Not Good Enough

I'm happy with the results of the presidential election last night. Americans showed that most of us have moved past the bigotry of earlier generations against black people in our society.

We did, however, strongly affirm that we have not moved past all bigotry.

In California, Proposition 8, an initiative to ban gay marriage in the state once again, passed by about 4%. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization known for beginning the movement to add the phrase "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Mormon Church both donated millions of dollars to the campaign to once again breach the wall of separation between church and state and violate the rights of a reviled class of citizens.

In Arizona, Proposition 102 passed by 13%. Proposition 102 adds to Arizona's state constitution a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. This follows a 2006 initiative, which was defeated, seeking to outlaw both marriage and civil unions for same sex couples. Apparently, my state believes in the separate but equal principle. I've read history, so I do not. Gay marriage was already illegal in Arizona, the fear was that the law could be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. This was a preemptive movement to stop that from happening. It succeeded and set back the next great civil rights movement by years.

Amendment 2 in Florida passed with a 62% approval, two percent more than needed to clear the margin required to amend the state's constitution. Again, this halts progress toward equality and will set back the next civil rights movement by years.

In Arkansas, a Initiative Act 1 was passed preventing unwed couples from adopting children. Same sex couples are unable to wed in Arkansas, but in this particular state they decided to alienate unwed straight couples as well. Regardless, the intent was to prevent gay couples from raising children. They have the gall to claim that it is about the welfare of the children, not the rights of adults. Nevermind that no study has ever indicated that being raised by a same sex couple is in any way harmful or inferior to a "traditional" childhood.

Gay marriage isn't like abortion. There is no argument to be made for banning it except on a religious basis. There can be no discussion that does not appeal to religion or tradition. Every one of these examples is a violation of your rights. Whether you are gay or straight, religious or not, you have an interest in maintaining a clear line of separation between church and state. We all do.

Last night was a good night. However, our nation is still not delivering on its promises. The next four to eight years might make our work easier, but do not let yourself be fooled into thinking that we don't still have a great deal of work to do.

If we want to secure lasting change in favor of tolerance, it's incumbent on us to abandon the luxury of looking down on our 'traditional' countrymen and find a way to explain the culture of tolerance such that it makes sense to them.

It's evident that a majority of the people still oppose equal rights for all sexualities. To secure real change, we have to find a way to explain this issue such that everyone can see the importance and the moral choice.

That being said, I believe the correct move is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people choose their own church, and if they choose one that denies their own validity, then let them have their masochism. For the state, it is enough that it should establish guidelines for how a citizen can declare with legal force who may visit them in the hospital. who they will rear their children with, and so on.

If the word "marriage" must retain totemic value, then let it. Have government use a different word for the unions it recognizes under the law. I have no fear that among the many churches, there will be no shortage that will give their members equality on this front, if government takes a hands-off approach.

Civil unions for everyone. Marriage becomes a purely religious term akin to "baptized" with no legal status whatsoever. I have yet to hear any convincing arguments for any other comprehensive, permanent solution. Religion and law must be completely, utterly and permanently disentangled.

Initiative Act 1 makes me seethingly mad. A more pure way of fucking over the very children they claim to be "protecting" could not possibly be signed into law.

Good God yes.

I'm just going to copy/paste this from now on.

When are you running for office?

Actually, this has always been my argument as well, come to think of it.

I still think we ought to be able to keep the term "marriage" and leave the term "holy union" to the religious groups.

I guess I am more than a little bit angry right now. If some people can't have a state sponsored marriage, then take it away from everyone. I think the agreement with Varuka_Salt (nothing against him) and this mini rant is more from a place of hostility than anything else.

Take away the word marriage from the fucking various Christian groups that act completely unlike what their Bible says (unless our resident French King is right about there being a different US version of the Bible.) Take the word away so they can see how it feels.

You want it to be Civil Unions for one group because of their sexuality? No, sorry doesn't work that way, you're also recognized as a Civil Union by the State. It is petty but I would enjoy some pictures of the looks on their faces if such a thing were to ever happen.

Shoot me if I'm lying but I heard Al Franken propose this very thing on Air America 4 years ago.

God I hope he wins.

My closet is so full of skeletons, I have to keep my wardrobe in the dresser.

Varuka_Salt to replace AHnald???

Shit, I've never even been west of Arkansas.

Yes. Here too (which is not going to happen).

The problem with this is that marriage is too deep into property and inheritance laws, and too deep into tax codes.

You would need to overhaul the whole legal system to do it. Not mind you being a Libertarian, that I am against that, but you will have way too many vested interests screaming bloody murder about it.

My take is that the tax advantages of legal marriage should not exist, they should be given to the caretakers of children, not necessarily to a married couple, or to biological parents, but to the people who pay for the care and feeding of the kids, and/or do it themselves.

I see no legitimate basis of giving someone a big tax break for being married and supporting an SO (of any sex) and not giving it to someone who is not married but supporting an SO (of any sex).

I can only imagine the backlash against such a viewpoint from the religious fanatics out there... that being said I can't agree more.

You know, that's a really good point there...

Um, what tax breaks for being married? Me and my wife had to put off getting married for years because of the tax disadvantage of being married. We still would pay less taxes if we were not married, filing individual returns, than we do now filing jointly. The only tax breaks we receive are because of our children, which we received even before we were married. So, the tax situation you hope for already exists, while the one you describe as existing doesn't.

As far as marriage being too far into into property and inheritance laws, that's pretty simple to fix. Replace the word "marriage" with "civil union", TA DA!!! Anyone who is already married automatically gets a civil union. I don't see how that is in any way difficult.

As far as the backlash from the religious nutters, that's going to happen no matter what you do. They always bitch and moan when the rest of the world refuses to follow their insane mythology. If they really can't stand the fact that they live in a secular nation, maybe they should try life in a non-secular society. Saudi Arabia should be perfect for them. Of course, they'd have to convert and all, but that shouldn't be a problem. They don't seem to have a problem trying to force us to live by their rules, so they shouldn't have any problem submitting to the whims of others fantasies, right?

Right, that's why the term "marriage" should be replaced in all legal matters by the term "civil union", and "marriage" should be a completely religious, ceremonial term. The state should no be issuing "marriage" licenses, it should be issuing "civil union" licenses. If a couple that has a civil union wants to call themselves married, I don't really see any problem with that. It's not like anyone is going to check. I'm "married", but it was a completely civil ceremony, with absolutely no religious involvement. I still call myself married, and I wouldn't change that even if the law was changed.

1: People don't have sex before they get married. Fact.

2: Gay people can't get married.

3: Therefore, we are protected from the menace of gay sex.

No no no we need to stop the gays from married because if they do then they will make little gay babies.