And the bad news for the LGBT community


Proposition 8 in California: Passed. Anti-gay marriage..

Amendment 2 in Florida: Passed. Anti-gay marriage. 

Proposition 102 in Arizona: Passed. Anti-gay marriage.

Act 1 in Arkansas: Passed. Now gay couples are unable to adopt or foster-parent children. (Arkansas has 3700 children in the foster-care system, and only 1000 foster homes. )

Thanks to ctrlltdelete for the reminder and to feministing for the material.  There’s more on their site about pro-choice, affirmative action and immigration measures, some of it more cheery.

14 thoughts on “And the bad news for the LGBT community

  1. I am not here to judge

    I would just like to ask

    The sanctity of marriage

    I would now take to task

    To protect the institution

    From homosexuality

    We would make changes

    To its constitutionality

    I just don’t understand

    How someone else’s love

    Can damage your relationship

    With your spouse or lord above

    Religious doctrine you may say

    And to that you have a point

    Though one can get married

    In any notary public’s joint

    And when 50% of first marriages

    End up in divorce

    It seems the institution

    Is already well off course

    So weddings can be done

    By those who are not clergy

    That would seem to negate

    Its ever sacred synergy

    And with divorce rates climbing

    Whilst gays cannot yet wed

    It seems a bit sanctimonious

    To lay that on their heads

    In the end, though, I don’t care

    And I have but this to quarrel

    Is it really the governments place

    To legislate our morals?

  2. I don’t get people’s problem with homosexuality in the first place.
    Thank you for the poem, ozy, and you make some good points, but I was wondering at your last line, legislate your morals? How do your morals essentially differ then?
    What you argue for is that when you truly love eachother, you ought to have the right to marry. I agree with that (as long as we’re discussing consenting adults, I am very strict in that, actually). I don’t see how your basic values (i.e. marry out of love, and have and to hold and all that) are really different morals just because the clause “has to be opposite sex” is removed.

  3. can someone tell me: what will happen to the same-sex couples who have already married legally in california? will they be un-married?

    if they are…well, it just doesn’t seem like it’s at all possible that it would be legal to unmarry people who were legally married. and if they’re not, then what’s to stop unmarried same-sex couples saying ‘hang on, our same-sex neighbours are married; we just want the same rights they have’. so, doesn’t it seem inevitable that this amendment will be thrown out by the courts? (knock wood, fingers crossed.)

  4. The reasoning behind these propositions and amendments and such is of a supposed religious basis. Even non religious voters site “it is an abomination in the sight of god” type ballony. It is, to them, a moral issue. Its like a sodomy law (or, moreover laws against sodomy, which there are plenty). What the hell has that got to do with government.
    So my argument is really shuch;
    this is done to protect a failed institution. as plainly stated.
    it is done so in the guise of religious beliefe yet non religious wedding are legal, why? (again obviously stated)
    lastly (and perhaps a bit more vague), morals should not be legislated unless we are becoming a religious state. so to answer your question (finally) my morals differ in that I don’t feel I have the right to decide on someone elses morals.
    The state recognizes marriage which makes it a state institution, not a religious one. In that, there should be NO discrimination.

  5. lp, I think that the attorney general for calif (Brown?) says the former marriages won’t automatically be declared null, but I think that’s not decisive.

    I hate to say it, but I’ll bet your argument doesn’t work. Laws change and there are tons of cases where some people are able to do things that are later illegal for others.

  6. Jender (and others), I keep hearing people dealing with the calif prop 8 who say that it will go on up the court system and it will eventually be declared unconstitutional. I expect it could go to the supreme court, but I don’t understand why they expect to win there.

  7. This is not just bad news for the LGBT community. The Florida amendment also essentially prevents domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples. So, these amendments (and now 30 states have some version of these) often reach far beyond the LGBT community, touching anybody who does not conform with the old-fashioned notion of the married couple that includes a male breadwinner and a female stay-at-home wife (that’s what the supporters really want to see, isn’t it?).

    I think one thing all of these amendments have in common is that they are religiously motivated. As far as I know, there is no reason to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is not religious. So, one possible attack might be that they violate the separation of religion and state. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so this might not be the strongest flaw. But as a secularist, this was my main reason for fighting against Prop 8 since I view marriage as an outmoded, patriarchal institution and find the focus on the right to marry a bit misplaced).

    Prop 8 is different in that it was a response to a court order that legalized the right for the LGBT community to marry in CA. Unlike the other 29 amendments, this was not a preemptive strike. Prop 8 actually took away this right, so this might be another angle for legal attack.

  8. jj: This article might fill in the legal reasoning better than I did:

    “Prop. 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause (in the California Constitution),” Allred said at an afternoon news conference in her Los Angeles office on Wednesday. “We will argue to the court that Prop. 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does, it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couple would have more rights, by being allowed to marry, than gay couples.”

  9. I see. I took the original argument to be mainly “but gays could in the past and so…” whereas this seems to me really different and powerful – or so I hope. Sorry for the confusion.

    Do you think the present supreme court will go for it? I hear right-wing arguments all the time of “well, then why not allow polygomy or brother-sister marriage. Or maybe I could marry my dog.” I suppose SCOTUS might get the problem of consent with the dog, but still I wouldn’t be sure it wouldn’t use the others.

    The reason I say this is not that I have any good grasp of the final argument, but too many on this courst seem really incapable of sharing a point of view or interest different from that of the very privileged white highly educated male. It’s as though they are blind.

  10. jender, rachel, and jj, thanks for filling me in on this.

    jj: you’re right, the one that rachel points out is different to what i was saying, in that the argument there is that it’s not constitutional for some couples to have marriage available to them, while others do not. and this would violate the equal protection clause in CA’s constitution. (and you have to have a 2/3rd majority, if i understand rightly, to actually *revise* the constitution; whereas you only need a straight majority to add to it.) i was thinking something like the following (keeping in mind that i know nothing at all about legal stuff):

    if i, jane, a lesbian, file suit saying ‘my neighbours sally and joe are married; i want to be married to my partner, too’. they might say ‘joe and sally are in an opposite-sex marriage; you have the right to marry a man, too!’ but if i say ‘my neighbours ann and linda are married, i want to be married to my partner, too’ then it doesn’t seem like there would be any way to say that i, contrary to appearances, have the same rights they have.

    i take your point that laws change all the time and there are lots of things one used to be able to do but now can no longer. but it seems like this is different: it’s not the case that same-sex couples used to be allowed to *be in a marriage to one another*. rather, they used to be allowed to marry, and some still *are* (unless these couples are un-married) in those marriages. so, it seems like i could say ‘look, i want to be in the same legal state with my partner that other same-sex couples are in now’. do you see what i mean?

    but in the end, they’re just going to have to stop this shit nationally, i guess, right? something has to give at the federal level. what’s our beloved pres’elect’s stance on this?

  11. This is a very useful story about whether the prior marriages will be void:,0,3560871.story

    Although Brown has said he thinks they will stand, constitutional experts are not so clear.

    As for Obama, he said he was opposed to Prop 8 (because he doesn’t believe that amending the state constitution is the right way to deal with this issue), but I believe he has said explicitly that he opposes same-sex marriage and prefers civil unions.


Comments are closed.