Yesterday, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry posted an amazing article clearly defining the implications of Proposition 8, if the California Supreme Court chooses to uphold it. Evan drives the point home that we have all said time and time again: If Proposition 8 is upheld, it sets a precedence in this country that a simple majority can vote on the rights of any minority group. Though we keep saying this, his article sends the point home in a way that pinpoints the severity of Proposition 8.
Think about it this way: If Prop 8 sticks, then there is nothing stopping the KKK from rallying together to put something on the ballot that takes away the rights of the African American Community. A state would be able to choose to take away voting rights of women. Hell, maybe the next ballot initiative will be to take the LGBTQ community back to a pre-Stonewall era where we could get arrested just for holding hands with our partner! Yes these may be extreme, but the California Supreme Court has the power to say that anyone can rally a simple majority to strip rights of any minority. Our Constitution is meant to protect all of us… even from each other. While many who voted for Proposition 8 did so because they felt that they were protecting the word “marriage,” the vast implications of what they perceived to be good intentions, were left in a black box only to be opened now.
I consistently come back to Jim Crow laws here; a time when a man and woman who loved each other, could not legally marry based on the color of their skin. At the time, the same “moral” arguments were used to protect the word “marriage.” And, as Evan so eloquently puts it:
…the “essence” of which, the California Supreme Court explained in 1948 when it became the first court in the U.S. with the courage to strike down race restrictions on marriage, is the right “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice,” the person who to you may be “irreplaceable.” Imagine what California and our country would look like today had that court flinched in the face of the 90% disapproval of the then-majority. Imagine what the Constitution would look like if a mere majority could always cement inequality or a selective denial of fundamental rights into it, without even the procedural protection of the deliberative revision process the people themselves set forth.
So what will you do on the Day of Decision (D-Day)? We all hope that we’ll be celebrating in the streets, but are we prepared for the worst? If the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, then all minorities are at risk. Will you be ready to fight for your rights? Will you be prepared to fight for the rights of all minorities? Will you be ready for the next ballot initiative – The one that is in your own back yard? Proposition 8 is not just a California issue. It is not just a marriage issue. And it is NOT just an LGBTQ issue! Join the many organizations that are gathering on D-Day. Prepare your city, your friends, your family, and your powerful voice for what might happen next.
7 Responses
Very well stated. If they did it to us, they can do it to anybody, and they just may.
Posted on March 31st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Wolfson is completely right. It’s disgusting how California, who was given the chance to keep this country going forward toward complete freedom for all it’s citizens, could take such a disappointing step backward. The fact that “traditional” marriage supporters have to hide behind arguments used to validate the Jim Crow laws should be more then enough of a sign that Prop 8 doesn’t stand a chance as a legitimate amendment. I was raised to believe that we learned from history, and progressed as a people, and yet here we are, having once more, the law uphold discrimination. It’s an embarrassing time in history, and as hopeful as I am that the California courts will come to their senses, I don’t see it happening soon.
Posted on April 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
[...] http://jointheimpact.com/2009/03/one-court-can-effect-the-nation/ [...]
Posted on April 1st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Hmm…I’m not sure the extremist examples, fear based stuff is really appropriate here. It’s clear the LGBTQ community is pressing for equal rights, but to extrapolate that to some of your other examples is a little over the top. I’m sure I’ll get some comments, “You just don’t understand…,” so be it. I know you’re passionate about your cause, but I think this line of reasoning detracts from what you’re trying to accomplish. I’m interested to know who the “they” is in the previous post…people who disagree with LGBTQ equality in marriage, or is it broader than that? Thanks.
Posted on April 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
I am totally for gay marriage, but I’m not sure those examples are correct to use for defending the rights of gay marriage and protecting the constitution from those who wish to change it.
There is a prescient for rights like rights for women and blacks. It’s very very very difficult to reverse something like this.
It’s better I think to come up with something that hasn’t already been written in as protection into the constitution.
That being said, is there anything I can do to help reverse prop 8?
Posted on April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I understand to a degree the opposition to gay marriage. It’s very selfish, but it’s understandable. In NJ a church was forced to allow a lesbian couple to rent their facilities for a wedding/commitment ceremony. This should not happen. Even if the venue allows non-member strait couples to rent the facility. This is more than forcing a church to do a marriage (which gay marriage also should NOT do).
Marriage is a religious institution and my belief is that the government should stay out of my faith and I will not try to impose my faith on your government. Let the citizens enter into a civil contract allowing benefits and whatnots to couples that qualify based on whatever. Leave marriage up to the church, however “getting married” carries no more benefits. It is a title bestowed by a religious institution santifying whatever they want to sanctify.
As a gay christian woman, I have bigger fish to fry than this. Justice for all, means taking care of the poor, hungry and naked. I wish that more christians would concentrate on REAL morality.
Posted on April 9th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Jen, in the example you’re referring to, the organization was forced to allow the couple to use the facility because the venue was supposedly public property. (They weren’t paying taxes on it) The ruling was that, in order for the space to be considered “public,” and therefore tax-exempt, it had to be public for everybody. That church wasn’t required to actually perform the wedding.
Posted on April 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Add A Comment