So it seems that not every Democrat is created equal alike. While that seems comical to say, it would seem that there is a rift opening in the DNC’s ranks over the whole “gay rights” thing. Firstly, bravo to the electorate of California in enforcing their will over the desire of the superior courts. Secondly, did anybody notice how the news has kind of glossed over how Proposition 8 got passed? In case you missed it, Proposition 8 passed because the African-American community and the Hispanics got up and voted for it. In essence, Barack Obama, in searching for the minority vote to help him give McCain the political drubbing of his life, brought out the exact voters that would strike down the gay marriage agenda in California. Oh what tangled webs we weave……
Source story for this post, curtesy of Yahoo.com: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage#full
There are several things in this news story that I want to point out. First off, the protesters are having to be very indirect in their protesting. According to the exit polls, it was largely minorities that voted for Proposition 8. What that means is that if you actually attack the people who voted for the actual proposition, you are setting back race relations by forty years (which happens to be the “main focus” of the DNC). The solution that they have come up with? Turn on those nasty religious bigots. Now, the hatred of the homosexual community for those of strong faith (ie, those not giving room to that particular stripe of sexual immorality) is nothing new. What IS new is the steps taken to voice that hatred and disrespect so directly. Since they can’t point the finger (guess which!) at the black people, they are protesting outside of religious establishments. So in the mind of the protesters, their non-Constitutional guaranteed “right” to marry is more important than my Constitutionally guaranteed right to the free practice of my religion. What is the solution? Prohibit people of faith from participating in the political process in any capacity? While one blogger did get very creative and suggest that the government not issue marriage liscences of any kind to anyone (thus leaving “marriage” proper in the arms of the religious establishment, arguably where it belongs) and another suggested that it was time for a third political party (which would split the DNC power base pretty effectively), I think the solution is much easier than all that. The church prays, people get saved, question answered.
However, this goes beyond a question of morality. We are fully into a legal question now. While I believe it was a usurpation of democracy, the judicial system (over)utilized their power to judge the merit of law to strike down the voter approved “Question 22” by declaring it “unconstitutional”. The voters then fired back by exercising their democratic and constitutional rights to ammend the state constitution to fix the same issue that Question 22 sought to solve. At this point, it is now a voter approved part of the California state Constitution. If the Court overturns it now, it is a clear cut instance of the courts usurping the democratic power they are charged to protect. To that end, fair or not, the State views marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Unless the SCOTUS steps in to overturn the ammendment (which opens up a can of worms about state sovereignty) it should be a done issue. To say it another way, mass protests in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Oakland are pretty much pointless.
Secondly, did anybody notice the way that the organizers of these protests are trying to frame this argument? While slogans such as “Gay is the new black” are quite evocative in their imagery, declaring that your “state says that I am not a person!” is really a stretch of the imagination… let alone my patience.
One: Where, except social philosophy, is it declared that marriage is a basic human right? “We hold these truthes to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator, and among these are Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and making vows that they hold as worthless before a God they don’t believe exists…” I DON’T THINK SO!
Two: defining marriage does NOT define humanity as well. Being single and “in forbidden love” does not mean that you are not human. It means that the state views your relationship as a romantic escapade between two consenting adults. That IS being human.
Three: While the civil rights type rhetoric is very emotional, there is a distinct difference between the Gay rights group and the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King. For the religious, it is not a sin to be black. For the irreligious, no one is advocating “seperate but equal” education for those claiming a homosexual nature, no one is advocating taking the voting priveledges from the homosexual community, and it is already illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the workplace. To say it differently, no one is threatening the existence of the homosexual community the way people were threatening the existence of the African American community. That basic difference is precisely why rallies such as this are going to push the African Americans and the Homosexuals (as a whole) further and further apart. To claim that you are, in this somewhat trivial struggle, working in the same vein as those who liberated an entire race of people from under the jackboot of Democrat elitism (it’s the reality of the 60’s, people), you manage to not only insult the memory of what Martin Luther King actually stood for, but the entire people group he fought for as well. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out…