How Full Is Your Glass?

Jim Burroway

May 26th, 2009

The California Supreme Court gave us a half-and-half opinion today concerning same-sex marriage in that state. They upheld Proposition 8 as a valid state constitutional amendment, while also holding that the proposition’s passage does not retroactively invalidate the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriage that were solemnized last year. While it’s small consolation, it’s not nothing — especially to those who are married and had a very personal stake in the decision.

Given the tremendous gains we’ve seen in Iowa and the Northeast, this California setback is sobering if not unexpected. But we must remember that the advancement of civil rights for any marginalized group has never been a smooth progression. It has always been a history of fits and starts, advances and setbacks, defeats and victories. Ours has been no different.

So if you might be discouraged, I would encourage you to look at where we are today and compare it to where we started ten years ago. And ask yourself this: Where do you think we will be ten years from now? Just imagining that has me more energized than ever before.

Trovore

May 26th, 2009

This comment has been deleted due to violations to our comments policy. Specifically, the advocacy of violence will not be tolerated — JB.

Alex

May 26th, 2009

All straight people are our enemy? Even the ones who voted against Prop 8 last November?

Real mature attitude you’ve got there, Trovore.

Alex

May 26th, 2009

(Jim, feel free to delete my previous post as well as this one since you’ve rightfully moderated Trovore’s comment.)

AJD

May 26th, 2009

I don’t share Trovore’s pessimism, but I don’t share Jim’s implied optimism, either.

I can’t predict what will happen in 10 years, and when Prop. 8 originally won, I never foresaw gay marriage in Iowa.

Still, we have to remember that state constitutional amendments are very difficult to undo precisely because they depend on popular opinion, unless they’re trumped by federal law or higher courts. Let’s acknowledge a big but often overlooked reason why Prop. 8 won: not just because of lies, but because 52% of voters were willing to believe them.

That means 52% of voters, whatever they might say to your face, are prejudiced against us. Now that Prop. 8 has been upheld, the religious right will be even more emboldened to go after our rights in California and elsewhere because now they feel the winds are blowing in their favor. I don’t doubt for a minute that they’ll try to appeal the decision to preserve the 18,000 marriages and also try to ban same-sex marriage in even more states.

I think that time is ultimately on our side. The question is the amount of time. I highly doubt we’ll win in California in 2010, and I would be surprised if we won in 2012. Again, I can’t predict the future, and I’m not trying to, but remember that every single person who voted yes on Prop. 8 in November did so because he/she either hated gay people from the start or was prejudiced enough to believe we’re a danger to children and that our marriages endanger society.

Let’s also be clear: We’re dealing with fundamentalist Christians, many of whom live in exurbs, gated communities and small towns in southern California and the Inland Empire with little or no exposure to people who are different, especially gay people. These people are already stubborn in their beliefs (‘cuz they’re ordained by God and therefore absolute truth) and also difficult to reach geographically, with the only major centers of community being their churches. Many of them are also uneducated and therefore not well-versed on the intricacies of civics or schooled in logical argumentation. I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant, but it’s the truth.

And here’s another thing to consider: Most European countries enacted laws emancipating the Jews in the 1860s and 1870s, but we all know what happened less than 100 years later. Not to say that will necessarily happen here, but we shouldn’t take good fortune for granted just because things might be going relatively well now.

I guess in conclusion, I would say I don’t want to go with “half-empty” or “half-full.” But we shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking this fight will be easy or that we have no direction to go but forward. I really want to think that we’ll win in California in 2010 and have nationwide marriage equality by 2020. It’s still possible. But it’s also possible that we’ll suffer a major backlash and not have full legal equality in this country for decades.

Trevor

May 26th, 2009

Censorship? Mature… just what one would expect from collaborators.

Ephilei

May 26th, 2009

As a person wanting marriage equality to come to my own state too, I think the glass is more than half full. Striking down Prop 8 would have given marriage opponents effective rhetoric to use in instances. Eg, here in Illinois where civil unions is being debated, opponents could point to CA and say, “If you pass civil unions, the IL courts will force it to expand to marriage.” That could kill the current bill and postpone future bills including marriage bills. Even more important than law is hearts and minds. I’ll prefer the person on the street respecting my choices over the law any day.

For what it’s worth, the Bible instructs to avoid questionable acts so that your enemies will have no reason attack you ad hominem. That’s good advice. We’ll reach equality and we’ll do it by persuading the law, not forcing it.

Even if that’s not true, it makes me feel better to be optimistic!

Bruce Garrett

May 26th, 2009

The glass is half full. So I’m only half dying of thirst. The water is half clean. So I will only get half as sick drinking it. My plate is half full. So I’m only half starving to death. Things are getting better and better every day.

Zeke

May 26th, 2009

How about asking yourself THIS, how many gay people will die in those ten years never living in a country that recognized them as full citizens, deserving of ALL the rights of American, or Californian, citizenship?

How many couples will have a partner die in the next ten years leaving a surviving partner without the protections, rights and benefits that would automatically be his/hers were they allowed to marry?

Even still we have people telling us the lie that Domestic Partnerships provide ALL of the rights, or at least ALL of the rights provided by the state of California that they provide to heterosexual married couples. I’ve heard this lie told, even by gay people who should know better, for well over a year now. If that’s the case then WHY is it that every few months the CA legislature passes a new law that opens up a NEW right to domestic partners that has ALWAYS been a right of marriage? Why did the California Sutpreme Court, JUST LAST WEEK, ruled that domestic partners are entitled to a property right that straight married couples have ALWAYS had? Why is there a need for such a ruling if it’s an established fact that marriage and DPs are EXACTLY the same?

Bruce Garrett

May 26th, 2009

Does anyone still remember when the California supreme court first handed down its decision on same-sex marriage? Anyone still remember the words of the chief justice? How (and I’m summerizing freely here) marriage wasn’t just a word and civil unions weren’t enough and denying same sex couples the right to marry took something of their fundimental human dignity away from them? Remember how stirring everyone thought that decision was? All those fine noble words. Are they still as stirring now, or only half as stirring?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1943: Gay Resistance Fighters Shot By Nazis

Today In History, 1969: DC Appeals Court Rules Against Civil Service Commission's Gay Employment Ban

Today In History, 1982: Larry Craig Preemptively Denies Connection to Gay Page Sex Scandal

Born On This Day, 1925: Farley Granger

Born On This Day, 1951: Fred Schneider

Born On This Day, 1963: Roddy Bottum

Born On This Day, 1981: Orlando Cruz

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.