Prop 8

[Portia]

This is related to a post from yesterday/today, I don't know, it was still friggin' 90-odd degrees in my Seattle apartment in the middle of the night. And you thought it was rainy up here . . .

So, did any of you personally cold-call, donate money, or blog supportively (the new political activism!) for Prop 8, specifically? Do you sort of feel like your time/money/efforts/blog post was wasted? Did you change your mind? Do you think the judge is taking away God-given democratic rights, or safeguarding the people's liberties? Perhaps unsurprisingly, I take a modestly liberal stance, and am generally pro-equal-marriage/domestic partnership rights, for gays, cohabitators, of-age polygamists, what have you. I think this should be more of an issue of being able to give your partner/child security, and it's hard to argue that a recent conception of the "nuclear family" somehow "wins."

But anyway, I just wanted an update from the battleground area, because (a) Seattle hipster culture is downright militant and hostile, basically a "screw the Mormon church!" and "obviously this is self-evident, you Neanderthal bigots!" but what did I expect from Dan Savage? & (b) Mormons, quite frankly, don't care quite so much or quite so deeply about this. Another former Board Writer's father is a bishop, and a perfectly orthodox one at that, but only read the statement over the pulpit, and left it at that, and is personally quite liberal in his beliefs. No one up here seemed to campaign, per se, for its passage. And I don't know, I hate losing, so it would probably bug me to no end to pour time and energy into a campaign just to see it lose. I felt the same way about fair Boundaries, an initiative to end gerrymandering (hopefully less controversial?) in Utah, and yeah, it didn't even make it on the ballot . . . sigh . . . I mean, here was something I talked to strangers on the phone about and signed, and sometimes I feel like the individual has very little say in the political process, that the Hope-Change-Train of a New Youth Movement, Hoorah! has come & gone, and now we mostly play Tetris and hope we keep our jobs and seem completely disconnected from real political issues. Commenting on a CNN story that either Mexicans are job-stealing lowlifes who should all go back to Spain or that we should have compassion, and that our strawberries are cheaper, and what of the 14th Amendment! . . .both are passive, easy, anonymous, and don't change a thing.

So, regardless of whether you're like the Black Sheep and have several close gay friends, or like Vorpal Blade and have traditional views of the definition of marriage, does anyone feel like what they believe actually matters? I voted for a Washington senator based on non-loopiness and a general impression of good policy and values, but please, this person makes nearly $200,000 to oh, that's right, probably pass no significant legislation. I just don't see how the Older Generation expect Generation Y to NOT be apathetic when nothing we care about seems to change (ahem. oil spill, anyone? Tony Hayward getting a job in Russia? Give me a job in Russia! Salyut!); and it's pretty widely acknowledged that we'll have significantly diminished career prospects, anyway. I guess the optimism of the hippie movement of the Reagan revolution seems silly and unreasonable to me--it's not like I think I live in an oppressive, fallen, or horrid society--America is still powerful and innovative in many important ways, and fortunately, I still have a high standard of living. But a lot of people aren't and don't. Does anyone have any good argument why I should care about our political process?

[TheBlackSheep]

You know, I was one of them there teenagers who thought she could change the world. My friends and I made and sold buttons and donated the money to Africa, I once enthusiastically interned for an important Nevada politician, and I've voted in every single election (primary and general) one way or another (I've voted absentee, early, and in person on the day, and I've participated in a caucus) since I turned 18. And yet, after the '08 elections, in which I donated money to the Obama campaign and drove 12 hours so I could participate in said caucus, I felt cold and apathetic. I knew Obama wasn't going to be a wunderkind, but there was no way I was voting for Hillary or a republican (more specifically a really old republican who had Sarah Palin riding shotgun), and who doesn't like to imagine that tomorrow someone's going to upset the status quo? But of course it is business as usual, and that plus how incredibly conflicted I was over the whole Prop 8 thing all of a sudden I've lost all my political fervor. I feel you so keenly it's a little sad.

The recent ruling of Judge Walker didn't help that, either. While I now know where I stand on the whole gay marriage issue, I'm honestly conflicted about the votes of so many people being turned over by this one judge, whether that's the process or not. But I still went to the rally our fun gay friends put on in Salt Lake right after the ruling, and got my political mojo back, at least somewhat. It really had nothing to do with gay marriage at all, but instead with anti-discrimination laws in Utah as they apply to the LGBTQA individuals. Since the church came out in favor of extending housing and job protection laws to gay people, gay rights organizations have had growing success with getting unfair laws overturned. I'm aware that this has a lot more to do with the church than individuals' beliefs, but it is still really encouraging to hear stories of people rallying in support of a good cause and getting their conservative legislators to at least consider looking the old laws over. Right now there's a lot of work going on in this area in the state, and I'm becoming involved. It's even motivated me to change my voter registration to Utah, finally, because while my increasingly liberal votes will never really count for anything in Utah County, I feel motivated to be part of the local political scene. That, and Harry Reid will still be a senator after the elections with or without me, because apparently Nevada republicans are idiots and ran the only people who could lose against him, bless them.

I guess what has helped me is finding one local thing that I care about and getting involved in that one thing. But you know, I'm good at losing these kinds of contests, because at least when I lose I get to be ridiculously indignant, both because of the people who won and the people who sat on their behinds and spouted their opinions without doing diddly squat. I don't really think we can do much about the huge things that are going on, but I still hold hope for local issues that really matter to us, which is a big change from a couple of weeks ago.

[TheBlackSheep]

Oh, also, my father the elected judge always said that if you wanted to make it through a primary for a judgeship in our not-small county, all you had to do was get 250 of your friends to vote. This is because voter turnout in many counties is often below 10%. This is why I continue to vote in primary elections. My vote matters more.

[NerdGirl]

I feel like what I believe matters. I don't think I could show you any evidence that it does, but I think maybe it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy where I think that what I believe matters, so I go out of my way to make it matter (or at least to feel like it does). I do get what you're saying, though, it's just that this whole Prop 8 thing was so far removed from my life that it seemed more like a weird reality show to me. I have a fair number of gay friends. But they can get married here if they want to, and no one's trying to stop them and no one here is worried that the government will shut the church down because we don't marry gay people in the temple (although some of the people are convinced that the church will get shut down if gay people can get married in California - I wonder if they even know that we have gay marriage here). It's just such a non-issue here that the fiasco in California seems kind of unreal. I just can't personalize it.

But now I have two semi-related questions:
1. Did they read that statement about Prop 8 over the pulpit all over the US, or just in California?
2. The Black Sheep - What don't you like about Hillary? Just curious. I'm not her biggest fan or anything, but I think if I were an American I would have wanted to vote for her solely because I think she would have done things with healthcare that I would have liked. Healthcare trumps every other issue for me.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

One vote doesn't make a difference, but one voice—that can convince a lot of people that their one votes count—can make a difference. I'm a little apathetic about voting right now.

At the same time, it's important for us to be informed about the issues and engage in political discussion for our own benefit as we (hopefully) configure and reconfigure our world view based on our observations.

Is it possible to be for proposition 8 and against the proposition 8 campaign?

[TheBlackSheep]

No one here is worried that the government will shut the church down because we don't marry gay people in the temple (although some of the people are convinced that the church will get shut down if gay people can get married in California - I wonder if they even know that we have gay marriage here).

Bless you for saying this.

Did they read that statement about Prop 8 over the pulpit all over the US, or just in California?

I believe it was just in California, but people everywhere were invited to the Prop 8 satellite broadcast at their meetinghouses.

The Black Sheep - What don't you like about Hillary? Just curious. I'm not her biggest fan or anything, but I think if I were an American I would have wanted to vote for her solely because I think she would have done things with healthcare that I would have liked. Healthcare trumps every other issue for me.

Cheers for universal healthcare. Someday in the US, someday. At the time my biggest problems with her were:

1. I didn't want the White House to have been in the same two families for 24-28 years. 20 years was long enough.
2. In 2000 and 2004 George Bush won because the democrats chose the wrong person to run. Republicans and many democrats really disliked Hillary Clinton in 2008. You'll have to forgive me, but after eight years of Bush-osity my biggest priority was not electing another republican. (Like I said, folks, I'm less than enthused with our current president, too, so don't go off on me.)
3. The flip-flopping! Oh, the flip-flopping!

[Kissables]

I was a senior in high school in CA and was in one of the most heated areas. I remember Prop 22 from several years ago when I was in elementary school. I personally cold-called, and did door to door stuff (asking if they were aware of the issue, how they were planning on voting, if they wanted more info, if they wanted a yard sign, if they were interested in volunteering, etc). I don't think it was a waste of time, even though we had to replace our front window when it was shattered and our yard sign was stolen. I learned a lot about the issue, and I think I supported prop 8 a lot more after than I did before my experiences. I do have some gay friends, and one used to be a member of the church. I was careful not to be offensive, but to stress that I felt that this was right, and that they aren't getting anything taken away. They still have civil unions, which give them all the same rights as marriages.

The biggest eye opener for me was the terrible behavior of the other side. My stake gave out posters with sayings on them and asked the older youth and adults to stand on busy street corners and rallies. We had so much fun and really rallied together. We stood on different street corners for several weeks before the election, even in pouring rain the week before the election. We had water balloons, hot coffee, moldy pizza boxes (who keeps moldy pizza boxes?), lit matches, and large rocks thrown at us, and several people who tried to run us down with their cars. One of the best things was that just when they were starting to get to you, someone unexpected would drive by and let you know that they supported you. People covered in tattoos and piercings would stop their cars to let us know that they were thankful that we were standing up for something when it seemed like no one else was. The 2 weeks before the election were the worst for the other side. Somehow we ended up with huge numbers, even of less active members of the church, staunch democrats, and strangers from other faiths. I stood on one of the busiest intersections with at least 50 other supporters in the wind and rain while people were throwing and yelling things at us, but I felt a sense of community, faith, and a surety that I was doing what was right. Before I started volunteering with the campaign and praying about what I should do, I didn't think it was a big deal. I felt like maybe I was a bad person for not being tolerant of other people's choices. It wasn't until I was in the thick of it that I realized how important it was, and the shock of how bad the opponents were acting was a real eye opener.

[TheBlackSheep]

Is it possible to be for proposition 8 and against the proposition 8 campaign?

I was! I was!

[bobtheenchantedone]

I believe that my opinions can make a difference. In fact, I know they can. They've certainly made a difference in my mother. I don't mention politics in my house any more.

[Marduk]

I think the key issue here (without getting too much into all the other stuff you said Portia, you certainly did say a mouthful) is that the political juggernaut marches slowly. I'm actually fairly happy that the proposition got overturned, and I'll tell you why. Do I support gay marriage? No, I don't. I believe in extending every benefit that marriage entails, and I think governmental process is all too wrapped up in what marriage means (why does the IRS care if I'm married? Can't my insurance just grant benefits to my family, regardless of whether I'm married to the person I'm living with?). That being said, it shows the political process works, and helps people to get animated about what they care about.

Many feel like their vote was discarded with a prop 8 overturn. I don't think they should. The political machine in California now knows where the (albeit slim) majority of their voters lie on that issue. The rest of the country can take into account what California feels as well. So the machine gets a bit more grease, and things move ever so slowly in a different direction.

TBS, I'm perfectly happy with this president. Yes, he's failed to accomplish many of the things he promised. But I expected that, as any rational person should have. He's made great strides in a great many areas, and quite frankly, his actions have done much good in the world. Yes, the world is still rife with evils. He's no Messiah. He's just one man, in a fairly powerful position, trying to bring logic, reason, and intellectual process back into government. Any of those things have taken hundreds of years to corrode. We'd have to be ignorant to expect them to change in an instant.

Let's look at white/black race relations. 300 years ago, they (African-Americans) were property. 150 years ago, they were property. 145 years ago, they were emancipated, which had little real instant impact. They still could not vote or own property, and had many other rights denied them. 100 years ago, they still could not vote or own property in most areas, and had many other rights denied them. 50 years ago, those things started to change. Today, they can own property and vote, and are treated by most rationally and as equals. There is still much room for improvement in this area, but we are miles and miles ahead of where we used to be. But that has been over ten lifetimes. Why should change in current issues be any faster?

[vorpal blade]

Great post, Kissables.

I spent many Saturdays knocking on doors and talking to people about Prop 8. I contributed financially. I wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper. I stood on street corners holding signs. And, like Kissables, I experienced the hate, intolerance, and animosity of the other side. And I would do it again, knowing that a single judge would overthrow it, because it was the right thing to do. I wasn't surprised to see it overturned, I expected it, but I believe the judge is blinded by the craftiness of men. We don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, and if it comes to the Supreme Court we don't know how they will decide. Knowing the kind of ideologues President Obama has picked for the Supreme Court we know how those individuals will vote. But we do all that we can do, and leave the rest to God. I'm certain that overthrowing Prop. 8 will be bad for this country, unless it helps people to wake up to the seriousness of the situation.

[Arcaiden]

They still have civil unions, which give them all the same rights as marriages.

This is simply not true. Gay marriage in California is an important stepping stone to over 1200 federal rights. So when you prevent gay marriage in California, you prevent the extension of these rights to gay couples. Other rights aside, the term marriage also extends to all sorts of other situations that aren't technically rights. The ability to book hotel rooms, receive discounts, rent cars, all sorts of business attractions that heterosexual couples take for granted. You have no idea how demeaning it can feel to be denied something in front of your spouse or kids, simply because of who you are married to.

We had so much fun and really rallied together.

This was also one of the more disturbing aspects of the proposition 8 campaign. It was so much fun making your marriage illegal! People had parties, and pizza and brownies, all while removing the ability for gay people to get married. Disturbing.

[Tao]

They still have civil unions, which give them all the same rights as marriages.

This is simply not true. Gay marriage in California is an important stepping stone to over 1200 federal rights. So when you prevent gay marriage in California, you prevent the extension of these rights to gay couples. Other rights aside, the term marriage also extends to all sorts of other situations that aren't technically rights. The ability to book hotel rooms, receive discounts, rent cars, all sorts of business attractions that heterosexual couples take for granted. You have no idea how demeaning it can feel to be denied something in front of your spouse or kids, simply because of who you are married to.

I quite agree, not being allowed to visit a loved one in the hospital due to not being "immediate family" comes to mind. Though I'd be interested in seeing an enumeration of those 1200 rights, all too often such numbers are thrown around without an awareness of their depth. Just what are the different implications of a marriage and a civil union? Also, political philosophy of a government's responsibility towards growth aside, why were those rights limited in the first place? Was the reason based entirely off of a Christian view of morals? If so, do we then offer those rights to polyamorous groups? What about age? At 12 I had the intellectual capacity of an 18 year old, have I lived years unjustly denied federal rights I could have claimed then? Do such limitations need to be enforced on non-human life partners?

While it may appear a case of reductio ad absurdum, these questions and more have and will come up. I have a friend who was married just after her 11th birthday, by the time she was of 'proper' age to marry, she was a widow with two young children to raise thanks to a New York gunman who didn't see eye to eye with them. I'd not want to be the one to tell her that her marriage was of no value. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of very sick individuals who would leap at the chance to have legal access to impose their will upon young children. How does a governmental body differentiate between the two groups?

We had so much fun and really rallied together.

This was also one of the more disturbing aspects of the proposition 8 campaign. It was so much fun making your marriage illegal! People had parties, and pizza and brownies, all while removing the ability for gay people to get married. Disturbing.

Eh, celebrations over a common cause are not so uncommon. Someone on the opposite end of the spectrum might be similarly disturbed at the nigh-identical parties, pizza and brownies shared by those wishing to vote against their views on marriage. They'd be wrong to do so, but well within their rights. As were you.

[Arcaiden]

Though I'd be interested in seeing an enumeration of those 1200 rights...

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples. Reading into that number leads to me that it might be somewhat inflated, since their methods rely on identifying actual laws instead of benefits/rights. Regardless, there are a substantial number of benefits here, many of which relate to the following:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

If memory serves me correctly, President Obama issued an executive order earlier this year requiring hospitals that use medicaid/medicare to allow for partner visitation regardless of marital status. It's still somewhat fuzzy though - carrying around all sorts of documents to try and prove this sort of stuff isn't really realistic, and hospitals can be slugish and tragically ignorant in some of these cases. Every few months (literally) I read about another case of a couple denied visitation rights during the final hours of one of the individuals lives.

More info at: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarr ... nefits.htm

[NerdGirl]

Three more thoughts about this:

1. I have a really hard time remembering if "yes on prop 8" means yes to gay marriage or no to gay marriage. I think it means no, but that's just confusing.

2. Regarding the most recent question on the board, I think Kirk Cameron went on the Bill O'Reily show to rant about gay marriage, but I don't know if he counts as a celebrity anymore.

3. I think a solution to this whole thing would be to get the government out of the business of marriage entirely. Let anyone who wants to have a "civil union" that gives them all those rights that Arcaiden just listed (welcome, Arcaiden!) but don't let the government be the ones to decide what they're calling marriage. Then let people have their various religious marriage ceremonies in their various churches, or whatever other kind of ceremony they want to have. But separate the religious ceremony aspect of it from the legal rights aspect of it.

[Marduk]

3. I think a solution to this whole thing would be to get the government out of the business of marriage entirely. Let anyone who wants to have a "civil union" that gives them all those rights that Arcaiden just listed (welcome, Arcaiden!) but don't let the government be the ones to decide what they're calling marriage. Then let people have their various religious marriage ceremonies in their various churches, or whatever other kind of ceremony they want to have. But separate the religious ceremony aspect of it from the legal rights aspect of it.

This might be the best possible solution, if only it were feasible. You're talking about going against literally thousands of years of public thought and culture, and literally hundreds of years of policy- and law-making. This would require, as has been pointed out, making changes to over a thousand laws currently in place in various municipalities in the United States, all of which would be vehemently opposed. We've seen with healthcare already the effort it took to get one rather small change (in comparison, certainly it is sweeping in its own right, but it would be nothing compared to this sort of change) made, now imagine that a thousand times over.

Remember the mantra: incremental change over drastic. It is always better thought out, and leaves fewer people angry.

[Tao]

Thank you kindly Arcaiden.

1. I have a really hard time remembering if "yes on prop 8" means yes to gay marriage or no to gay marriage. I think it means no, but that's just confusing.

Prop 8 was a proposition to add the following sentence to the state constitution: "Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

3. I think a solution to this whole thing would be to get the government out of the business of marriage entirely. Let anyone who wants to have a "civil union" that gives them all those rights that Arcaiden just listed (welcome, Arcaiden!) but don't let the government be the ones to decide what they're calling marriage.

I'd agree with you in a large part, and it appears that is close to the case in at least one state. According to this, some of the benefits Vermont offers in their civil unions are:

* State pay for military service.
* Causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status.
* Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer (during life or at death) of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold property as tenants by the entirety.
* Group insurance for state employees.
* Family leave benefits.
* State and municipal tax laws, except for estate tax provisions.
* Emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification.

While this seems very similar to the rights granted to a married couple, I would be interested to see how effective it is. Bigotry and bias will always be there, and I wonder if the existence of such similar parallel institutions would alleviate or enhance any tension between the two ideologies.

[vorpal blade]

Welcome to the discussion group, Arcaiden. Nice to hear your opinion.

So…we are talking about benefits, and not rights? Benefits are giving by employers to entice employees to work for them. I don’t see that it is the business of government to regulate what those benefits must be, or dictate what kind of relationships necessarily must be recognized as deserving of benefits. I think that before the government gets involved it needs to be shown that there is a legitimate governmental interest in doing so. The government has for centuries recognized that they have an interest in promoting, protecting, and nurturing traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Where is the evidence that the government has a legitimate interest in promoting, protecting, and nurturing a sexual relationship between men and men, or women and women?

In regard to your list of “1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples.” We could discuss them one by one, if you like. The easiest one to begin with on your short (and redundant) list might be the “bereavement leave.” I realize that you are just quoting website http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarr ... nefits.htm, but I’m here to tell you that the list is misleading. There is no United States government benefit provided to legally married couples for bereavement. The federal government does not have a “bereavement leave” category for its employees, either. Here are a couple of websites that explain bereavement leave.

http://employeeissues.com/bereavement_leave.htm

Bereavement Leave Benefits
Bereavement leave benefits are a matter of agreement between employers and employees or employers and labor unions that represent employees.
In other words, there are no Federal employment or labor laws that require U.S. employers to provide bereavement leave, whether with or without pay.

http://dying.lovetoknow.com/Bereavement ... deral_Laws

Bereavement Leave Federal Laws in the United States
Are there laws in the United States that deal with an employee's rights when a family member dies? Isn't everyone entitled to time off with pay upon the death of a family member? These are good questions. Although most companies have a nice benefits program for each employee, legally, an employer is not required to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave.
Paid leave for holidays, vacation, sickness or bereavement following the death of a close family member are considered benefits. Each business, company, or institution has a policy outlining what these are. There are no state laws requiring that any benefits be given and there are no bereavement leave federal laws. The policies, including how much time with pay is given, are all determined by each individual company. Some places of employment may require that you show verification, or proof, that your loved one has died. A copy of an obituary should suffice.

I'd be happy to discuss the other benefits as well.

1. I have a really hard time remembering if "yes on prop 8" means yes to gay marriage or no to gay marriage. I think it means no, but that's just confusing.

Prop 8 stated "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" A "yes" vote meant relationships such as a same-sex relationship could not be called a marriage.

[Kissables]

Although it might not be specifically allowed, I have spent 3 years working in 2 different hospitals simultaneously and have never seen a gay partner denied the right to be with their partner while in the hospital. Children are almost always barred from the ICU and recovery rooms, but I have never seen a spouse, fiance, or "partner" denied the right to be with the patient.

[vorpal blade]

I think you would be hard pressed to find a hospital with a policy that permitted opposite-sex partners to have access to a patient, but denied a same-sex partner. I'd be interesting in seeing any evidence of that.

There have been a few well-publicized cases where a person claimed to be denied the right to be with their loved one because it was a same-sex relationship. President Obama last April ordered hospitals to grant gay visitation and medical rights, but this might be seen as mere posturing. The hospitals have already been following such a policy. At any rate it shows that same-sex marriage wouldn't be required, just Presidential fiat.

The case that prompted President Obama's action concerned Janice (some reports say "Janice," others "Janet) Langbehn and her children not being allowed access to Lisa Pond in the trauma emergency room in a Miami trauma center. Her story is a sad one, but as usual there is another side to the story. The hospital did ask Janice for her consent in Lisa's treatment. Janice was unable to show in a court of law that she or the children (all under age 14) were treated any differently then other spouses, loved ones, or children would have been treated under similar circumstances. It is the hospital's policy to keep all of these people out of the emergency rooms, for good medical reasons. One can argue, and I might agree, that hospitals tend to keep family members in the dark, and are not as concerned about the feelings of loved ones as they should be, but this is a criticism that applies equally to traditional families as well as untraditional families. Janice might as well have complained that she was treated the way she was because she was a Catholic, or has red hair.