Fear of Public Scrutiny

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14174369

“The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide by midday whether to lift a stay on Walker’s earlier order allowing the delayed broadcast of the proceedings on the court’s Web site by using YouTube; the justices put the unprecedented plan on hold earlier this week at the request of Proposition 8 supporters, who oppose any broadcast of the trial. They say broadcasting the court proceedings would expose their witnesses to threats and intimidation, and would ‘negatively affect the fairness of the trial.’”

Let me see if I get this right.  People who voted for Prop 8, to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, who are a part of the dominant paradigm, are concerned that they will be threatened and intimidated because their participation will be made public?

Let’s take a look at this.

Versus this.

Or, if you don’t like that wording, how about this.

Let’s see…. pages upon pages of people being murdered because they were gay or lesbian (or transgendered or transexual or any other alternative sexuality), but perhaps a single link (if that) regarding the reverse.  Yesterday in court, an Ivy League scholar was able to talk for virtually an entire day of court about the history of gays and lesbians undergoing persecution, discrimination, and degradation.  The same cannot be done for heterosexuals.

Pause for a moment.  There have certainly been ugly and hurtful things done by opponents of Prop 8 towards proponents.  That is inexcusable.  I understand that there is concern that people will lash out against witnesses for the defense and that is not wholly unjustified.  However, there is a key fundamental aspect of this that is going unmentioned by proponents.

The plaintiffs are even worse off due to the fact that their names are displayed everywhere with the case now, so they must undergo harsh treatment as well.  They are fighting for rights they do not have, while the defendants are fighting to keep rights they already (can) enjoy.  The plaintiffs are working against thousands of years of history and socialization while the defendants are trying to uphold an unjust status quo with significant national and international support (whether that’s implicit or explicit).

What I am frustrated by is that the plaintiffs (Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo; Kristin Perry & Sandy Stier) are putting themselves and their relationships out into public scrutiny because their love burns more fiercely than does the misplaced righteousness of those who would seek to strip them of their rights and yet, and yet, those who actively seek to deprive rights are concerned about the effects of appearing in court?  These lovers-seeking-equality are having to put themselves out into the public sphere for the utmost scrutiny and ridicule because of the public’s action, let alone the reaction they are receiving now or the future action they might receive.  The State of California did indeed vote, by majority, to deny gays their right to marry.  This court case is a reaction to that action and, in both cases, have placed the plaintiffs under far more stress and duress than the witnesses for the defense will have undergone or will undergo.

And, just as an afterthought, don’t think that these plaintiffs’ scrutiny will cease upon the completion of this trial.  While it may lessen should the courts decide to uphold Prop 8, it will intensify should the courts strike down the Proposition.  Consider what the media would do if Paul and Jeff or Kristin and Sandy eventually divorced?  Or one had an affair?  While these are almost commonplace events for heterosexual couples, they could very well become national news should either of these couples experience them.

Prop 8 Defense: Contradictory and Unsatisfactory

Article quotes below are taken from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-trial12-2010jan12,0,989948.story?page=1

“[US District Judge] Walker noted that many states once barred interracial marriage. [Prop 8 Rep] Cooper replied that those laws were based on a notion of ‘white supremacy,’ and not on a long-standing tradition.”

Again, I am just appalled at how completely lacking in substantive argument the proponents of Prop 8 are in this discussion.  The arguments put forth are either weak and easily refuted or they contradict themselves.  Consider the one pasted above.  When asked by the judge to account for the fact that people voted in laws banning miscegenation, the Prop 8 representative replied that “white supremacy” is the reason for those laws, not tradition.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “white supremacy” was (is) also a long-standing tradition?

He attempts to lay to rest a just question by invoking a rhetoric that has the desired effect of getting everyone on the speaker’s side (“I’m against white supremacy”) without addressing the fact that he just created an even more disturbing analogue.  It is precisely because white supremacy was a long-standing, near-axiomatic tradition that anti-miscegenation laws were passed.  It was not until enough voices cried out in challenge of this norm that justice was achieved, despite many attempts to the contrary.  The fact that Mr. Cooper attempts to dismiss an historical parallel regarding interracial marriage by citing an ugly accepted truth of the past points to how either clueless or blind Mr. Cooper (and, by extension, those he represents) are.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “heterosexual supremacy” is a long-standing tradition?

Within this same article, there is yet another bothersome argument made my Mr. Cooper.

“Cooper said the evidence would show that opposite-sex marriage is good for children, and that the “procreative purpose of marriage” would be “diluted or weakened” if same-sex couples were permitted to marry.

Asked what evidence exists to show that same-sex marriage would ‘radically alter the institution of marriage,’ Cooper replied that data from the Netherlands will show that it leads to a decline in marriage rates. He said it also would lead to more children being raised outside of marriage and higher divorce rates.

But he added that same-sex marriage is still too rare and novel an ‘experiment’ to draw conclusions about its long-term impact. Noting that only five states and seven countries permit gays and lesbians to wed, Cooper said, ‘The people of California are entitled to await the results of that experiment.’”

Which is it Mr. Cooper?  Is the evidence that you propose to show indicative of what is to come should gay marriage be allowed?  Or is same-sex marriage too rare and we cannot draw conclusions about its long-term impact?  If you are talking about evidence in the Netherlands being long-standing enough to provide indication of the future, then why keep referring to it all as “experimentation”?  Or, if we’re still in the experimentation phase, then how can you use the Netherlands as any sort of conclusive proof?  Or, further still, do you feel that the Netherlands and the United States are similar enough that information regarding one nation’s sociology is applicable to the other?

Either way you answer that will make your statement either more confusing or self-defeating.  Either the information is applicable, which would then make your statements regarding social “experimentation” misleading because your argument is framed on an unknowability factor, when instead you’re claiming we know where gay marriage will lead.  Or, if the information is not applicable, which is why we’re still in the social “experimentation” phase, then your bringing the Netherlands into the conversation as anything but another example of “experimentation” makes it seem like there is no longer any question.  The verdict is in.  Gay marriage does X, Y, and Z.  But no, Mr. Cooper does not go that route.  Because he knows that he can’t win either of those arguments.  He must attempt to cherry-pick from both sides of his argument-coin so as to have the best of both worlds because his position is untenable should he pick just one.  But alas, it seems the sociologists, anthropologists, and marriage/law historians will start to be brought in and this matter will eventually be settled.

“The day ended with testimony from Harvard professor Nancy Cott, an expert in the history of marriage in the United States.

She said Cooper’s opening statement that marriage between two members of the opposite sex was universal was inaccurate. Ancient Jews were polygamous, she said, and in some countries Muslims can marry several women.

In a 19th century case, she said the U.S. Supreme Court denied Dred Scott, a black man, citizenship partly on the grounds that he was not permitted to marry a white woman. The court said that was a ‘stigma that marked him as less than a full citizen,’ she testified. ‘In marrying, one is exercising a right of freedom,’ she said.”

Rinse and repeat until we get to the US Supreme Court.

With the Passage of Prop 8…. (A Repost)

In light of Maine revoking its legalization of same-sex marriage, a vote that harkens back all too painfully to a year ago, I am reposting my blog I wrote when CA voters passed Proposition 8.

I write this before Proposition 8 has officially passed, but despite the seemingly close race, it seems like it will succeed. Perhaps in a few hours, the last thousand precincts will shake things up, but I’ll just have to write something else at that pont.

But I feel compelled to write now. I haven’t been able to sleep for two nights. Two nights ago, it was because I was too excited to vote and anxious to see Barack Obama elected President. That hope and dream came true. However, as tearfully joyous that was and is, I was very much sobered by the streaming results of the Propositions, with 8 holding much attention. And now, with nearly 95% of precincts reporting, it looks like “Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” will pass.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I can already see that we have taken another step back from healing the rift that has developed in our country over the issue of sexuality. Where churches are going through full-blown schisms over the issue, we now see our state is nearly bisected over the question of sexuality and society. This chasm that extends between supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 is one that allows people to let fly vitriolic comments in their frustration and passion. Now, with the passage of Proposition 8, I have already seen comments of hatred being directed at those accused of systematizing hatred; already have I seen Facebook statuses of intolerance indicting those condemned for their intolerance. This helps no one and heals nothing.

With the passage of Proposition 8, marriage is now legally defined as only recognizable when between a man and a woman. The California Constitution has now put an explicit limit on who can be a part of the institution. Some claim this is exclusivistic and discriminatory, others defend this is protective and beneficial. With a constitutional amendment, now the State of California must place a wholly new amendment to remove this one, should the state come to a place that deems it contrary to how things ought to be. Or, perhaps the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the definition of marriage and all laws restricting marriage based on gender (or sexuality) will be stricken. Either way, for the time being, rights bestowed are now rights revoked and will have to become rights reclaimed. This legal definition of marriage has indeed been a defining moment, but the effects of this momentous definition will be lasting and far-reaching.

With the passage of Proposition 8, however, the concern for me is not truly over the definition. Semantics can be debated for eons and can lead to considerable bloodshed. I am not disputing the power of words, nor the importance of definitions per se. But in this particular case, the concern is superficially about definition, but it is more about devaluation. Supporters of Proposition 8 continuously point to Europe as evidence of how the institution of marriage has become nearly defunct. However, there is no talk of the ubiquity of monogamous relationships, or of how the US has a higher divorce rate than all European countries except Sweden, or how many of those countries have returned the matter of marriage back to the state fully (just as Protestants wanted, back when they did that whole Reformation thing). There is no talk about how a change in definition does not inexorably lead to devaluation. Marriage used to be legally defined as not between people of different races. The definition was changed. African slaves used to be legally defined as not full people. The definition was changed. Gay people used to be considered not mentally healthy, socially acceptable, or personally tolerable. That definition is changing. But legally, it seems, they are still defined as second-class citizens, whose rights shall consist of a separate-but-equal means of life-long union known as a civil union or domestic partnership. Some claim that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex couples by domestic partnerships are entirely equal to that of marriage, and therefore this Proposition is merely a protection of a fundamental building block of society. However, remember that in the 50’s and 60’s, the argument was not over the drinking fountain’s water quality or quantity.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I have become discontent, to put it mildly. This ballot initiative was originally called the Defense of Marriage Act, or something akin to that, but was renamed into the more accurately named “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Today, this November the 5th, with the passage of Proposition 8 I have found the institution of marriage to be under attack. With the passage of Proposition 8, I have found the institution of marriage questionable in my eyes. With the passage of Proposition 8, if I am to be married some day to a woman I love, I will be partaking of a ceremony of privilege and discrimination. My future marriage has become personally lessened because it has become legally heightened. With the elevation of a future union of mine to a status unobtainable by dear family and friends as well as complete strangers, I will be a part of a system that is undeniably parallel to paying women less and forcing people of color to the back of the bus. Why? Because that pay grade is considered special with regard to gender. Because that seat in the bus was considered prioritized with regard to race. And now, because this union of two people has become a symbol of privilege with regard to sexuality. Paradoxically, with the passage of Proposition 8, the concern of the supporters has become the reality of the opponents: the definition of marriage has changed. The devaluation of marriage has occurred.

With the passage of Proposition 8, California has become one of those states that futurity will look back upon and wonder “Why?” If marriage is indeed a building block of society, a key component of the fabric of our culture, then perhaps we need to deconstruct our society; perhaps we need to stop trying to sew patches onto old cultural wineskins. It was revolutionary to think that a black man was a human being. It is revolutionary we just elected a black man to the Presidency of the United States. It is revolutionary to open up one’s paradigm, one’s world, one’s vulnerability to those who are inherently different. Perhaps a day in the not-too-distant future, we will have another revolution of a different equality: that of sexuality.

With the Passage of Proposition 8…

I write this before Proposition 8 has officially passed, but despite the seemingly close race, it seems like it will succeed. Perhaps in a few hours, the last thousand precincts will shake things up, but I’ll just have to write something else at that pont.

But I feel compelled to write now. I haven’t been able to sleep for two nights. Two nights ago, it was because I was too excited to vote and anxious to see Barack Obama elected President. That hope and dream came true. However, as tearfully joyous that was and is, I was very much sobered by the streaming results of the Propositions, with 8 holding much attention. And now, with nearly 95% of precincts reporting, it looks like “Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” will pass.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I can already see that we have taken another step back from healing the rift that has developed in our country over the issue of sexuality. Where churches are going through full-blown schisms over the issue, we now see our state is nearly bisected over the question of sexuality and society. This chasm that extends between supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 is one that allows people to let fly vitriolic comments in their frustration and passion. Now, with the passage of Proposition 8, I have already seen comments of hatred being directed at those accused of systematizing hatred; already have I seen Facebook statuses of intolerance indicting those condemned for their intolerance. This helps no one and heals nothing.

With the passage of Proposition 8, marriage is now legally defined as only recognizable when between a man and a woman. The California Constitution has now put an explicit limit on who can be a part of the institution. Some claim this is exclusivistic and discriminatory, others defend this is protective and beneficial. With a constitutional amendment, now the State of California must place a wholly new amendment to remove this one, should the state come to a place that deems it contrary to how things ought to be. Or, perhaps the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the definition of marriage and all laws restricting marriage based on gender (or sexuality) will be stricken. Either way, for the time being, rights bestowed are now rights revoked and will have to become rights reclaimed. This legal definition of marriage has indeed been a defining moment, but the effects of this momentous definition will be lasting and far-reaching.

With the passage of Proposition 8, however, the concern for me is not truly over the definition. Semantics can be debated for eons and can lead to considerable bloodshed. I am not disputing the power of words, nor the importance of definitions per se. But in this particular case, the concern is superficially about definition, but it is more about devaluation. Supporters of Proposition 8 continuously point to Europe as evidence of how the institution of marriage has become nearly defunct. However, there is no talk of the ubiquity of monogamous relationships, or of how the US has a higher divorce rate than all European countries except Sweden, or how many of those countries have returned the matter of marriage back to the state fully (just as Protestants wanted, back when they did that whole Reformation thing). There is no talk about how a change in definition does not inexorably lead to devaluation. Marriage used to be legally defined as not between people of different races. The definition was changed. African slaves used to be legally defined as not full people. The definition was changed. Gay people used to be considered not mentally healthy, socially acceptable, or personally tolerable. That definition is changing. But legally, it seems, they are still defined as second-class citizens, whose rights shall consist of a separate-but-equal means of life-long union known as a civil union or domestic partnership. Some claim that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex couples by domestic partnerships are entirely equal to that of marriage, and therefore this Proposition is merely a protection of a fundamental building block of society. However, remember that in the 50’s and 60’s, the argument was not over the drinking fountain’s water quality or quantity.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I have become discontent, to put it mildly. This ballot initiative was originally called the Defense of Marriage Act, or something akin to that, but was renamed into the more accurately named “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Today, this November the 5th, with the passage of Proposition 8 I have found the institution of marriage to be under attack. With the passage of Proposition 8, I have found the institution of marriage questionable in my eyes. With the passage of Proposition 8, if I am to be married some day to a woman I love, I will be partaking of a ceremony of privilege and discrimination. My future marriage has become personally lessened because it has become legally heightened. With the elevation of a future union of mine to a status unobtainable by dear family and friends as well as complete strangers, I will be a part of a system that is undeniably parallel to paying women less and forcing people of color to the back of the bus. Why? Because that pay grade is considered special with regard to gender. Because that seat in the bus was considered prioritized with regard to race. And now, because this union of two people has become a symbol of privilege with regard to sexuality. Paradoxically, with the passage of Proposition 8, the concern of the supporters has become the reality of the opponents: the definition of marriage has changed. The devaluation of marriage has occurred.

With the passage of Proposition 8, California has become one of those states that futurity will look back upon and wonder “Why?” If marriage is indeed a building block of society, a key component of the fabric of our culture, then perhaps we need to deconstruct our society; perhaps we need to stop trying to sew patches onto old cultural wineskins. It was revolutionary to think that a black man was a human being. It is revolutionary we just elected a black man to the Presidency of the United States. It is revolutionary to open up one’s paradigm, one’s world, one’s vulnerability to those who are inherently different. Perhaps a day in the not-too-distant future, we will have another revolution of a different equality: that of sexuality.