As an emotional guy with a short temper, I can clearly relate to those gay activists who angrily demonstrated in cities across the country yesterday as they had all across California in the immediate aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8.
Like those protesters, I too have had to contend with some difficult feelings in the wake of electoral disappointment. Of course, in my case, it was Democratic victories across the nation. I’m sure many others on the right experienced similar emotions.
It is easy to give into our emotions. And sometimes giving in helps us deal with difficult situations. But, it’s not always productive. Indeed, more often than not it can be quite destructive.
When I reflect on the times I let my anger get the best of me in the past twelve days, moments when I snapped at or ignored friends, I wish I had exercised greater self-control, as do many who sometimes say or do something based on a momentary impulse. Yet, the activists who protested yesterday turned their anger into a mass movement as manifested by the myriad rallies yesterday.
We all have to learn to understand our emotions and learn to contain them when they prevent us from moving ahead in life. That appeals to political movements as it applies to individuals. I might be more sympathetic to the rallies had they been held before the election in order to persuade people to vote, “No.”
(That said, some of the protesters’ antics might have had the opposite effect.)
The issue should be channeling that activity into a productive endeavor. Take a gander at the current discourse on the right. The subhead, for example, of Karl Rove’s piece in Newsweek applies to gay marriage advocates as much as it applies to the conservatives he is addressing: “We’ve been walloped in consecutive elections*, but we can’t just dwell on the past. The future is already here.”
As the future is already here, we need be forward-looking to face it. And the demographics look good for the repeal of Proposition 8. Just as they look good for holding the line on federal spending and containing (if not constricting) the size of the federal government.
The goal must be to develop strategies to effect those changes, not to wallow in our misery.
——-
*The consecutive elections for gay marriage advocate would be the passage of every intiative seeking codify the definition marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The left is very good at that. I think it’s time the left’s opponents learned from their example.
My anger has cooled somewhat about the entire election results, but I hold out little hope the GOP can reform itself in time for 2010 and like you question how productive these Prop 8 protests are. I dunno, as long as they are peaceful, which most seem to be, they could have some impact in certain areas but may also cause a backlash in others. I support the overall goal but for now my attention is on the CA Supremes and their decision whether Prop 8 is a proper amendment or an unconstitutional revision. Interesting to see the arguments and the split among some conservative bloggers. Volokh for one argues that its a revision. I guess we’ll know later this week perhaps. Regardless of the outcome, I still say that CA has a weird system that I’m glad is not in place in my state.
I find the behavior of the”activists”-neat term that- to be a cross between childish tantrums and bullying.I’ve lived what most of you would call a very long time,and hope I’ve never acted in that manner.
John, I’ve been keeping a keen eye on Volokh too (one of my long time favorite law and educational links on my blog). It will be very interesting to see how this plays out when it gets to the courts. My bet is that they will rule it a revision, and suffer the public backlash for years to come. But since being a judge is a thankless job anyway, why should they even care (for better or for worse, it’s kinda the way things are supposed to be designed).
What I would really love to see in the aftermath of all this, is a process that makes it much harder to amend the state constitution. I don’t like doing it via initiative, but if it must be done in that fashion, at the very least it should require a super majority of the popular vote.
I just don’t see how they can honorably rule it a revision since it doesn’t address issues the farmers of the state constitution even considered.
No one at that time would have considered marriage anything but a union between individuals of different genders.
I think it would be bad for California — and even worse for the debate over gay marriage should the state Supreme Court overturn the will of the people.
And the demographics look good for the repeal of Proposition 8. Just as they look good for holding the line on federal spending and containing (if not constricting) the size of the federal government.
GPW – I sure have to admire your optimism.
I would think the ruling would go something like this:
The Constitution never specified that marriage was between a man and a woman, therefore this revises the standard and must be classified as a revision.
I’ve read opinions on both arguments, and I have no idea how the court will respond. My gut instinct is that they will declare it a revision and be done with it.
BTW, doesn’t it bother you that it is harder to revise the constitution than it is to amend it? I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again – What a screwed up state we live in.
Yes, do have a problem with the facility of amending the constitution. I have a bigger problem with the Supreme Court overturning the long-standing definition of marriage. Recall that unlike “miscegenation” laws which were a statutory creation, sexual difference has always, until recently, defined marriage.
Sonicfrog, I don’t buy your argument about the constitution’s silence meaning an initiative revises the standard. In fact, the constitution’s silence argues against the notion of a revision. Prop 8 doesn’t revise the fundamental structure of California government nor the basic rights it protects.
For it to revise, it would have to change language in that document itself. All it does is add a provision which changes only the state Supreme Court’s understanding of the document, an understanding based on finding a notion (“dignity”) in the constitution which just isn’t there.
(When I searched the state constitution for that word, I found it only in Article 1, §28 (a)(2) on the treatment of victims of crime.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I buy that argument either. IANAL, so I’m not qualified to really debate on the specifics or the legal justification. But I’m just saying that that is possibly how they will convert this from an amendment to a revision.
Recall that in the 1940s-1960s nearly identical arguments were made by the proponents of anti-miscegenation laws, except they said that marriage had always been defined as between people of the same race, in addition to the other qualifications. (I am obviously not equating the arguers, just the arguments!)
Really, appeal to tradition is a pretty weak argument to begin with. And then on top of that, we don’t have a longstanding definition of what marriage is. I mean what tradition do we follow? The one where a woman is used to seal deals? The one where she is property? The one where she can be beaten by her husband? The polygamous one? (This one is still practiced in many places in the world and is the historical standard in many societies.) The one where there is one wife, but some (often large) number of consorts? (Hell, that’s even how Abraham rolled in the Bible. And David. And so on.) The one where “love” doesn’t enter into it and marriages are pre-arranged in a business-like manner, complete with payment by way of dowry?
So if you’re going to appeal to what marriage has “always” been as an argument against gay marriage, then please tell me; which “always” is it?
[None of those things is an always. None. Not one. The other things you mention are only aspects of marriage in certain cultures, not its essence, none contrast across cultures. Gender difference is, as you might put it, the only “always” in the definition of marriage, even in societies which allowed polygamy. –Dan]
And if I can ask that question, how can you say that marriage has “always” been one way or another?
(I understand that your understanding is larger than this single point, so please don’t counter by explaining that. Mine is too. Beyond my personal thought and study, I just finished facilitating/leading/participating in a lengthy discussion of the ELCA’s Draft Statement on Human Sexuality in my church community. I am here just addressing one point and stating why I feel it is not a valid one. I say and intend nothing more and nothing less.)
Recall that in the 1940s-1960s nearly identical arguments were made by the proponents of anti-miscegenation laws, except they said that marriage had always been defined as between people of the same race, in addition to the other qualifications.
Except that the majority of states had already by that time a) repealed their miscegenation laws or b) had never had ones in the first place.
Furthermore, PSUdain, given that you oppose “tradition” being used as a guide, then get rid of the one male-one female tradition, get rid of the age limit tradition, and get rid of the close-blood limit tradition.
(Sighs) Yes, clearly I disagree on at least a one point. Therefore I want to throw all to the wind and allow anything to happen. Or, you know, not.
Furthermore I said nothing about tradition as a guide, which is often used by people, sometimes to good effect, sometimes to ill effect. That’s another can of worms that we could discuss another time (or now if you prefer). I was talking about tradition as an argument for a case.
And your statements do not change the fact that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. There is, however, a difference between saying, “This is how it’s always been done, therefore this is how must be done still,” and saying, “This is how it’s been done in the past for some time. Here’s why. And here’s why I think these are still good reasons to do it like such.”
Going back to tradition as a guide, now; tradition becomes useful when you analyse it and figure out why it is so. Otherwise we end up like that story about the daughter and the ham in the roasting pan and waste perfectly good meat. (Here’s the best account that I could find.)
I don’t necessarily think an initiative process is wrong in amending a State constitution, but the threshold should be higher like the 60% requirement in Florida. Actually, if you combine the 2/3’s approval of the legislature with 60% of the electorate that to me seems to be better. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to amend the US Constitution is that the Founders didn’t want mob rule where the passions of the majority could be whipped into a frenzy and eventually undo the fabric of the Republic. It may seem undemocratic to some (an ironic charge since we are a Republic and NOT a democracy) but it makes better governance and provides stability for society overall. I say this even though in this particular case I personally do not believe these marriage amendments are legit under the 14th Amendment. That’s a separate issue from the fact that I think it’s better to make adoption of amendments tougher.
Yet the ruling came not on marriage per se but on equal application of the law under the CA Constitution. That isn’t limited except by other provisions of the CA Constitution, which unless Prop 8 is validated does not include marriage as such an exception. I’ve heard Scalia himself talk about principles of the US Constitution like equal treatment under the law being applied to modern circumstances not to invent new rights but a logical extension of the same. And yes, I’m aware that as is currently known Scalia would not dream that same-sex marriage is included in such a reading of equal treatment while others obviously disagree.
I disagree about results for California, except the next judicial election will prove to be interesting if such a ruling occurs, but I do agree somewhat for other States. It’s difficult to say though because the same religious right groups are already pushing for amendments in the remaining 20 states regardless of what the CA Supremes decide about Prop 8. Frankly at this point, the Rubicon has been crossed and their’s no going back now. If the CA Supremes overturn Prop 8 I’ll welcome that as something which will help efforts in other States in the long run but damage efforts in the short term. If they decide to uphold it, unless movement can be made in NY or NJ I’d say that same-sex marriage is for the most part a dead issue for a generation.
And here’s another argument against the appeal to tradition. The changes in the law, if Prop 8 were to be ruled a revision, invalid, whatever, would not change the status of straight couples who get married; they still get married with no impedance created by this change. The change would simply add to the list of those granted the privileged of being married.
Tradition????? OK.
OK. Old testament allowed polygamy:
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”
Age limitation?
The average age of a female in a first time marriage had been 14 to 16 up till the twentieth century. The age of the husbands was often older, due to various conflicts where large numbers of younger men perished.
Close-blood limit tradition? They may be based on superstition and not science.
Prof Bittles reviewed 48 studies from 11 countries and found that the risks of birth defects rose from about 2 per cent in the general population to 4 per cent in consanguineous or same blood couples.
He found that only 1.2 per cent suffered higher infant mortality rates, a find similar to another review from 2002 that suggested first-cousin children are less than 3 per cent more likely to have genetic deformities…
“There is widespread misconception that these marriages rare,†Prof. Bittles said.
“In reality there are over 1000 million people worldwide that live in regions where 20 – 50 per cent of marriages are between blood relatives.â€.
The “Tradition’ arguments has wholes, sometimes a mile wide. I wouldn’t rely on them in a logic driven world.
With regards to incestuous relationships, I have no idea about the veracity of Bittles’ research. I will say this though, I can see a valid compelling interest by the State in prohibitng such arrangements. Families being the foundation of society, incest would break that foundation. Eh, call me old fashioned but that’s one argument I could not ever see buying into.
Please answer this question respectfully: What is the difference between gay marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships? Are not the legal protections and responsibilities the same? I am genuinely curious and trying to understand the issue as it does seem to be all about the word “marriage.” Thanks for your time.
Anyone find it a little odd that gay Democrats haven’t challenged Harry Reid to answer for the church that he is putatively a member of?
V, that would be a “Uhm, no”.
Funny, no word about these expressions of anger and electoral loss:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39460
Using NDT’s logic, I guess y’all approve.
Hell no.
One was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: “I hope Obama gets assassinated.” That night, someone trashed her sister-in-law’s front lawn, mangled the Obama lawn signs, and left two pizza boxes filled with human feces outside the front door, Millner said.
I’d tell Millner’s sister-in-law to put up those signs again and bring me a lawnchair, because I will personally sit there and watch them — and if those who decided to do that come back, they will find out rather quickly what it feels like to be spotlighted and driving home with those pizza boxes in the back seat of their car.
That’s the difference, Dave. I don’t feel the need to defend assholes because they also oppose Obama, I sure as hell don’t feel the need to make excuses for them, and my condemning and putting to an immediate stop their behavior does not make me a self-loathing McCain supporter. But you, being a typical brainwashed gay leftist, equate criticizing another gay person, REGARDLESS of their behavior, as being a capital crime.
No dear, I equate non-stop condemnation of ALL gay people except a few on the right as ignorant and dangerous, and that’s what you do. It would only be a crime if you acted on your obvious hate for the vast majority of LGBT folk and you would have to go pretty far into the disgusting zone before I would consider it capital. As far a voicing your ignorance, have at it, it’s a free country (as long as your allies don’t get too much power). There is much to criticize it’s the fact that you are unable to distinguish between the minority who act out and the majority who don’t that I find unacceptable.
And, I have never defended those who participate in excessive and or public sexual behaviour or those who committed violence in the recent protests. Saying that there are reasons for the behavior, is not justifying or defending.
And hence the problem, Dave; you whine over and over and over again that there are acceptable “reasons” for gay and lesbian liberals like yourself to violently attack others, to vandalize buildings, and to engage in promiscuous and irresponsible sex.
For instance, you claimed that violence against a little old lady was justified because:
But the simple fact is that it is a tactic of the right wing “christians†to 1) go to LGBT events/gatherings with the intent of antagonizing the crowd 2) they send in older women so they can turn around and broadcast far and wide about “grandmas being arrested†like in Philly or in this case assaulted for “defending marriageâ€.
Therefore, please state that gay and lesbian people who go to locations with the intent of antagonizing the people therein may be violently assaulted and viciously attacked, since you refuse to condemn the gay people who do so and claim that it’s the fault of other people for “antagonizing” them.
Filter, GPW.
For the last time I HAVE NEVER SAID IT WAS ACCEPTABLE. If you want to read that in I can’t stop you but I am done with your childish BS. You are either woefully illiterate or you’re simply someone who gets some kind of sick satisfaction by lying about what other people say. You give conservatives a bad name.
Of course you have, Dave; over and over and over and over you make excuses, you spin, and you equivocate for gays to violently attack others, to vandalize buildings, and to engage in promiscuous and irresponsible sex. Then you call the people who criticize those gays for doing so self-loathing and claim that they hate all gays.
Again, please state that gay and lesbian people who go to locations with the intent of antagonizing the people therein may be violently assaulted and viciously attacked, since you refuse to condemn the gay people who do so and claim that it’s the fault of other people for “antagonizing†them.
Filter again, GPW.
You give conservatives a bad name.
Yup — as people who stand up against violence against little old ladies, vandalism of church property, sexualization of little children, and promiscuous public sex.
Of course you would find that disgusting and bad, Dave, because it severely cramps what you support and endorse as a gay liberal. If I were a “good” person like you, I’d be making excuses and rationalization for those behaviors, just like you do.
Oh, get over yourself. Ugh. You stand around telling other people what they believe in your little land of make believe, and then you condemn them based on your little fantasy.
LISTEN TO WHAT SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAYS FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF JUST READING ENOUGH TO GET WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL TERMS AND THEN SUBSTITUTING YOUR STRAWMAN FOR HIS ACTUAL ARGUMENT!