What’s missing from Bouncer’s long-winded post is recognition that not only is no one being harmed by SSM’s in San Francisco, but society is actually being helped by the long-term benefits that marriage provides couples, as well as the short-term economics of all those people buying wedding dresses and cakes and champagne, etc.
And the government is not our babysitters or parents - they serve US! “Of the people, by the people, for the people.” They don’t have tenure. We don’t need people legislating discrimination and bigotry telling us what to do. We need people who are fair and reasonable and oppose discrimination.
I was worried about blowback but after seeing how the opposition has split my mind have been changed. I see the very opposed people being pushed into the corner and grasping for a constitutional amendment in desperation. And the pressure on the moderately opposed people has made it so that they no longer are argueing that it shouldn’t be done but that it should be done through the will of the people. It’s no longer “this is wrong” but “you’re doing it the wrong way.” Sounds like they’re giving lots of ground, especially in the face of the far rights rhetoric. And that if we continue to push this and the far right into the corner and they continue to cry loudly for this amendment of theirs I think it’s going to spell out in specific detail what exactly is going on. If it’s all fuzzy and abstract it’s easy to say no. But when you’re forced to think about it and understand it in detail it is a whole lot harder to do so. And if we keep pushing I think that the great confirmation of our basic human rights will sweep the nation.
And I don’t really think Newsom qualifies as an activist Mayor either. If the Constitution of California is at odds the the laws of the state it is crystal clear what happens. The law is struck down. The CA state constitution doesn’t state what equality means when it comes to marriage. And we don’t imagine restrictions on freedom when things are in question we do the opposite. If he is, as a reasonable man, believes that for marriage equality means that we are all free to choose our own spouse the it would be a gross deriliction of his duties to ignore that. And so far, after all these weeks, the courts have not said he was wrong. Nor have they said he was right. We’re still in the middle of it and have to wait and see how this plays out. But that’s the way these things work.
It’s very strange hearing all this at a distance, and, as another poster has said, very like the fall of the Soviet Union. I’m seeing these images beamed in from have a world away and only sorry that I can’t be there.
Really? The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1965, which is 104 years after the Civil War about this subject. I’m not sure I’d say that “works”.
And re: marriage for gays, some of us aren’t willing to wait a hundred years to get equality. (Plus wasn’t there a fair amount of ‘civil disobedience’ involved in the Civil Rights struggle, too?)
But that’s the question here, isn’t it?
There are different parts of “the law” that seem to be in conflict. The Mayor says that the “equal protection clause” written into the California Constitution when it was adopted overrides a referendum passed a few years ago. And the Courts seem to agree – at least, they haven’t thrown this out via summary judgement; and they have indicated that this is a major issue in the case and is what the parties should address in their arguments. Eventually, the Courts will decide this, like they do whenever there are questions about interpretation of the various parts of “the law”. But someone has to challenge this first, to get the case into a Court in the first place.
Of course it is. The forces of darkness are trying to seize control of the debate by suggesting that only they have accurate definitions of terms such as “marriage” or that only they understand how American democracy works, or that The People have not “spoken” or that this is not a question of “rights” but rather “special rights.”
Do not fall into that trap, and do not debate this issue on their terms.
**Seven–**Nice! During the hours when I was there, there were two guys with anti- signs, one with words spelled incorrectly. Later A guy came with his kids and began shouting bible verses, but we sang until he stopped. Yet a lot of news shows and articles seem to feature a disproportionate number of photos of the very small anti- crowd.
Additional humor is derived from the fact that the Straight Supremist is holding a rainbow umbrella. (Ok, it’s not the pride colors, but it is rainbow )
I also am very happy about the explosion of SSM, and am hoping the ostensibly gay-friendly political leaders here in Seattle and King County make a similar stand so I can tell my grandchildren I was at Ground Zero instead of just watching it from a distance on TV. On the other hand, I am very nervous about the backlash Bouncer describes, and which I believe is much more plausible than the glib denials would suggest (though it’s understandable how the amazing news, which just gets more amazing every day, can make somebody so giddy with delight as to become somewhat separated from reality).
But then I think: Maybe this is the backlash.
Not the inevitable marshalling of forces we’re going to see by Bush and his minions, but the backlash from a whole lot of really angry people who are tired of being judged by hypocritical panderers in expensive suits who have manipulated the fears and insecurities of the Neanderthal fringe for personal gain. Like Seven says, maybe Bush poked the wrong part of the wall and is surprised by what burst free.
Even so, I’m enough of a cynic about “the masses” that I don’t trust the mainstream middle to do the right thing here. As depressing as it is to contemplate, I think that if you pinned my mother down and told her to make a choice, she would say that two men or two women shouldn’t be able to get married. I don’t know, I’ve never really argued it with her. I think she’d try to retreat to the same safe place the pragmatists are offering, the “civil union” alternative, and would completely miss the “separate but equal” metaphor. And I think my mother represents a normal average American: means well, listens to reason, sticks to tradition, gets stubborn when pressed.
I desperately hope Bouncer is wrong, but I really don’t know that he is.
Well, Seattle’s mayor made a step in a positive direction. While he’s not exactly sticking his neck way out there by challenging the law, he is showing support for the cause of SSM’s.
But if the law is unclear as to whether homosexuals can marry, there will probably be some good challenges coming from some of the dozens of couples that had their marriages invalidated.
Mayor Nickels doesn’t really have the power here; it’s really up to the county executive, Ron Sims, to push the issue and take a stand. And while both of them have been saying the right things, their actions have been somewhat lacking. Lots of talk-talk, not a lot of walk-walk.
)