Some think it's a bit too fast but I'm of the opinion that it's absolutely been enough time. The idea that if you act too soon then you can't have liberty has always been a mistake. Gradualism has always been a profound mistake. I am reminded of William LLoyd Garrison's words in the first issue of the Liberator:
"On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."
Or those of Martin Luthor King,
This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.
Most of all I'm sick of having my state vote down gay marriage when we seemed so nicely liberal (Ohio has gay marriage and we don't!). It was the 'No On 8' people who sucked so bad that it lost. It could have been kept down if they had better planning and a better campaign. So, after than major screw-up, I don't care what they say. The gays are no longer in charge of the gay agenda as far as I'm concerned.
So I don't give a rip about their silly state by state campaign. I say we start suing everything we can until people have equal rights.
3 comments:
Prop 8 was entirely about use of the word "marriage." California already guarantees equal rights under civil unions, but not the use of the word "marriage." This was clear in the arguments before the state Supreme Court.
In the interview, the claim is made that citizenship could not be conferred with all rights, but not the word "citizen." I think that fails because there is no traditional prior use that justifies the distinction, although "naturalized citizen" is often used.
One resolution is to have the state abandon stop using the word "marriage" entirely, just "civil union." That would leave word usage to the public conception, which is how most words get meaning.
No. California has domestic partnerships rather than civil unions and in any case they still follow entirely different procedures than marriages and are far less useful or recognized.
I'm glad someone is using the 14th amendment on this finally...I just hope they do it properly and help bring this bullshit to an end. I don't care if it's a drinking fountain or the front of a bus, you cannot deny someone the use of something (even a word) that everyone else is allowed to use, just because you don't want them to because of something arbitrary like sexual orientation. Demanding that they "settle" for another term is still discrimination because it STILL constitutes relegating them to a secondary class of citizen, something which the 14th amendment FORBIDS.
I mean what is all this stuff about the "meaning" of the word "marriage"? To me marriage never meant JUST having kids. It meant stepping up and declaring that you are going to be there for your spouse NO MATTER WHAT for the rest of your life. I don't think a case can be made for this "marriage means...." junk. I say if you're bigoted enough to want to deny someone the use of a fucking WORD just because you think they're icky....you should have to fuck off and make up your own new word.
Post a Comment