"Enthusiastic Approval" for Prop-8 Decision
The American Humanist Association (AHA) expressed enthusiastic approval with yesterday's ruling by a federal judge that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional
[American Humanist Association, "Humanists Celebrate Proposition 8 Ruling", 5 August 2010; my bold.]
I quite like that: "enthusiastic approval", and I think I will express some of my own enthusiastic approval, right here.
I see that a popular way to celebrate is by quoting speech-balloons from equality's political opponents as their heads explode on hearing this breakthrough news about the progress of equality for all Americans and I admit to a certain gratification in that approach, but I really hate to give the pin-head conservatives that much recognition or link love. Well, maybe one or two things.
But first: I'll add my voice to the enthusiastic-approval crowd and congratulate Judge Walker on what has to be regarded as an historic and heroic decision even though we could equally well see his decision as a calm and dispassionate rendering from the trial proceedings. The anti-marriage crowd has had their "day in court" and discovered that, under oath and subjected to the scrutiny of jurisprudence (rather than, say, through the medium of expensive, political television ads), their arguments in favor of so-called "traditional marriage" are merely irrational and irrelevant emotion appeals to conservative fears and vague anxieties about "the children". When your defense in court is that marriage is obviously between a man and a woman for purposes of making children and no evidence is required to support the idea–well, you should expect to lose your case.
The rhetoric of the right likes to characterize these events as "discovering a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution". It is, of course, no such thing. We homos are not looking to create a new, separate-but-equal thing known as "same-sex marriage", we are merely demanding equality of access to the recognizable, civil institution known as marriage. Not a "right to same-sex marriage" but the "right to marriage for same-sex partners". It's to emphasize this notion that the question here is not about so-called "special rights" (rhetoric that is now so eighties) that I refuse that locution in favor of the more honest "marriage equality".
It's with curiosity that I read one popular meme/talking-point from the right, that with a "stroke of his pen" (cliches are very popular in emotional appeals), Judge Walker has "invalidated" the vote of 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8. True enough if you want to put it that way, but it curiously overlooks the fact that this decision validates the vote of the 6.4 million people who rightly voted against Proposition 8. (Votes were tabulated by the California Secretary of State here.)We note that the difference in number between the two groups is only about 10%, and yet the first group is thought by some to be egregiously dissed. Now, I'm not going to give any credence to the idea that civil rights should be subject to the will of the mob — a bunch notoriously not known for their rational, even-handed opinions — but voter turnout for that election was 79% (see, e.g., here), so neither of these numbers represents a majority of California voters and certainly not, as the equality-opponents' rhetoric likes to claim, a majority of Californians.
But enough. I'll spend the rest of my day expressing my enthusiastic approval. Perhaps later tonight I'll finally get to reading Judge Walker's findings.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 7 August 2010 at 01.12
Permalink
"Discovering a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution" has a perfect John Cornyn and Orren Hatch ring to it. I can just hear Hatch's voice climbing several octaves while reciting it.
That bit about invalidating the vote of 7 million Californians is ironic. It points up how many Californians got it wrong about what the Constitution requires, and how one judge came along and corrected their mistake.
on Sunday, 8 August 2010 at 15.13
Permalink
Understanding the difference in a civil right and sacred rite is a leap many have not yet made.
Rights for all, vocation for some. It's a leap, but we can (and are) making it.