And then I go stand in line at the post office and am jolted back to reality. Guess if I’d gone there today, this wouldn’t be such a surprise. (The EGE, home for the summer, did post office errands for me today, bless him.)
The Supreme Court overturned the law against antimiscegenation in 1967, forcing Texas and 15 other hold-outs to give it up. Wonder when we’ll be able to say that about laws banning same-sex marriage? Check out these maps.
Posts
16 comments:
I'm totally in favor of marriage equality in the U.S.
However, I do understand, expected, and accept this ruling.
The supreme court MUST abide by the constitution - that's their job. They can't make law or change the constitution. And, as odious as I find any constitutional amendment brought about by the whims and caprices of a simple majority, that is the process in California.
I thought their acceptance of the 18,000 marriages that have already taken place showed that they believed the ban was bad law. In every other state that had same sex marriages performed by flukes, the existing marriages were deemed null and void.
This doesn't mean that I don't realize we are going to be ashamed trying to explain this vicious idiocy to our grandchildren.
"And, as odious as I find any constitutional amendment brought about by the whims and caprices of a simple majority, that is the process in California."--that's the part that drives me insane. it's what kept the antimiscegenation laws on the books in many states, and it's what allows states like CA to keep discriminating. it's not the majority; it's the majority of VOTERS. in midland, it's the conservatives who alwaysalwaysalways make sure to vote, each and every time. pathetic that everyone else doesn't feel as strongly.pathetic that i sometimes miss local elections because i "know" my vote won't make a difference. shame on me.
My hope is the fact that the existing same-sex marriages will remain legal is a good sign in terms of this issue. It might take longer than we'd like, but we might be getting close. Although I'd think in California of all places it would be easier.
I know what you mean about not voting, though. And it makes me realize I really should vote, even if I don't think I could make a difference, if for no other reason than I feel I don't really have the right to complain about an election result if I didn't even vote on it myself.
It's the same here-you look at the red and blue colors on a map, and the conservatives really do get out to vote.
I won't go into how much money was pumped into CA on yes on 8, against gay marriage, by out of state churches and organizations.
Makes me very sad to be living in CA...especially since I live in West Hollywood.
It's 2009 people need to wake up. Equal rights for all, it's that simple.
The one "good" thing I've found in this is that now, when someone is making blanket statements about how bigoted/prejudiced the South is---which drive me u the wall-- I can respond with "yeah, I agree, Southern California is *awful*."
Hmn...I just realized that yesterday was my first experience with blatant aggressive homophobia in forever. I'm curious now if the two were tied together, or if it's simple unpleasant coincidence.
Yeah, the ruling is pretty (sexual intercoursed).
Days like this, it feels like the state is broken.
Tristan is right but it saddens me none the less. It also makes me aware that if you get out of certain comfortable enclaves there's a whole lot of bigotry out there in our State.
Darla
I have trouble getting my head around this and gay marriage is legal all across Canada. Luckily that happened before Harper came to power.
Still and all, I was shocked by the CA thing, seeing as CA has the reputation of being so open minded.
cynjon, now i'm curious--have you posted anywhere (i looked on your blog but didn't find it) about the horrible experience with homophobia?
I have a non-public blog over on Livejournal that deals with a lot of the more personal aspects of my life. I go back and forth on how "out there"--not meaning orientation--I want to be on my blog here.
Basically, all it was was some idiot/coward who thought it would be funny to run up and scream "faggots" at people while we were out. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't quick-witted enough to come up with a reply beyond "faggot" again when I told him "I prefer to be called 'Cocksucker,' thank you."
Then he decided to come back again about 10 minutes later for another round...and this time I was headed over the fence for a more "personal" confrontation when Security grabbed me and told me they were dealing with him.
Probably a good thing, really, as I have no desire to be in jail, even for a night. He apparently didn't realize I'm from the school of Fags Bash Back.
I don't condone violence, but much like yourself, I stopped putting up with bullshit a LONG time ago...you don't grow up gay in rural Texas farm country and not learn how to take care of yourself...and he caught me in one of those times I was willing to go there. I think part of what ticked me off was how the rest of the crowd was standing there looking sheepishly at their feet....never mind that 3/4's of them were Gym Bunnies twice the cowards size and could have easily whipped his butt.
California overturning this was very disappointing.......
We're all people for heavens sake!
Patricia
TAttooDreams.etsy.com
Yes, we are all people- It is wrong to bash, no matter what. It is wrong to harm people because you do not see things the same or have same life style. Some of us still believe in the traditional, people in Calif. voiced what they believed that is democracy. Would you want it any other way? You know seems some what choice but only when it goes their way. We need to think about this.
Anonymous, given that I'm one of the people being told that I'm NOT equal to every other person in the United States, I would say that yes, I *would* have it another way. Simply because someone believes they are right does not mean that they are. If we were to deny ANY other segment of the population of the United States of equal rights there would be an uproar. By that same logic, it would be perfectly legal for the KKK to burn crosses on the lawns of African Americans (or worse)...hell, one could even go so far as to say that the Holocaust was acceptable, because Hitler thought his beliefs were the right ones.
So, no, I don't buy that it is okay to deny anyone the same *basic* rights as the rest of the country because of their genetic makeup.
The role and responsibility of a democracy is to protect minorities.
(apologies, Rice, for firing off a little bit!)
no problem, cynjon--i know how you feel: when we first married (and, luckily, that was legal once the supreme court stepped in), people suggested we lie low and not "force" our marriage on other people who might not "approve," as if their own beliefs against interracial marriage were a valid argument. sooner or later the US supreme court will have to do the same as it did in loving vs. virginia. sooner, let's hope.
If we were to deny ANY other segment of the population of the United States of equal rights there would be an uproar. By that same logic, it would be perfectly legal for the KKK to burn crosses on the lawns of African Americans (or worse)...hell, one could even go so far as to say that the Holocaust was acceptable, because Hitler thought his beliefs were the right ones.-----------None of these things are right. It's not WHO thinks their beliefs are right- it is what the constitutions say is right and what a higher power has to say. If we all lived by that things would be better.
Post a Comment