I am happy that the California Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional according to the state constitution of California. This is even more impressive because most of the judges on the court are conservative or conservative-leaning. Admittedly, it was a 4-3 decision, but the ruling can only be overturned by closed-minded, bigoted voters. Isn't democracy fabulous? (Apparently, the US Supreme Court cannot overturn it because it wasn't a judgement passed on the US constitution, but the CA constitution. )
There is going to be a referendum to amend the California Constitution to make it constitutional to basically make it legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation (and one assumes gender identity as well).
What too many don't seem to realise (or care) is that just because something is legal or even constitutional, doesn't mean that thing is right or moral. It scares me that people want to change a constitution to be more supportive of bigotry and hatred. I thought that the fiasco with institutionalised racial inequality in the US constitution would have taught people to be more careful.
I don't care what religion you are or what side of the political spectrum you lean towards, anything that limits the freedoms of individuals who have committed no crimes, who haven't infringed on anyone else's rights, is so wrong as to defy quantifying the depth and degree of that wrongness. It is so incredibly dangerous to permit the limiting of any group's freedoms, because once the precedent is made, it becomes far too easy do it again and again. This is the real "slippery slope". If it becomes acceptable to deny rights to GLBT people, simply because some don't like what they do in their bedrooms, where does it stop? Will Muslims start being targeted simply based on the same type of fear-mongering that is used to attack gays?
It sickens me that so many Americans are gullible, blind, and stupid enough to buy into the lies about "the gay agenda" or "defending the family". I am ashamed of those who would limit the freedoms of those they don't understand or don't agree with.
This kind of behaviour is both anti-American and sadly American at the same time. It goes against what the US is supposed to stand for: Equal rights and treatment for all, a country where diversity is celebrated and encouraged. Lately the opposite is true. Diversity is feared and hated. Those who are different, be they gay, black, Muslim, or Spanish speaking, are reviled and looked down upon, stereotyped and rejected. The political climate over the past 8 years has done much to exacerbate this problem. The way Americans have been taught to fear and hate anything to do with Islam sickens me.
I recently met a woman who is from Egypt. She has a university degree and legal resident of the US. Despite this, she is unable to find any job besides that of a cashier at a supermarket. Because of her national origin, she is discriminated against. She is assumed to be Muslim (even though she's Christian - Coptic Orthodox), and is therefore treated with contempt. She is a teacher, and if anything, this country needs more teachers, especially ones who are passionate and skilled.
I do have hope that things will change, if slowly. There are many people who are doing their best to change and get rid of the racism, homophobia, and sense of superiority and condescension that so plague this nation. That so many in this country are supporting an African-American presidential candidate, and are excited about doing something to change the state of affairs is heartening. I myself wish I could vote and be more involved in both local and national politics, but am unable to do so - and that frustrates me. I am just as much affected and contribute as much as any American to this country, but because I'm not a citizen, I don't have any say whatsoever. I am trying to get citizenship, but it is an expensive and lengthy process, and I don't know how much longer I will be living in this country. My parents and siblings all live here though, and my father and two of my siblings are already citizens, so it would be useful for many reasons. I must admit though, that as much as I like this country, and enjoy living here, there's no place like home.
17 May 2008
we can change, we must change
Posted by Craig at
01:54
Labels:
frustration,
gay marriage,
gay rights,
homophobia,
politics,
pontificating,
racism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




9 wisdomy word(s):
I have absolutely no idea why I took a look at that lunatic Crow's blog today.
His newest post is absolutely vile to me, in every sense of the word.
He is so self-loathing and repugnant in his envy of others who accept themselves that he wants anything in his power to take any joy or legal amnesty away from them.
It's douche bags like him and Larry Craig that unfortunately, scare the living shit out of me.
Going from the sheer volume of blogs out there and how many people like him still exist, I agree this country is making process, albeit slowly. It's really taxing and stressful but I have to see it through in this lifetime, I believe I was born to help in some way for it to come in fruition.
I prefer to think of Senator Obama as biracial. This is also a good metaphor for his candidacy.
Like you, I have hope. The winds of political change are in the air. The majority see President Bush as the architect of failed policies that have damaged the country. This includes his practice of using social wedge issues to divide the electorate. People are saying enough is enough.
There is an interesting thread on one of the (faithful) Mormon blogs concerning the California marriage equality ruling. None of the commenters want the church to get involved in the referendum to reverse the court's ruling, and many said that they would refuse to put up signs in their yards if the church asked them to. Wow.
colin: Tell me about it. It drives me nuts.
Though I do want to be a part of helping to bring about change in this country, I will probably end up moving to Canada where it's a little friendlier.
Forgive my law geekiness, but I think the CA decision cannot be overruled by the US Supreme Court, because the US Supreme Court may only review state supreme court decisions that interpret the federal constitution, not a state constitution. Though I've not read the decision, my impression from media reports is that this case was decided on state constitutional grounds.
Rereading my last paragraph, I once again realized why everyone hates lawyers.
I agree that the big worry is a potential ballot measure. Letting voters amend a state constitution by a simple majority vote is a horrible idea in general, but those of us in western states sometimes reap strange rewards for the past "progressive reforms" like the initiative process.
I guess it's nice that people in CA can smoke pot if they're sick, but on balance, in CA and other western states, the initiative process has resulted in far more bad laws than good ones. It's just too open to simple-minded demagoguery.
Todd, you are correct, the US Supreme Court cannot rule on this specific case because it is solely based on the CA constitution. I wasn't aware of this when I wrote the post.
And yes, I totally agree with you on it being a bad thing simply to allow majority votes to change a constitution - I don't trust the majority to do the right thing, to not trample all over the rights of minorities.
The problem is, I don't know whom to trust with that kind of power - power I do think is necessary. No matter whom you give that right, the populace, legislatures, courts or executives, all can and have acted immorally and oppressed minorities through those actions. Perhaps it would be good to have to have a combination of the above to make it harder for one group to do something it oughtn't. Or perhaps an unchangeable, undeletable clause should be put in all constitutions saying that no revision of said constitution may be made that would take away rights from any group, especially a minority group. The point of government is really to safeguard rights, not limit or control them. Lately, the US hasn't lived up to that standard at all.
Once again your blog proves that when you can't argue facts correctly you and your friends resort to bitter insults.
For the record, the vote was narrow. One vote decided it. Also yes a vote of the people can over turn it. Also for the record in the state of CA, gay couples already enjoyed the same rights as married couples. This was about the term marriage. So before you post at least get your FACTS straight.
As for you and your buddy's petty insults. Lets say again for the record, my only disagreement with you is your opinion. I've tried to get to know you as a person and been rejected for that. I've never outwardly attacked you personally with insults and such. I may argue your opinions but thats were it ends. You and your friends are the ones who make it personal.
What a stunning Chirstlike example. I am almost hesitant to respond to you because honestly I think its what you want. More fuel so you can post more.
So you also think think I'm a lunatic, a douche bag. Its amazing because if I was to say the same things referring to your sexual prefence or perceived gender role you would be crying foul and "Hate Speech" but you can get away with it if it attacks religion. Now thats dripping with hypocracy. But I think thats why only your fellow apostates listen to you and everyone else see right through your bitter tirades.
I think still the biggest joke is hearing how you think I'm: "self-loathing and repugnant in his envy of others who accept themselves" No, I can assure you and your little high school buddy that is not the case. You can leave the church, belittle it's doctrines, and insult it's people but that won't change what is really true. But I've never met a gay dude who didn't secretly think everyone else is gay or that those who stand up for their beliefs are just repressing it. I guess misery is searching out for company.
Your basic premises is that the LDS Church is hateful and discriminatory for supporting such things. I don't see collins comments which you allow to stay on your blog being moderated, I'm assuming that you agree with your young friends statements, so if this is the case how is this any less hateful then what you accuse me of? Or any less worse then what you accuse those who do stay faithful to God and the Church as being?
What the hell is your problem?
Most of your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this post, or, as far as I can tell, anything at all.
If you actually read my post, you'll see that I did get the facts right - I said it was a 4-3 vote. I am also well aware that domestic partnerships exist in California, and that the proposed amendment to the constitution would take that away as well.
I don't recall my personally insulting you. All I said is "it drives me nuts". That was referring to those who "do anything in [their] power to take away any joy or legal amnesty". Yes, that was (aptly) applied to you, but also to anyone who does that. I'll admit that what he said was probably offensive and maybe even a little extreme. But the fact is, I don't have any respect for you or your arguments. You haven't proven yourself worthy (or capable) of intelligent, respectful conversation or discussion. I'm not going to apologise for Colin, because that's not my place, and I'm not going to apologise for agreeing with the intent, if not the actual content of his message.
I don't moderate anyone's comments, you should know that. That I allow you to comment things like this should be proof enough of that.
Just because I didn't delete his comment doesn't mean that I am calling you a "douche bag", or "lunatic". I do, however, agree with the point of his comment. I personally am disgusted by what you wrote on the CA gay marriage issue.
You seem to think that I'm some mastermind of a conspiracy to take you down, and I have all my little minions copying my views. I'm not sure what you think I'm doing to get them to do that, but let me assure you, this is all in your head. Simply because someone criticises you doesn't mean that they're one of my "fellow apostates" like you accused Potentate of being, and I fail to see why you think calling Colin my "little high-school buddy" is offensive. The fact that he is younger than you or me (we are both substantially younger than you) is immaterial.
Your constant assumption that I'm miserable because I'm openly gay and have left the church isn't based in reality at all. You have absolutely, positively no way of knowing whether I'm happy or not. I hate to tell you this (not really, and I know you won't believe it anyways), but when I was in the church, and doing everything right, I was unhappy. Now that I've left the church and am openly gay, I am happy. I'm not saying that would be true for you, but you really ought not to make blanket assumptions that being gay=unhappiness. It doesn't, and the sooner you realise that most of your assumptions are just plain false, the better off you'll be.
You can leave the church, belittle it's doctrines, and insult it's people but that won't change what is really true.
I'm not trying to change what is "true". You seem to be under some delusion that I secretly believe the LDS church to be right, and I'm just off living my sinful life because it's easier. The fact is, I don't believe that homosexuality (or expressing it) is sinful. I'm actually, right now, already living according to what I believe is true. I'm not changing, or trying to change the truth. That's something that is pointless. I'm trying to expose the truth and get others (along with myself) to realise that most often, we don't understand the "truth" near as well as we thought we did - that there's so much to it than we thought.
I know you think I'm an evil, nasty apostate, out to destroy all that is good and holy.
But I don't give a damn that you think that. There's obviously nothing I can say to dissuade you of that opinion, so here's where I stop trying.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think that every gay person who is in the church is miserable. They are repressing some part of what they feel, that's for sure, but I don't think they're all lying to themselves. I think that for some, the church is the best place for them. However, everything about you, everything you say and the way you say it screams that you're so incredibly insecure with what how you're living and what you claim to believe. I don't believe for a second that you're really content and happy in the life you're living. And I think that is what Colin, and many others have also picked up on. You also apparently never learnt how to talk to and get along with other people. You seriously lack some fundamental social, critical thinking, and basic interpersonal skills. I really do feel sorry for you.
Crow, this is the last time I am addressing you.
The only kind of people I openly abhor are those who bury a permanent, unavoidable aspect of themselves that they were unfairly taught either by society or religion to be wrong, and at the same time do everything in their power to hold back those who accept themselves. Hence, the reference to Larry Craig.
I don't believe that everyone is a repressed gay, but I do thank you for presuming my entire thought process through a blog comment, you must have amazing psychoanalyzing abilities the rest of us aren't privy to. No, I am in fact aware that ignorant, impressionable, and closed minded straight men exist, and they are unfortunately a sizable portion of the population.
Frankly it insults me that you belittle my words through my age. Do not fool yourself into believing that I am unable to form my own thoughts, views, and stances by myself and the research I divulge upon. Again I must kindly extend a thank you, for your almost unearthly reading abilities of people's psyches.
Now, as I said this is the last time I will address you, a 36 year old serial internet stalker who has nothing better to do with his time than go around and try to, IRONICALLY as you have said, search out company for his own misery.
Stay off of my blog. You can surely believe I won't be bothering myself with yours, my morbid curiosity of your rather curious persona won't pull me to read your one little corner of the internet ever again.
Do not contact me, do not speak to me, quit trying to friend me on social websites, I want nothing to do with such a social nut case. Validate your "happiness" with someone else.
And Kreig, forgive me for doing this here, it just seemed highly appropriate to conclude the thread here.
... But the fact is, I don't have any respect for you or your arguments. You haven't proven yourself worthy (or capable) of intelligent, respectful conversation or discussion...
I think what your words speak volumes. And again, I would say. Try pulling the beam out of your own eye.
As for Colins, well I think what he has to say is worth even less. What I think is ironic is that if I were to agree with his point of view I would be a supporter and friend, but I don't so I'm what he says I am.
Enough said. I think you only need to read his words to see that.
Post a Comment