t just “making a symbolic political statement.” They were fighting a one-year jail term, suspended on the condition that they would not return to the state. So, apparently, gays aren't suffering enough for the fight for marriage rights to be legitimate.

He goes on to argue that marriage "is one of the few social institutions left that unapologetically divides the sexes into distinctive roles... Maybe this desire for stable sex roles is itself a type of prejudice: radical feminists have written volumes arguing as much. But it isn’t homophobia." In my post on this topic, I argue it is.

In the California battle, as in the whole election season, there were actions on both sides that I didn't like or link to. The last anti-Prop 8 ad that made the blog rounds was not pointed to by me. These messages are designed to play on our fears. It's far easier to scare us and reduce us to our base instincts than it is to try to raise us up to a reasoned discussion. We need leaders who at least try raise us up to that discussion rather than those who feed off our base instincts and fears.

People of the blog...first. Thank you for such a good conversation - I think the main problem in this country is we can't discuss anything without everyone getting bent out of shape! So thanks for all the comments above.
I can't begin to be as eloquent as Austin/Tim/Chris...But a few comments as a LGBT individual.

I just moved from Georgia to California and was hoping to enjoy my "Blue State" but it has turned a little more 'red' overnight! I'm thrilled over Obama - but the Prop 8 news was very bitter.

I do wonder where/when the rights of the individual are upheld over the consensus of the majority? What annoys me is everyone equates gays as non-religious heathens. I DO believe in God and I believe I have a God given right to marry whom I choose. However, the Majority’s God seems to be able to trump my God? I thought I had the right to practice religion freely? If it isn’t hurting anyone – why should it not be allowed?

I liked the comment above about how EVERYONE should need a civil union and could then have personal religious unions if so desired. Gay persons may have a religious union belief as well. I think the “marriage certificate” from a church or religious group should only apply to the religious teachings and bearings within that specific faith. Religious congregations should not be forced to marry any individuals they can’t in good conscience bless. But the legal rights should come from the government and be completely separate from religious rituals and rights within the faith.

“Marriage” has been blurred too much with religion in the United States. Why can’t the states & schools simply state: “Marriage is the union of two people.” You don’t have to put religion/sex/sexuality into the mix.
I think many people have gotten lazy in rearing their children and think it is the states responsibility to teach their own religious views? If your child is at a state public school – they should be offered the traditional secular instruction. Example - If you as a family don’t believe in evolution – you should instruct your children that although the ‘world’ believes in evolution – that we as a family do not. To navigate in the world and be successful, the kids need to ‘know’ about it, even if they do not personally believe in evolution.

The most bitter part of Prop 8 for me is that I was raised Mormon. I know families are important to them – but how does gay marriage lesson what they personally hold dear? Are you not going to be as good of a husband or wife if I am suddenly allowed to marry? Are you going to be any less of a parent? It is absurd! As my brother stated earlier today – divorce is a much bigger issue and they don’t seem to be spending millions of dollars on the problem of broken homes and families?

Additionally, I think it is completely SHAMEFUL of the Mormon Church to point the finger when in their early history they practiced non-traditional marital polygamy? Additionally, the Christian Bible has several instances where “God” condoned polygamy. Yet the Christian Majority was able to force the Mormon minority to give up “polygamy” if they wanted Utah to become a member of the United States.

I was taught in school what monogamy and polygamy terms meant. Strange it was all OK if the guy is having sex with multiple women (polygyny) simultaneously – or a woman with more than one husband (polyandry) - but the gates of hell are going to open if we make even mention of homosexual marriage? Can’t we agree at what age our children can be taught certain topics or terms? If the kids are young and the topic comes up – send a note home to the parents to have a needed conversation with their child why there is a child with two mommies or parents of two races or no parents at all?

If the “majority” is allowed to plow the LGBT community out of the way – when does it suddenly turn on the rest of society? Maybe marriage can only be officiated by a religious entity – atheists could not get married. Or maybe you can only get married if your church has a following of 1 million followers or more? Or maybe you can only get married by a Catholic priest or in a Mormon Temple? Or maybe Hindu or Muslims are not allowed to marry since they are not Christian? Do I have to form the GAY RELIGION and how many people must be members before I’m able to be taken seriously that my God says I can marry another man? Then go to the Supreme Court and say my religion says I can marry another man and my Constitutional rights are being violated to practice my religion! I know I have a lot of existing ‘practitioners’ – I’d just have to get them to all come out to church once a week! ;)

I am sick of the fanatics of all the religions imposing their views and beliefs upon everyone who doesn’t believe exactly like themselves.

I love my country. It grieves me my country often appears to hate me. It saddens me many of my friends have had to immigrate to Canada or other countries to marry and live because one of them were not a U.S. citizen and could not remain in the U.S.A. as a gay couple. I know the religious zealots would love it if all gays left – but should I have to leave my country, family and friends to have the freedom to exist and love whom I choose? Doesn’t this sound vaguely familiar to the reason why the Pilgrims came here in the first place?
I just want to live. Be with my mate. Pay my taxes. Go or not go to church. Be a good citizen and leave the world a lot better than when I was born.

Sorry to vent and hope I wasn’t too preachy! Can’t wait for further discussion!