.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Bird's Blog

Poetry, musings, observations, commentary, rants, confessions...and who knows what else!

My Photo
Name:
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Teacher, writer, poet, grandmother, lover, wine-drinker, chocolate eater, beach comber, hiker, traveler, Giants fan, San Franciscan. All work on this blog is copyrighted material.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

A Shiny Band of Gold

Today, the rainbow flag at the corner of Castro and Market hung at half mast, with a small black flag hanging slightly above it.

Last night's joy was muted, dampened by the passage of Proposition 8, which codifies discrimination into our state constitution.

How is it that a scarce majority can use the power of the ballot to legally discriminate against a minority?

Tyranny.

How is it that one group of people can feel justified in discriminating against another group of people?

Tyranny.

Though Proposition 8 passed,the battle is not over.

Challenges to Proposition 8's passage were filed early this morning.

Sooner or later, this tyranny will be overturned, overcome. And all of us will dance in the streets yet again.

12 Comments:

Blogger J Cosmo Newbery said...

I do not understand the objections to a couple of adults forming a legal union. I do not understand how it affects anyone else on a day to day basis. Grr.

November 05, 2008 7:21 PM  
Blogger J Cosmo Newbery said...

Oh, and I have caught my fill of fish, too.

November 05, 2008 9:21 PM  
Blogger Jack K. said...

I have often wondered what it is about same-sex unions, sometime called marriages that causes people to go ballistic against it. My tentative conclusions are that those folks are not comfortable with their own gender, sexualtiy, self, etc.

They certainly have a skewed view of the concept of love, be it platonic or sexual.

Just watched "The DaVinci Code" which provides some interesting aspects to the argument.

We would all be better off when we come to realize that love is the stuff that helps the world go around better.

We'll see...

November 06, 2008 6:26 AM  
Blogger LeftLeaningLady said...

It sucks that our joy with our new President-elect is tempered with the sadness of this horrible, unfair discrimination. Hasn't your Supreme Court already declared the law unConstitutional? If the law was, isn't the amendment?

In Florida, we had a law, but that wasn't enough. NO! Have to let the people decide.

Great, eventually the law will be declared unConstitutional and then we (taxpayers) will have to pay for an election to remove the amendment.

I agree with jcosmo. It doesn't affect me, why can't gays be allowed to marry if it will make them happy? Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT and it is discrimination to say that any one group of people can not use that contract.

This issue makes me nuts.

November 06, 2008 6:34 AM  
Blogger Bird said...

Last May, our State Supreme Court ruled that our state constitution does not ban same-sex marriage and that to do so, would be in violation of our constitution.

Then, the naysayers put Prop. 8 on the ballot - it revises our state consitituion, taking away the right to same-sex marriage. Proponents of Prop 8 have said it merely restores "traditional marriage" and is not intended to discriminate against gays. Can't quite follow the logic of that argument at all.

Briefs have already been filed (as of yesterday morning) to challenge the constitutionality of Prop 8. One strand of logic: prop 8 is a revision of the constitution, and as such, must be passed by I believe two-thirds majority of the state legislature.

I find it appalling that anyone would want to write discrimination into the constitution - a bad precedent.

And I don't get the argument that Prop 8 "restores" traditional marriage. I didn't know that Prop 8 had plundered or rendered obsolete traditional marriage.

Sigh.

November 06, 2008 7:16 AM  
Blogger Pete Bogs said...

indeed, my Nov. 5 post also speaks of the way passage of these pro-hate laws has compromised the joy somewhat... still, O-BAMA!

come by to see me sing a song of tolerance and brotherhood, lip-sync style!

November 06, 2008 4:47 PM  
Blogger /t. said...

bird,

i have no objections to
'a couple of adults forming a legal union' (cosmo)

you know, for about the same cost as a marriage license, one can have any kind of contract -- let's call it a 'same sex' marriage -- legally notarized

what we need now is a word that defines the union of a man and a woman -- ie; a union capable of reproduction -- let's call it... gluppbimble -- "to join this man and woman in holy gluppbimble"

of course this means re-writing a lot of agreements, vows, scriptural passages... hey(!) why not just keep marriage traditional and give gluppbimble (with all legal status) to the light hearted, er, gay

tyranny, bird? really...

what keeps otherwise intelligent people of good will revisiting this pointless argument time and again?

foolishness.

¤ ¤ ¤

/t.

November 07, 2008 9:22 AM  
Blogger Aunty Belle said...

Huh?

"what we need now is a word that defines the union of a man and a woman -- ie; a union capable of reproduction -- let's call it... gluppbimble -- "to join this man and woman in holy gluppbimble"

No, punkin' we have a word that means the union of a man an' woman capable of reproduction-Marriage-we'uns had it for about 7 thousand years, now.

What society needs now is a word that describes a new thang-- same-sex union as a legal contract-- a whole new idea of the modern world that requires a new word to describe it. (yeah, I know, Nero had a boyfriend that he "married" but the Romans din't make it official or legal)

It is not "hate" or discrimination that sent the majority voters to the polls to pass marriage amendments...in fact, they view yore attempt to deprive them of the age old word and concept that communicates how they live as an assault on their lives. Ya'll is the aggressors, we'uns the defenders.

Ain't meanin' to stir up nuthin' heah, jes' give ya'll a view from the other side of thangs--nobody is keepin' homosexual pairs with dedicated love and affection from pairin' up, jes' doan confused that way of lovin/livin' wif' marriage--it is a wholly other way of relating, an should have its own word fer that way of relating.

From our perspective--it is ya'll whose tyrannical, tryin' to shove the democratic process aside so ya can force us 'uns to accept what ain't accurate or truthful. Same-sex relationships is a different variety of love and life--to try to make it synonymous wif' marriage is a disservice to both types of relationships.

Get a new word for same-sex unions an' "vive le difference!"

November 08, 2008 3:05 PM  
Blogger Bird said...

although i hear a softening in your stance (vive le difference), AB, that other word would be called "civil union" and the far-right Christian Conservatives and Christian Fundies, at least as far as i can tell, are against that too.

democratic process? since when is it democratic to deny an entire group of people equal rights? since when is it democratic to enshrine discrimination in a constitution? that's downright un-democratic.

no one is taking marriage away from heterosexuals. no need for heteros to defend marriage- it remains the same for heterosexuals. but someone is taking marriage away from homosexuals.

i fail to see how my gay and lesbian friends who have been with one another for 15-25 years, who have built a life together, who have stuck and are sticking it out with each other through all the vagaries life throws at them - who love each other, are faithful to each other, who care for each other "in sickness and in health," who, for richer or poorer cleave to one another, building a strong union, a strong family - how is that not "marriage?"

the only difference is who is doing what to whom in bed.

is the essence of marriage sexual conduct? reproduction?

but truly, AB, you would support civil unions for gays and lesbians? and would those unions confer on that couple all the rights of a married couple? ALL of them?

the truly scary part of all this - Prop 8 here in california has the potential to set precedence. a majority of the people have declared we can discriminate against of group of people.

what's to prevent in later years, a different group of people from voting to discriminate against another group of people - as an extreme example: uber-lefties gain power and they vote to discriminate against conservatives. would that be democratic?

but i am happy to hear, AB,that you would support civil unions. that's a big step. would you be willing to share that declaration on your blog? an unequivocal statement in support of civil union for gay and lesbian couples - a civil union which essentially confers all the privileges (and responsibilities) of marriage upon a gay or lesbian couple?

November 09, 2008 7:34 AM  
Blogger Polly said...

What on earth happened?
Why did it happen?

It is about time religion got out of the way...
Law is something else.
Marriage was put in place for legal reasons ( orginally) to do with land and property and 'ownership' of children ( ie inheritance).

Let those who love be married.
Let those who want 'marriage' to be something religious go to their respective imaginary friend's institutions.
Leave alone those who want to declare their dedication and committment to another in law.

For Pete's SAKE!

November 10, 2008 7:29 PM  
Blogger firebird said...

Yes, many times yes, to all you say in this post, O eloquent Bird!
With you 100 percent.

December 02, 2008 8:46 PM  
Anonymous YogaforCynics said...

I agree with you absolutely.

In 1967, when the Supreme Court's Loving vs. Virginia decision invalidated laws forbidding interracial marriage 70%--let me repeat that: SEVENTY PERCENT--of the population of the United States opposed interracial marriage (and they weren't about to approve interracial civil unions, either). So, I'm wondering: are those now supposedly concerned about the "Democratic Process" being subverted by the courts outraged by that?

This stuff about reproduction is equally disingenuous, since I don't hear anybody saying that people who are impotent, past child bearing age, or simply don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. Same goes for the religious arguments. My brother and most of my married friends got married in completely non-religious ceremonies--no gods were mentioned, and there was no "scripture" (while many gay couples do get married in liberal churches). Why aren't those who consider marriage a sacred religious bond concerned about these marriages? For that matter, why is the government involved at all if marriage is inherently religious?

December 06, 2008 3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home