Register Now!
13
Nov 10th, 2008

Bigicon

On November 5th, the heady buzz of election night had faded to a throbbing headache. My beloved home state, California, had at once voted to demand more legroom for chickens and pigs on factory farms (Prop 2) and to deny the state's many gays the right to marry (Prop 8). In the past five days, thousands of people from Palm Springs to Long Beach to Los Angeles to San Francisco have hit the streets to protest the constitutional revision; several were arrested, and at least one was beaten prior to arrest. There are already three lawsuits headed to the California courts to challenge Prop 8, and both supporters and opponents of gay marriage have vowed that the fight is far from over.

Prop 8 adds the following language to California's constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." News of its passing left many shaking their heads, wondering how a state like California could give its votes to Changey McHoperson and at the same time approve a socially regressive constitutional revision. But in spite of its hippie radical reputation, California's voting trends generally look a lot like the rest of the nation's: a wide red middle, book-ended by blue. And though change has been the watchword of recent months, we sometimes forget that with change comes an inevitable backlash from those who fear becoming displaced in society.

The majority gets majorly freaked out when other people win the rights that they already enjoy, as though rights are finite and should be stockpiled like so many cans of beans in case of nuclear fallout.

Still, Prop 8 is on the losing side of history. The sex-panic button regularly gets hit in response to social change, racial tension, economic instability and foreign wars. The majority gets majorly freaked out when other people win the rights that they already enjoy, as though rights are finite and should be stockpiled like so many cans of beans in case of nuclear fallout. These regressions are frustrating and hurtful, but a study of history can put them in perspective.

Until 1977 the California Civil Code didn't have a specific gender requirement for marriage. The clause about marriage was actually gender-neutral from its ratification in 1850, defining marriage only as "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

Of course, the switch from gender-neutral to gender-specific didn't happen because Californians suddenly and randomly got their panties in a damp tangle. In 1977 the nation had just disengaged from the deeply unpopular war in Vietnam. Stagflation and the oil crisis were taking turns punching the American economy in the kidneys. Just four years earlier, Roe v. Wade had overturned all state and federal laws restricting abortion. And eight years earlier, the Stonewall Riots in New York City sparked a three-day uprising, arguably turning gay rights into a full-on movement. In this upheaval America's pre-war gender expectations needed a manly, normative pat on the back. Enter the first repeals of gay-rights ordinances (in Dade County, FL; thanks Anita Bryant!) and the spankin' new nouns in the California Civil Code.

Comments ( 13 )

Bowers v. Hardwick, the US Supreme Court decision that held that there was no constitutional protection against states criminalizing private and consensual sexual acts among adults, was decided in 1986. Today, the opponents of full equality have conceded pretty much all of that territory and many of them even argue for granting the same rights to same-sex couples under some other legal structure beside marriage. This is remarkable progress in a relatively short period of time, for civil rights anyway, and points the way to what needs to be done. Just keep pressing ahead and wait for the next generation to reach voting age.
BZ commented on Nov 10 08 at 6:47 pm
I'd echo what BZ said. Lawrence overruled Bowers just 17 years later. Consider that it took 56 years for Brown to overrule Plessy's "separate but equal" rule. The tide of history is on the side of equality and human rights, but there will be waves that recede before the tide completes its work. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike gay marriage bans some time in the next 15 years, assuming the legislatures and voters have not done so before.
REM commented on Nov 11 08 at 11:54 am
Excellent article! Really helps keep things in mind and its nice to know that people are not taking this lying down. Get out there and fight!! I know I will!
Rmr commented on Nov 11 08 at 5:08 pm
great article
ja commented on Nov 12 08 at 12:50 am
yes, great article, and yes, i agree that sooner or later it will come back around and people will vote to allow same-sex marriage, not only in CA, but in all the other 49 states, as well. i'm always curious about other people's motivations and their fear, which is actually what drives most people. i wonder how people can say 'it's ok for me, but it's not ok for you because you are different'. do they really think they will lose out because someone else gets some pie, too?
dsm commented on Nov 12 08 at 4:31 pm
Would you mind not beginning your article by implying that support of Prop. 2 and opposition of Prop. 8 were mutually exclusive? Please don't compare the two, as though we put animals rights "ahead" of human rights. Volunteers for the Prop. 2 campaign worked long and hard for over a year to get this legislation passed, giving a voice to the voiceless (Our LGBT community, incidentally, is not voiceless). We are now supporting the overturn of Prop. 8's passage, just as we opposed it before the election. The only thing that Prop. 2 and Prop. 8 had in common was timing. Drawing comparisons between the two, as though without Prop. 2 around, Prop. 8 definitely wouldn't have passed, is offensive and insulting to all the work everyone did on both campaigns. Please review your opinions before you make such misleading implications again.
MG commented on Nov 12 08 at 5:11 pm
MG, I really don't see how that sentence implies anything of the sort. If anything, I'd say it's addressing the fact that California can be simultaneously very progressive and very regressive.
TM commented on Nov 12 08 at 5:29 pm
I don't believe the author meant at all to imply that support of 2 and opposition to 8 were mutually exclusive. I believe the statement was meant to highlight the overarching hypocrisy of the election results, with animals gaining right and gay/lesbian humans losing them.
ls commented on Nov 12 08 at 6:00 pm
The opponents of Prop 2 raised mostly financial and protectionist arguments, basically saying that its passage would increase the price of eggs and force more imports from Mexico, which was for the most part an economic and rational argument. The Prop 8 debate was much more emotional and visceral. And when the churches became involved, Prop 8 was portrayed as a defense against an assault on people's faith and deeply held beliefs. At the end of the day, people care much less about paying a couple of extra cents per egg than they do about even a contrived assault on their beliefs. As others have pointed out, other than being on the same ballot, the two propositions had nothing to do with each other.
BZ commented on Nov 12 08 at 7:35 pm
I think this chick should write History of the Single Life.
br commented on Nov 13 08 at 12:11 pm
I would have to disagree with some of the definitions this writer cites as an authority. First; Definition of a Minority Group: Minority Group, group of people sharing common ethnic, racial, or religious backgrounds, especially when constituting a comparatively small proportion of a given population. Minority groups often have fewer rights and less power than majority groups. Additionally; here are the 5 Characteristics of a Minority Group: 1. Distinguishing physical or cultural traits, e.g. skin color or language 2. Unequal Treatment and Less Power over their lives 3. Involuntary membership in the group (no personal choice) 4. Awareness of subordination and strong sense of group solidarity 5. High In-group Marriage A sexual preference such as gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, and transvestism ARE NOT ethnic, racial, or religious in nature. Therefore they should not be categorized as a Minority Group. Although many claim it is in their DNA or they are born with these desires and have no control over what their sexual desires are. This has not been scientifically proven. This is pure deception in order to change the perceptions of the week minded and lazy thinkers. As for item 2 above: I don
GDF commented on Nov 15 08 at 4:02 am
It's so easy for people to point out that gays and lesbians getting married won't destroy the marriages of straight people. Of course no one's marriage will harm anyone else's. Only no one's concerned about gay marriage harming straight marriages. It's just a dumb objection supporters of gay and lesbian marriage set up (themselves) as an easy target. I think there are OTHER consequences we would see if gay marriage is legalized. I'm a straight male. When I was in my teens, I had gay men (a teacher, barber, etc.) come on to me in ways that would cost a male teacher years of jail time if he stroked the shoulders (in class) of a female student like he did to me, repeatedly (during class.) The gay barber also was a big-time masseur. And there were one or two others: camp counselor, for one. The point is, if there'd been gay marriage when I was an impressionable kid at that time, I might have ended up trying something with a guy. Who knows, I could have ended up gay. I DON'T believe that people are born with an unalterable orientation. Sometimes, it's just circumstances that decide things. In fact, I have a bisexual friend (female) who wrote a published book about going from straight, to lesbian, and back to straight. (No, there were no shrinks or ministers involved. She just chose to take that route.) Guess what? Her lesbian activist friends were shocked when she felt like getting with a man again (long-term). They tried to discourage her and broke off friendships. Lesbianism (for at least a segment of the lesbian population) is NOT just about being attracted to women. For many, it's also about a hatred of and anger toward men. Why else would a bunch of lesbians care what kind of sex life their friend wants to have? To them, being with a man would be being with the enemy. I think proponents of gay marriage need to come up with something a lot better and more honest than the jokes about how two guys getting married will ruin other people's marriage. That's not the issue. It's more about the flexibility of young people and how they view things. I'm glad I didn't end up gay. NOT because of anything the Bible says or anything like that. That's nonsense and we all know it. But it's just not me. And if I'd seen same-sex marriages around me when men were coming on to me, who knows? Obviously, it's not just me. There are lots of young people making all kinds of choices.
JH commented on Nov 16 08 at 10:25 pm
So, JH, if I understand your point, you are saying that (i) you are not gay, and (ii) some male adults made passes at you when you were very young, that you successfully rejected, but (iii) you are now concerned that if gay marriage had been legal when you were propositioned, you may gone further than you did, and may have even turned gay. In keeping with the polite tone of the discussion here, all I can say is that this makes zero sense on so many levels that it boggles the mind where to even begin. I will start and stop with the most obvious, which is attempted pedophilia has nothing to do with any kind of marriage, gay or straight and even a kid would be skeptical of "Don't worry, it's OK; I'm married."
BZ commented on Nov 17 08 at 8:50 pm

Leave a Comment