Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Lukas: Well fuck, now what?



We lost in Maine, gays. It sucks. I'm sure you're disappointed. Even Nate Silver, the famed statitian who was ridiculouly good at predicting the presidental election, was surprised.

In part, I can't blame you for your sadness. When Obama was elected, we all saw a light at the end of a dark, dark 8-year-long tunnel, and images of gays getting married, the poor not having to worry about healthcare, and a pullout of Iraq danced in our dreams. Despite his official position against marriage equality, we couldn't help but feel hopeful for the future. Personally, Obama election was probably one of the most powerful experiences of my life.

A year later, reality has once against shat on our chests. Voters in two seemingly liberal states have struck down marriage equality, we're still in Iraq (while Afganistan is getting worse), and effective, comprehendible healthcare reform seems impossible to obtain.

However, and as tempting as it may be, we can't be mad at the system. The fact is, it did what it was supposed to. I'm not about to go into a discussion of political science, but the legislature passed a law, the people didn't like it, so they repealed it. As far as the way politics is supposed to work, everything went beautifully. We just happened to be on the losing end.

But we're not losing, and I hope that this defeat doesn't discourage us from being passionate about equal marriage. The fact is, a decade ago, we couldn't get married anywhere, Don't Ask Don't Tell was considered progress, and marriage equality itself was a fringe issue. We ARE winning. Acceptence of gays is progressing every day, every hour, and as kids come out sooner and sooner, their friends realize that there is nothing different about us homos other than we like to kiss the same sex. 20 years from now, those friends will make up an overwhelming majority of the electorate. It's easy to look at the 31 states that have had referendums - each one either striking down or downright outlawing homo-marriage - and think there is no hope. But there is hope, we just have to be patient. The same states that have outlawed marriage 10 years from now will have a completely new, much more gay-friendly electorate.

When Obama was elected there was a sense that we could get what we want, now. Yesterday made it clear that we're going to have to wait a little bit more. Fundamentally, we've already won. No intellectual conservative can even muster a logical argument against marriage now that doesn't involve personal preferences (religion, opinion, etc.). Conservatives are against gay marriage now mostly to pander to an older (okay, let's just say it, dying) constituency that is becoming increasingly marginalized. More and more democrats are being elected who are pro-equality.

The problem we have is a generational one, not one of mere opinion. As the years, days, hours go by, our country is slowly turning to our side.

It just takes time.
Reactions: 
at 5:44 PM Written with love by Lukas
Labels: , , , ,

15 comments:

  1. It's not as bad in the UK.
    My friend Andrew and his partner got 'married' last year. In the UK it's not classed as married, but a 'Civil Partnership'. I guess that will have to do for now. At least we are not stopping two people in love from being together however they choose.
    I'm married and wish the happiness I/We have for everybody, equally.
    Good luck
    Dave
    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, Washington State..
    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody lost in Maine, liberty prevailed with a penumbra of ignorance. Though, it is better that some remain stalwarts of morality. Personally, I have always been weary of statisticians. Benjamin Disraeli put it best; “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

    There should be no affirmation of gloominess, because candidate Obama was and is a clone of every president that preceded him (with few exceptions). His election remains a basic experiment in semiotics, that is, his skin color was associated with change (a slogan that had been used since the beginning of campaigns) and more idiots voted for the black one versus the other idiots voting for the white one. If you would like to discuss sadness, it was what rushes out of my very being, as you describe his victory as an amazing experience. He was a lackluster lawyer (rate-my-professor was petitioned to remove his reviews from the University of Chicago section) and a laughable legislator.

    Your write about healthcare reform, as if the traveled draft is somehow comprehensive or feasible. It is like I am watching Tool Academy on VH1, the tool is the healthcare bill and you are the naïve girlfriend, the stage goes to black, a single light shines on you, and you break into a soliloquy supporting your alleged malleable tool/legislation. It breaks my anarchist heart.

    Now, I don’t wish to be redundant, but this blog has been inundated with similar notes regarding gay marriage, so let me repeat what I wrote in another response. If Title VII of the civil rights act is to be extended to include homosexuals, I would put it to the ultimate test, i.e. the Supreme Court. My previous post argued that the federal government should have no role in the marriage process, for the very reason that it affords exceptional privileges.

    The enforcement of contracts is important in a free republic; marriage is a contract, as long as it is predicated on some semblance of rationality. I cannot create a contract that conflicts with existing laws. We don’t create contracts for the right to free speech, assembly, religion or press. These rights are afforded to us by our constitution. The NACCP did not engage state legislators in an argument of equality; the fight was taken to the Supreme Court.

    By fighting for what you perceive as equality, you are abandoning autonomy. There is no winner. You are fighting conservatives with the argument that they cannot assemble an argument that isn’t personal or religious? Maybe you should meet some conservatives. This isn’t a fight for grandpa or grandma; it is a war of lucidity. Either we die by our ability to reason or kill ourselves with irrational emotion. Morality is the self reflected in society. We aren’t the three musketeers; we are human and can only remain so by thinking through the shroud of governmental control.
    ReplyDelete
  4. First off- Washington isn't marriage. It's domestic partnerships. It's a STEP in the right direction, but it isn't marriage. In fact, Referendum 71 was nicknamed "Everything but Marriage."

    As for your point Lukas about a dying electorate, you are correct. This body of votes will eventually die and then there will be a major block of voters missing. HOWEVER, what we fail to mention is, the reason this block has so much power is because they ACTUALLY VOTE. It is a well known fact that younger generations just don't vote. They don't care enough to vote. Barack Obama's election was a very different situation, he got the younger generations motivated, but his enthusiasm didn't stick around. It was an off-year election, with low voter turn out, and those who did vote, were old, because our generation couldn't get off their X-Box's for 3 seconds to go cast a ballot.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Al:

    I'm not entirely sure how you define loss, but gays in Maine could marry, and now they no longer have that option. And you apparently are confusing the word liberty with democracy, but that's semantics.

    There are numerous reasons that I believed so much in Obama, but for the most part it was simply my desire for the return of sane, pragmatic leadership in the most powerful post in the world. Be a cynical as you like, but he has inspired a generation to the degree that I don't think we've seen since Reagan.

    And the bit about healthcare was purely illustrative. Seriously, calm down.

    Again, as I said in the other post, Title VII applies to everyone, and that includes - shockingly - homosexuals. No so-called extension is required, as most homos in this country are citizens. As for the Supreme Court, well, go here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html

    Maybe I should meet some conservatives? Honey, I AM a conservative (just a moderate, intellectually honest one), and I grew up with a family of them. I was raised on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, and Anne Coulter. Letters to a Young Conservative was my political Bible. There is no logical, philosophical argument against gay marriage. None. Zero. I should know, I spent the first 15 years of my life looking for one while I was in the closet. And it bears repeating: you can argue against marriage all you want. That's fine. But it holds no relevance to the discussion at hand, which I've repeated numerous times is about equality, not marriage. Moreover, if you really think we can get the federal government out of marriage, I think it's you who's lucidity should be checked.


    You can make as many bullshitty, abstract statements that don't really mean anything as you want. The only unreasonable thing here is the lack of equality.
    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Dave: That's great! Also, my understanding is that the British created the civil partnership with more benefits than actual marriage, effectively causing heterosexuals to get ones too, and putting everyone on the same level. I think it's a great idea, personally.
    ReplyDelete
  7. It is nice to know you couldn’t name one conservative. I can’t force you to read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but if you chose to, you would see that there is no provision regarding sexual orientation. I don’t confuse words, liberty is freedom.

    What abstract statement did I make? It seems you have an issue with projection, given that that you write with such faith (your constant use of the word believe). Mr. O didn’t campaign on pragmatism, so, where you got that idea, I do not know. Reagan was a Jacobin. Chomsky labeled him as such; by the way, Noam Chomsky is a real conservative.

    Unfortunately you think sensational backwards thinking is conservatism, it is not, and never has been. Again, I can’t tell you what to read or how to use proper punctuation; I can only relay the truth.

    Inequality is defined by fundamental rights being denied, marriage is not a right afforded by the constitution, and it can’t be transmogrified into a right. You are painfully absentminded when it comes to defining what equality is.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Ugh, I have no desire to argue about the definition of conservative. You don't want to label Rush Limbaugh conservative? Fine. You're in the minority.

    If you want to explain to me how freedom prevailed in Maine with a yes on 1 vote, I'm all ears. From where I sit, all it did was take away someones freedom to recognize their relationship.

    And um, dude, if you're restricting equality to rights and not laws, you're a sham. Equality is typically not a word that requires definition, but I'll appease you, definition 2a from the OED being probably the most appropriate: "The condition of having equal dignity, rank, or privileges with others; the fact of being on an equal footing."

    I'm still waiting for an argument that shows denying gays the ability to marry while heteros enjoy it blissfully is not unequal.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh right, and you really need to read the constitution, because if your argument held about the Equal Protection Clause, then no minority explicitly mentioned is protected, and um, it doesn't mention any.

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    ReplyDelete
  10. K, Al referenced Title VII, which I wrongfully assumed was another name for the Equal Protection Clause. My apologies for the confusion.
    ReplyDelete
  11. The constitution is color blind, and, actually, there could have been an alternative to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, explaining this requires my dry-erase board and a lecture hall. Yes, I stand by my judgment of the supposed conservatives you listed. A violation of the Equal Protection Clause has to follow strict scrutiny

    Homosexual men and women cannot have children, in view of the fact that only half a dyad can offer their DNA to a child. A heterosexual couple can produce true offspring, while a homosexual couple has to choose which DNA can be transferred. That is the major significance in assigning marriage to gays.

    You will not give up on the idea that marriage is a right. What else is a right? How about healthcare? Yes! Ooh, maybe a livable wage is a right too. Get off of your asshole train and pick up a book.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Using that argument, impotent couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either? And then we can forcefully divorce any woman who's past menopause! Please. That argument is stale.

    AGAIN, marriage is not the right, equal protection under the law is.
    ReplyDelete
  13. What is stale is your laughable logic. A heterosexual couple can always in essence have children; it is only a matter of incidence when they cannot. Homosexuals can never have children because of incidence, it is absolute.

    HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE?!
    ReplyDelete
  14. An impotent couple cannot in essence. Nor can one beyond menopause. I don't understand how it's any different.Moreover, homosexual couples can adopt, as well as hire a surrogate to raise a child of their own (much like an impotent heterosexual couple). The societal benefit is equal in that regard.

    You haven't explained anything. All you've said is "A violation of the Equal Protection Clause has to follow strict scrutiny," which I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain?
    ReplyDelete
  15. @Lukas. It is a good thing, but Andrew wanted to get married in a church with all the pomp and ceremony associated with a wedding. That is not allowed within the current system.
    Wow. The church being somewhat behind the time, now there's a bombshell, but all in all it's a fairer treatment of a large part of our population than in the US.
    I hope your 'leaders' (term used in the loosest way possible) see sense and level the playing field.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin