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.

Shame on Rhode Island’s Governor

http://www.projo.com/news/2009/pdf/veto_s0195_funeral_directors.pdf

 

Please read this veto signed by the governor of Rhode Island, Donald Carcieri.  The bill proposed seeks to provide domestic partners funerary-arrangement decision-making power.  Currently, as you can see from the amended bill, there is no such provision, which means that should a person in a domestic partnership die, his or her partner has no say, the deceased’s family does.  This bill simply sought to make domestic partnerships somewhat more on par with marriages, a common talking point of anti-gay rights advocates (“They’re equal!”).

 

But it was vetoed.  The Governor vetoed it.  And take a look at his reasoning.

“A one (1) year time period for any relationship is not sufficient length of duration to establish a serious, lasting bond between two (2) individuals to supplant the surviving individual over traditional family members….”

 

WHAT?!?!  This is outrageous!  If this is the case, why are there not laws preventing people from getting married less than a year after meeting?  Why are all of the rights and privileges of married couples afforded upon the simple statement of “I do”?  If a newlywed died while on the honeymoon, would you say to them, “Oh, sorry, your relationship wasn’t long enough to warrant funerary rights”?  Completely discriminatory and heterosexist.

 

It isn’t until his second paragraph that he makes a somewhat defensible statement.  But his primary concern is not legalism nor procedure.  It’s relational legitimacy.  This is reinforced by his third “reason” for his veto:

 

“Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surround traditional marriage…”

 

Marriage as “traditionally” defined is the legitimate relationship.  Domestic partnerships, which is used euphemistically for same-gender relationships, are illegitimate.  They have no relational legitimacy, they are not recognized by Rhode Island, and they are merely threats to the definition of state-sanctioned intimate, personal relations.  The proposed (and vetoed) bill is not the disturbing trend.  The bill is the lens through which we can better see the disturbing trend: discrimination against non-heterosexuals.  Or, to quote the apostle Paul:

 

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:20)

 

Governor Carcieri is not shown to be righteous by observing the law here; rather through the laws in place, we have become conscious of the interpersonal and structural sin of heterosexism.

 

 

 

 

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13: 8-10)

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.

Gay Marriage: A Radical Definition of Marriage

I was perusing CNN’s new and exciting website overhaul and came across this article talking about Maine’s upcoming vote on maintaining their recent legalization of same-sex marriage:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/25/maine.same.sex/index.html

I was reading through it rather ho-hum. Same general rhetoric being exchanged, although I was (and have been ever since he made his decision) appreciative of Maine’s governor, Baldacci, because of his considered decision to sign the bill into law. Now that law is going on the voting block. Anyway, as I read I found myself struck by the following:

“‘Question one on the ballot offers Mainers a choice, and the choice is whether to keep marriage legally defined … or to take that definition and replace it with a radical definition,’ said Stand for Marriage Maine communications director Scott Fish.”

Stand for Marriage Maine is the group advocating repeal of the law (i.e. fighting to return to a traditional definition of marriage).

What I found so striking is his opting for the term “radical.” I’m sure his usage was innocent. I’m sure he was just trying to contrast the “traditional” definition of marriage (whatever that means) with what marriage became under the recently adopted law. But I could not help but chuckle at his word choice.

Consider the definitions of the word “radical” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (with particular attention to the third definition):

radical |ˈradikəl|
adjective
1 (esp. of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.
• forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples.
• (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.
• characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.
2 advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist.
• (of a measure or policy) following or based on such principles.
3 of or relating to the root of something, in particular
• Mathematics of the root of a number or quantity.
• denoting or relating to the roots of a word.
• denoting the semantic or functional class of a Chinese character.
• Music belonging to the root of a chord.
• Botany of, or springing direct from, the root or stem base of a plant

Now, as I said, I’m sure Mr. Fish meant something akin to the first two definitions. That is the more usual rhetorical usage. However, it is the third definition that is its technical usage. In fact, the etymological sense of the term is found in this third definition. So, the flavor of the word when used pejoratively as Mr. Fish did (something is quite different from the status quo) is such that it involves a returning to the one’s roots.

Ironic. No?

Mr. Fish advocates a maintaining of the “traditional” definition of marriage instead of doing something so outlandish as returning to marriage’s “radical” definition. Probably a good call considering what the tradition of marriage truly entails (see my note on the History of Marriage: http://wp.me/pGvfU-F).

No, Mr. Fish. Let us agree to not make radical definitions of marriage. There is no need to take steps back into bigotry, sexism, classism, racism, and/or heterosexism, as you are advocating. Instead, we should embrace the expansion of the institution of marriage as we know it. This has been happening for millennia now. Why impede progress? Why prevent inclusion? Why stagnate love?

Oh, right. Because Mr. Fish, the metonym, feels those are all radical.

4 [usu. as exclam. ] informal very good; excellent : Okay, then. Seven o’clock. Radical!