Prop8--Discussion

Below is an email discussion between the authors of this blog.

Theo: I am not sure how many of you have paid attention to the Prop8 protests, but this is a somewhat interesting perspective from the LA Times.

I have said this before (unfortunately I didn't write about it), but blacks didn't vote against gays, the just voted with their principles. Plus, black Americans don't feel that gay Americans have had to deal with the same type of oppression. So, some of us get upset at the notion that we are equally oppressed, etc. You can hide gay, but you can't hide black. Gays weren't slaves, etc. So to put them on equal footing as far as oppression makes some blacks angry.

Thoughts?

Calvin: I agree that gays haven't had to deal with the full brunt of racism or bigotry to the extent that the black race has, but to say that it's a problem that they compare themselves to the black race in terms of the struggle is a bit absurd. Most of the generation that had to deal with the transition of outward racism to undercover bigotry is headin either for retirement or the grave. So if you think about it in its relative terms, they're just comparing themselves to something much more easily definable.
It's like sayin, I love peace like Ghandi loved peace. It's pretty easy to see where I'm going with a statement like that. "I really like peace." Get me?

Theo: I agree with you, but I still think that some blacks feel slighted when the racial struggle is compared with the sexual equality struggle. The key word is some. Also, I wonder how women feel, due to the fact that their struggle is still ongoing in this world (and has been for thousands of years). My point was that the anger with which some gays have attacked and 'fought back' against those who voted for Prop8 is counterproductive. Suddenly, the issue has become a black vs. gay thing. Many have spoke out saying that we should understand their struggle and shouldn't have voted for Prop8 (I somewhat agree with this). However, the issue is that tolerance should be encouraged in all, not just the 70% of blacks who voted for Prop8. The gays were like, 'we voted Obama, now vote down prop8!'. I personally don't think that is the right attitude to have.

Samit: I think you both are justified in how you feel. When I look at this issue, one thing I feel is, at the core of this issue is politics, not the struggle for equal rights.

When the civil rights struggle reached a crescendo in the 60's, blacks were fighting for the basic necessities in a society, equal opportunities in school, the work world, etc. etc. To some extent that struggle is still ongoing, but at least blacks have a chance now...before that wasn't possible.

Gays right now, really are not kept from getting jobs or earning a living. Yes, marriage is an issue for them, but it's more a symbolic issue. When Prop 8 was voted down, gays did lose out. Unfortunately, the political groups that really wanted a yes vote on prop 8 also took a hit. However, their aim is to get more people to buy into their cause, no matter what. By making this a black vs. gay issue, they are able to target a villain that can be blamed for it. Once you have a target, it's easier to get people under one banner. I think this is what's really driving the Black vs. Gay sentiment.

This is something you will see ad nauseum all around the world and in history as well. Before World War II, Germans decided to blame the Jews and Hitler rose to take advantage of it. In India, whenever religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims rose, if a Hindu or Muslim was killed, it immediately was blamed on the "opposing" group and led to a series of riots. In this country, the Japanese were interned, heck just look at this last political campaign. How many times was Obama called a terrorist...you can bet that played a role in getting more people to vote for McCain. I doubt that this issue will escalate to the point of some of these other conflicts, but it still disgusts me that creation of divisions between social groups is considered a legitimate way of doing politics and getting things done. We all should be better than that.

Theo: I agree with most of what you said. However, those against Prop8 don't feel that it is only politics. They want the right to marry and in their minds allowing gays to marry is a symbol of equality. To get off topic (somewhat), I can't see how Prop8 protects marriage. Its insane that this is even an issue. If gays are allowed to marry, I won't go get a divorce and marry a man. Single guys won't stop looking for women or vice versa. If marriage is to be truly protected, divorce should be outlawed and all marriages should be based on a 1year trial period, where the marriage is not fully recognized by the USA until after that year. During the trial period, certain tasks must be accomplished (going to counseling, maybe a written exam or two...I haven't really thought that part out yet). This would help to prevent shotgun weddings and the like. Plus, helping married people out financially wouldn't hurt!!! ;)

Samit: My point wasn't that people who voted against or for prop 8 were making a political decision. I was just saying that the Black vs. Gay sentiment that has been stirred up is due to politics, and people who care more about their own influence than about equal rights.

I agree with everything else you said, although I don't know how the 1 year trial would work...what if they get pregnant? Shouldn't that pre-empt anything that this program would enforce? Then we get into a sticky issue of birth control, preventing pregnancy, or even abortion based on government mandate. It would be hard to enforce.

Calvin: This Samit guy is pretty brainy. I like him. It would get pretty icky tryin to work out that birth control based on government mandate. Talk about big government....

Theo: Pregnancy is covered. Let's say that they get pregnant and it doesn't work out. The child is not at fault, therefore the government (yes big government) will assist the parent with custody (half split if equal custodial rights granted). I use the term assist, because it will be a needs based system. Its socialism somewhat (same as the 'bailout'). Sad to say, but that is how my 'plan' would work. Also, the government would give a $25,000 bonus if you stay married (in good standing...) for at least 5 years (though you would have to go through the INS type scrutiny to prove you weren't lying...Samit :) ). I think this would encourage marriages to last (plus,Cher and I could use the $25,000). The plan isn't perfect, but it isn't the final version either. Think of this as a first draft of sorts. We should probably collect these emails and post them to the blog. As soon as Talitha adds her input.

Calvin: I'm glad you at least called it out for what it is. It's regulation of personal life which is heck-a-big government. And it's a heck of a lot more expensive than saying "no" to gay marriage. LOL! You are a far left democrat aren't you, Theo? You're true colors are shining through. YOU'RE JUST LIKE BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!! Your a socialist!!! You just want to share all the wealth, don't you! You disgust me!

Theo: That's my point. If you truly wanted to protect marriage it would involve too much government. Prop8 doesn't protect marriage at all. And its Barack...lol. Plus, as I said before, gays and lesbians getting married doesn't mean that you and I would want to go find the closest gay guy and head to Cali to elope. How does gay marriage infringe on my rights as a heterosexual married man? It doesn't. One argument I have heard (insane as it is), is that some people only marry to procreate and with gay marriage those 'undercover brothers' would be out and about searching for a gay person to marry. Meaning the end of life on this planet (I added this, but you get my point). If someone is already only getting married to procreate (and they are closet gay), then how does that protect the 'traditional' marriage? And socialism, communism, and capitalism are all man's creations. Nature is never solely one or the other.

Calvin: I hear what Samit is saying. And I think the marriage thing is just a symbolic issue. It's not that they won't be able to have civil unions or anything like that. They still can get the same rights as a married couple. Gays want to redefine marriage to a more broad and all encompassing concept. It's not that necessary except to bring about an acceptance across the board from all people. If they are treated the same, they may be viewed the same. Thought I doubt that is so, I can see the logic in it. I don't know that I agree with it. The reason why black would vote against that idea is because of their own Biblical or religious conviction. Would it be right for them to allow the redefinition of something that they believe God defined as solely between a man and a woman when they had the ability to prevent it?
Our government is not to mix church and state. But It is not that easy a request to make of individuals, though the individuals in government seem not to be able to make that separation themselves.
But this is not a matter of one group feeling superior to another. It's a matter of one group feeling that the other group is asking for something out of line.
I'm not sure if I've made my point but I just started doing my research and lost my place so I think I'm done. Holla if you get me.

Theo: Makes sense to me. Its still a democracy and the majority will win these issues. However, why is an issue like this even necessary for the government to get involved in? Its like Talitha pointed out in her post about social conservatism. We want less government involvement in our finances, but more in our private lives?? It doesn't make sense to me. Who cares what Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva are doing in their bedroom? Soon they will tell married people that certain types of sex or sexual positions are not a part of traditional marriage. That is where we are heading with this merger of Church and State.

Talitha: Sorry for the late entry on this.

What bothers me about Prop8 is that voters decided to change their constitution in order to reflect the "new definition" of marriage. The former California constitution was framed such that it could possibly include homosexual marriage. Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. I believe the biggest reason people voted for Prop8 was religious. I am a very religious person; however, I am a strong advocate of separation of church and state. As a Christian, my Bible also says in Mark 12:17 to "render unto Cesear, what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's". (There's a nice Wikipedia article on this) To me this implies that you can have your own moral standards and they can differ from the society that you live in. The ten commandments clearly state what we are supposed to do.

I think that homosexuals should have the constitutional right to marry. Because if we prohibit them from having such rights, we are doing so based on a religious sentiment. Then that begs the question of "whose religion do we choose?". What religion gets to be the standard maker? The Catholic Church? (We'd all be marrying little boys and have like 20 rugrats runnin around our homes [no birth control]...I kid. I kid) Also, if my history serves me correctly, the last time the Catholic church tried to regulate, we got sent into the dark ages. Anyway, I digress...My point is that it creates a slippery slope that says that I can oppose anything in the name of religion. Prop8 opens up the flood gates for religion-based constiutional amendments, which is a dangerous segue to the future and a horrible reminder of the past. There was a time when there was a religious justification for slavery. I think that comparisons can be made to the civil rights movement because as MLK so aptly said in his letter from the Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".


P.S.
I am engaged to a wonderful black man and my wedding will be off the chain yes or no on Prop8!