The question is... NOW WHAT? What can we do? Appeal to the US Supreme Court? Protest? Move out of California? No! I, personally, don't see any of these as viable solutions to our problem. Before I give my 2 1/2 cents, i just want to say that i am open to a discussion if you think what i have to say is a complete crock of shit. Who knows, you might be able to change my mind. I'm 26 so maybe some of the things I think are a little naive. Here we go...
First of all, why are we bringing this to the US Supreme Court? Do you really believe that our nation is ready to allow same sex marriage? California sure didn't and I'm pretty sure that a majority isn't ready for it either. Putting this into the hands of the federal government could present us with a huge problem. What if this does go to trial and we lose? Then what? What if the federal government decides that it is time for them to step in and create some type of whack ass amendment for our senate and house reps to vote on? Is this what we want? Maybe the likelihood of this happening isn't that great, but why risk it?
So why don't we just wait? Instead of doing something rash, unorganized and sorta half assed, why don't we put together a really strong, well planned attack so that the next time we have a chance, we'll kick some ass. I understand that some people believe that this issue shouldn't just be addressed at a state level but at the federal lever. I mean, this country isn't called the United States of America for nothing. United being the key word. I agree. However, if we start with California and show other states that "hey, we were banned and now we're free to marry who we please," and you can do it too, that other states feel a little more confident to fight for their rights? The key is to get a majority of the states to be like Connecticut or Massachusetts. We can't be ignored if we are a majority. This is the long term goal.
Did anyone read that article by Mark Morford? If not, check it out.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL&tsp=1
Basically, it's saying that the younger generation is a lot more liberal and same sex marriage to them is just "whatever." It doesn't bother them. At the same time, the older generation, well, they're getting old and when you get old you die. Soooo.... less old people + more young people = less people voting for a ban on same sex marriage. If we're patient we will succeed. I also think educating people can be super helpful. Help others who don't understand, but are willing to listen, a chance to understand where we're coming from.
And then there's protesting, which i am not against. I just don't think that at this point in time, protesting can do much. It lets others hear our voice but it won't get anything overturned or changed. I just hope people go into the rallies and protests understanding this. BUT i don't think protesting all the time is going to be helpful to us. I fear that we're going to look like whining little babies who can't accept temporary defeat. Sadly, i have to say that this was put to a vote and we lost. Yes, its ridiculous that something like this was even put to a vote, but it was and we can't change that. So after a while (after maybe 3 or 4 protests), let's stop wasting our energy screaming in the streets, and lets put that energy towards our next plan of attack.
2 comments:
Agreed
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also don't think that a federal suit is all that bad. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the No on 8 campaign - Geoff Kors, Equality California and all of the rest of them really have done nothing for us except take money and continue to lose the fight on our behalf. I will go as far as to say that I'd vote against gay marriage in the future as a sign that I'm angry with them for their inaction on my behalf.
As a side note, I actually don't support gay "marriage" but do support blanket civil unions for heterosexual couples and gay couples because after all marriage really isn't anything more than a civil union performed in a church. Because one couple decides to get "married" (ie, have a ceremony performed by a member of the clergy who gladly took their "donation") doesn't some how mean their civil union is any more important than a couple who chose to be married at a banquet hall by a justice of the peace. The "marriage" is codified when the document (license) is sent by the State. But that's my own view on the whole marriage debate.
The problem is that the entire No on 8 campaign was "unorganized and sorta half assed" and that's why the Yes on 8 campaign was so effective against us. We had our guard down, big time.
One of the things to keep in mind is that by the time this reaches the Supreme Court, the look and feel of the court's mentality probably will have changed. In addition, if anyone will listen to Ted Olson it is a very conservative Associate, Justice Thomas. So we may have that on our side in terms of a foe on our side.
The alternative is going back to the ballot box and "campaigning" to change individual voters' minds one at a time. In my opinion, that will take just as long, if not longer to achieve. I'm at a point, personally, where I believe MORE action is necessary and not just the "tell them your story" type. There were some very VERY powerful movies and commercials put together to counter the Yes on 8 campaign. We never saw them. Why? People who lead the No on 8 campaign wanted to take the campaign in a different direction. You see how effective the Yes on 8 videos such as the "Gathering Storm" one was, well we had equally powerful videos that someone decided we weren't go to unleash on our opponents. Big mistake, I think.
If the right has anything to say about it, which I am sure they will, it will be to consider filing a US Constitutional Amendment similar to the one that the CA Supreme Court just upheld - carving out something against gay marriage or banning it all together. But how likely is it that it will pass? We have four states now that have gay marriage laws on the books; plus five states with marriage bills in the works, and another four states considering SSM protections. That's a total of 13 states that the right would have to go and convince to CHANGE their minds re SSM. Then, if they even are successful in getting a US Constitutional Amendment, they'd need 2/3 of what is a currently Democtrat-dominated Congress to change things. So, I don't think it will happen and I therefor don't buy the argument that this could blow up in our face.
Post a Comment