Proponents of Proposition 8 might have scored a great victory for civil rights.

After watching a segment on MSNBC yesterday I felt compelled to make an additional statement about Proposition 8.

Tuesday was a sad and disappointing day for scores of gay men and lesbians, their families, and supporters of equality everywhere. In case you did not already know the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8, a measure that amended the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. I’m sure it was also a jubilant moment for those who consider homosexuality to be a sin and a relief for those concerned about the safety of their children. For the time being they can rest assured that their little ones will not be traumatized by the possibility that the gay parents of their schoolmates might tie the knot.

If you are someone who has been alienated by the decision, or just someone with a strong belief in equality, you shouldn’t be too upset with those who voted for Proposition 8 just yet. You might have a reason to thank them. You probably already know that Theodore B. Olson and David Boles, the attorneys who argued Bush v. Gore have filed a lawsuit in federal court. Theirargument is that Proposition 8 is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause found in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Who knows how this will turn out? The Supreme Court may decide that this should remain a state issue and refuse to even hear the case. It will then go back to being a state-by-state battle. However, there is some precedent that suggests the Justices could take an entirely different road. In 2003 the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a Texas statute that prohibited “homosexual sodomy” using the 14th amendment. If the Supreme Court uses similar reasoning to overturn proposition 8, same-sex marriage would become legal everywhere in the U.S. This could be the next, Rowe v. Wade. The worst fears of those opposing same-sex marriage would be realized, and “Yes on 8” voters would be largely responsible for making true equal treatment under the law a reality much faster than it would have happened without them.

If the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates Proposition 8, I promise not to make remarks about anyone shooting themselves in the foot even if my occasional tendency towards sarcasm begs me to do it. I won’t do it because I believe a majority of the “yes” voters were not unkind people at all but simply afraid or misinformed. Also, I don’t want to become someone who argues for compassion and respect but then does not show those qualities.

Instead I will say this. If the federal case against Proposition 8 succeeds I hope it sends this important message even if it only reaches a few people. It is perfectly acceptable to assert your religious or philosophical opinion. For example, I might discuss the fact that I don’t believe in anyone’s God or religion in a blog or have a friendly debate with a friend. This is freedom of speech. I might not agree with your choice to worship something I consider to be a mythology, but you had better believe I will be among the first in line to defend your legal right to do so. However, the moment you start using religious or philosophical dogma as an excuse to harm and disenfranchise other people you have crossed a line that won’t be tolerated under the law.

If we all lived on the Starship Enterprise, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Ok, now I am just getting silly and a little cranky. It’s time to stop.

Image courtesy of quirkypixel.com

GOP response to Judge Sotomayor

I would like to make a quick comment on the GOP reaction to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is not particularly surprising that conservatives would have objections to any such nomination made by President Obama. When a president names an appointee to such an important position, members of both parties typically raise questions and debate the appropriateness of the appointment. Judge Sotomayor will undoubtedly be poked, prodded, and turned inside out during her confirmation hearing. This is how the process works. No one wants a person who is unqualified or less than extremely competent appointed to the highest court in the land. We already went down that path with the last presidential administration and we are still reeling from that disaster.

Republicans would be expected to scrutinize this choice, but what I find quite odd is the knee jerk reaction of several outspoken conservatives. How easily men like Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, and talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, throw around the word “racist.” Her critics have also labeled her a “judicial activist,” a term that I have noticed conservative commentators often like to use about when a judge writes an opinion in favor of equal rights for minorities. Again, they zero on a few of those decisions as evidence she is an unfair judge and that she should immediately withdraw her nomination.

When making a decision as important as this one, the Senate will examine Sotomayor’s entire record and body of experience. From what we know so far she is qualified, has heard a wide breadth of cases during her judicial career, and has made rulings on various points of law that could be considered to fall on different sides of the political spectrum. This CNN article provides a pretty good summary if you are interested.

Some of her statements might be considered controversial, but there is nothing to indicate that she is unfit for this nomination. Unless something more than what we know surfaces during the confirmation hearing it is likely that she will be confirmed. It appears that the claims of racism are much ado about nothing, and in Limbaugh’s case it is particularly hypocritical given his history of blatant racial slurs.

Today's California Supreme Court Decision

It's interesting that I decided to write my first post today. I read the news on a regular basis, and inevitably my psyche will start pestering me about what is going on somewhere in the world. Instead of, or possibly in addition to, regularly bombarding my close family and friends with these constantly nagging thoughts I decided some time ago that I would sit down and write about one topic each day (or almost each day). About a week or so ago I decided that I would begin today but worried that I might be at a loss for words. Perhaps I wouldn't find anything that I cared about enough to write about. Well, I was wrong, but that was before I knew that the California Supreme Court would make the decision to uphold Proposition 8 today.

It's an issue that has cause me to raise my hackles and bare my teeth since Proposition 22 appeared on the 2000 ballot. Why? I'm a heterosexual woman with a wonderful marriage. There is nothing about same-sex couples being denied the right to marry that threatens my well-being or offends me personally.....right? Wrong! I'm absolutely offended as should be each and every American if they really thought this through.

Yes, I have friends and acquaintances that are gay, and I feel sad that they are been alienated in so many ways, but this issue is much bigger than that. At it's crux it isn't really about homosexuality, morality or immorality, or even marriage and its sanctity for that matter. It is simply about equal rights. Is it really possible that we have come so far in the last century in combating discrimination against scores of minority groups (including the one I belong to), and in this century you can still take a vote and just decide not to apply the law equally to each citizen? It completely defies logic, and flies in the face of what I thought this country was all about.

I have tried countless times to understand those on the other side of this debate. I really have. When Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, I began to see a flurry of "Yes on 8" signs appearing on lawns around my community. They increased as the election drew near. These were not crazy people. They were neighbors and parents of children on my son's sports teams. I was utterly perplexed as to how people that seemed so rational could accept such senseless arguments so easily. You know the arguments I'm talking about.

Same-sex marriage would diminish or destroy the sanctity of marriage.

This is completely groundless since "sanctity of marriage" does not mean anything under the law. Sure, each couple has a different idea of what their own marriage means to them within their own relationship. Religious leaders might tell their followers what marriage means within their own church. However, the law does not give marriage "sanctity." It issues marriage licenses.

How does a homosexual marriage threaten a heterosexual one? There is simply no explanation for this.

The basic structure of society will degrade and fall apart if same-sex couples marry.

Huh? Society has a basic structure? The last I checked our society was a continuously evolving thing shaped by attitudes, wars, economic circumstances, and a complex web of other factors that are too numerous to list.

Also, families with moms and dads of the same gender already exist all over California. They will still exist whether or not they have a marriage license. How does giving them the same legal right as anyone else change anything?

Children will be subjected to the knowledge that same-sex marriages exist and are legal. This is an infringement on our rights.

So what and no it is not. In the first place it is not all that likely that schools will be discussing anyone's marriage in great detail. Secondly, your children are going to find out about all kinds of things you find morally objectionable. In the normal course of his upbringing and education my child has learned or will soon find about terrorists and bigots. I can explain why I object to those things, but I can not hide them from him.

I cannot figure out what legal right the educational system would be infringing upon. It can't be freedom of religion because the mere mention that same-sex marriage exists does not dictate how a person practices there religion.

I have stopped trying to understand the possible logic behind these arguments and come to the conclusion they are only excuses used to justify bigotry and fear. There are those that think homosexuality is immoral but cannot explain how this applies to the law. (There are all kinds of legal things that you may not approve of on a personal level. ) They don't want to be accused of discrimination, so they have come up with tidy little arguments that sound kind of appealing on the surface if you aren't really paying attention but have no substance. Others have been terrified into thinking something terrible is going to happen. Their eyes are shut so tight with fear that they are unable to open them and see reality. Did you ever read the Dr. Seuss book, "I Can Read With My Eyes Shut."? Others are simply ignorant beyond belief. A few days before election day my husband and I were standing on the corner waving our little "No on Prop 8" signs. A woman drove by and yelled, "Go home fags."

I have not come any closer to understanding the other side through this whole debacle, but I am absolutely certain that same-sex marriage will be legal in this state, maybe by 2010. Eventually it will be legal across the U.S. The fight for true equal rights for everyone is not over. I am not being overly optimistic. History is on the side of progress. We just need to keep helping it along through our words and actions.