California voted this week to add the phrase
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
to the constitution, effectively overturning the ruling of the California Supreme Court (earlier this year) to the effect that statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and held that persons of the same sex were entitled to marry. The proposition was passed by 52% to 48%, a margin of approx 500,000 votes. (Although it has to be said that these figures did not include the as-yet-uncounted absentee and provisional ballots which may total as many as 2.7 million).
What this result means is that an entire section of the community, gay men and women, are denied in the constitution the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, the right to marry. You might wonder what that has to do with me as I am heterosexual and I don’t live in California. Well my answer is that it has everything to do with me because I am a human being and this is an issue for humanity.
Humanity is an amazing thing. Look at us! We come in all shapes and sizes; we have widely differing belief systems, traditions, cultures, abilities and we come in a variety of hues and sexual orientations. We are a diverse lot and, I feel, all the better for it. However we are also a naturally suspicious lot and we’ve managed to incorporate these suspicions of people, who are other than us, into our culture. For thousands of years we lived culturally separate lives and our entrenched ways of thinking became part of those separate identities. But in the last couple of hundred years this world has become a mixed up place. Given the seismic shift in the way humanity now lives, there has needed to be a seismic shift in attitudes and behavior. I think that this marks a huge leap in the evolution of humanity. It requires of us to throw off the entrenched suspicions of yesteryear and embrace tolerance and respect of those around us, regardless of perceived differences.
I should put my cards on the table here before I go any further. If I were a Californian I would have voted an emphatic NO to the proposition. And I would not have had to think twice about it. To me the fact that gay people don’t automatically have this right is ridiculous. Think about it. Two people who love each other, who want to live a life of monogamy with each other, who want to give each other financial security, who want to be each other’s legal next of kin and want the protection offered by the law for the right to do that– surely this is something to be encouraged. This is an endorsement of loving relationships and of family stability. To me it just makes sense.
What has upset me most about the campaign and the result is the depth of hatred I have witnessed. There have been slurs and lies printed, TV campaigns that preyed on the fears of the ignorant and huge quantities of intimidation used. And mud was slung in every direction. I think it was shameful. As a Catholic I have to say how ashamed I am of the way that the Catholic Church and certain Catholic associations have conducted themselves during the campaign. Let me say right now that I do not believe that Churches and affiliated organizations should have the right to finance campaigns on a matter of law and the constitution. If they feel that it is an issue of morality then they should issue guidelines through their churches to their members. “This is what your church believes and this is why….” And then leave the voting down to the individual’s conscience. The Catholic Church and its affiliates had no moral right to spend millions of dollars in order to influence a ballot on a point of law and I am offended that they have done so claiming to represent me. That point of view does not and never will, represent me.
I live my life by The Golden Rule: “Love thy neighbour as thy self.” It’s a good way of thinking – I would encourage everyone to give it a shot. It encourages you to walk in the shoes of another and consider their point of view. I find if I just think - “How would I feel if that was me … or my child?” - I think it generally clarifies my feelings for me.
So here’s the thing – if I was gay and I was in love and wanted to spend the rest of my life with that woman – then I would want to get married to her. I know this because I am married and I love being married. I found a fundamental and beautiful change evolved in my relationship when we married. Promising to love someone for the rest of your life, to share everything you own, to take care of each other in good times and bad, in sickness and health, is a huge thing to do. You really have to have total trust in each other and if you’re as lucky as me, you feel bound to that person – I was going to say on a deeply spiritual level but I think that’s wrong – on a deeply, impossibly, human level. And I could never deny someone the chance to have this experience simply because the person they love is the same sex as they are.
What prompted me to write about this issue was reading Sarah Laurenson’s blog where she so eloquently shared with us her devastation at the result of the vote. She married the love of her life on June 27th this year. It was a beautiful ceremony and all her bloggy friends threw cyber rice and wished them love and happiness in their life together. The hurt she now feels knowing that more than 50% of her neighbours voted to invalidate her marriage has left her questioning whether or not they should leave the state and move somewhere the law is more accepting of them. I feel so sad and angry that human beings can be so intolerant of each other. Is it so difficult to be accepting of people’s differences? I hope that Sarah and her wife decide not to leave their home that they love because I feel sure that the proposition will not be allowed to stand because it seeks to include discrimination in the law which in itself in unconstitutional.
Is respect and tolerance too much to ask? I hope not because I think that humanity in all its diversity is amazing. Look at how happy Sarah and her wife are. What is there to fear in that? For goodness sake – it’s only love.
8 comments:
Seizing first on one of your last remarks -- about your friend who wonders if she should relocate -- so alarming, as CA tends to be one of our most liberal, inclusive states.
The contradictory outcomes of Obama and Prop 8 just don't harmonize. I know many people whose joy about Obama was tainted by this joyless revocation of a just-born freedom.
Good on you to write about this important issue, Janey.
CA liberal? It is one of the most diverse states in the union. If you're into it, you can find it here. Or I should say, it has a couple of major metropolitan areas that are extremely diverse. Then there are the extreme conservative enclaves and one of the largest KKK groups in this nation. CA is a true melting pot that includes a vast number of ingredients - just not all in the same place.
My wife and I are still discussing what we want to do. There are so many aspects to this issue. I think one of her hot buttons is whether or not we give our tax dollars to support a state that no longer discriminates. And having our marriage in limbo with mixed legal opinions about if it's still valid is crap.
You hit the nail on the proverbial head Janey when you talked about how different it feels to be married. When the decision came down that we could get married, we discussed whether or not we should. And each time, she would ask if I was proposing and I would say not yet. I wanted the proposal to be romantic but I also wanted a little time to digest what being married meant and to decide that this was the woman I wanted to marry.
I think I will have to write a post about gay culture and what gay marriage could mean in the long term.
Bee I agree - it just doesn't sit right at all. I understand that a proposition, if it gets a certain number of signatures, has to be put to the public vote - but surely if the content of the proposition had already been ruled on by the Supreme Court of CA as being unconstitutional, then it should have been withdrawn. Personally, giving the ruling, I feel it beggars belief it was put on the ballot at all.
Sarah I fully understand your wife's frustration at financially supporting a state that will not support your rights. As galling as that is I hope you'll stick it out. As you said in your blog - sometimes change happens slowly. In this day and age - there should be no need for that with the anti-discrimination laws but entrenched prejudice is so hard to shift.
I recently watched a film about a couple from Virginia whose surname was Loving. It was 1958. He was white, she was black. They went to DC to get married. On their wedding night the sheriff burst into their bedroom and pulled them both naked out of their bed and stuck them in jail for several days. When they finally got put before a judge he told them their union was an obscenity as god had put the races on different continents to prevent such unions and gave them a choice of going to jail or leaving Virginia. They lived unhappily in DC for many years while their civil rights lawyer battled to bring their case to the Supreme Court. Their case changed the law and put an end to state bans on interracial marriages when the ruling finally was made in 1967. Mildred Loving died in May this year just before the California Supreme Court ruling. I have read that Loving vs. Virginia might be used to aid the marriage equality movement. Before she died Mildred Loving issued the following statement and it is so beautiful I thought I'd share.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
They changed the world. I think the struggle in CA will too.
Excellent post, Janey! Really well said. It's an absolute absurdity - and how on earth do they expect to handle those people, like Sarah, who are already married. I think what is so sad, is that people have been so excited and inspired by the historic election of Barack Obama, yet this just seems one step backwards. It's inhuman,it's myopic and it's thoroughly stupid. Sarah should come and live here, where gay marriage is legal and embraced.
What a great statement by Mildred. Thanks so much for sharing that.
Are we moving to the UK now? ;-)
Actually we have talked about moving over that way someday. But that was always the 'sometime down the road when we have the money to do what we want' thing.
Sarah Lovely isn't it? And we'd love to have you - so much so I'm not going to tell you how cold and wet it is right now. The very cool thing about living here is just how close you are to the rest of Europe. Spain for instance - it'd be really easy to nip over there when the British weather got on top of you and they already have FULL marriage rights for all!!!
(cyber-standing-ovation)
Well said, Janey. I can't really add much more.
Except that this sort of hipocrisy is exactly why I can't raise my children in the Catholic church in which I, myself, was raised.
Absolutely lovely pictures at Sarah's!
I've only just seen this. It's a great post.
Post a Comment