On Referendums and Recalls

So, I should be nerding out with V right now, but I got distracted by the Innertubes. This balloty referendum/proposition thing just has to stop. Referenda are for like "do you want the parks in your neighborhood to stay open past sundown on weekends" not "should basic civil rights be recognized for gay people even if you think it's super icky when two boys kiss." I blame California for this. This and that whole super skinny thing. Seriously, have you seen Maria Shriver? Her head is twice the width of her shoulders now. I don't know how she keeps it up.

I digress.

What I'm saying is can someone call up everyone in California and tell them enough with propositions, already? Their influence is spreading and it's getting out of hand. While you're at it, can you also call up Fox News and let them know that a judicial decision that irritates the right wing does not equal judicial activism? You might want to point out a certain Supreme Court decision from about 9 years ago to exemplify what judicial activism really looks like.

Anyone who thinks that democracy = majority rules needs their voting cards taken back until they complete a fourth grade civics class. Else, they need to write 500 times on a chalkboard "Will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority, which is often the point for that whole third branch of government."

If, for example, a ballot initiative showed up in Illinois to revoke the drivers licenses of people who put those obnoxious Calvin pissing stickers on their car, I would have to vote yes. I would be compelled to disregard everything I believe about democracy in the hopes that I would never see another sticker of Calvin pissing again. In Illinois. But, people also have a right to publicly display how tacky and stupid they are. Shoot, without that right, the networks would be free of Seth McFarlane shows and we can't have that (oh, but if we could...).

Did I just manage to compare gay marriage to those obnoxious Calvin stickers and Seth McFarlane? Oh god... I need to shower and start nerdfest '09.

Name Calling

... It has been pointed out to me that name calling is not effective. That's mostly true (I maintain it IS helpful when the dude in the Escalade parks over two spaces to avoid scratches on his car because he IS a douchebag and that must be noted). So, in the interest of avoiding any more name calling, I'll leave it with this open question:

Is it fair to force people who don't share your faith or, for that matter, your moral code to adhere to it?

The thing about our democracy is that it has two functions: to enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.

I maintain, and will continue to do so, that as long as the government is in the business of bestowing legal status on couples by way of marriage, and as long as this legal status is denied to the millions of gay Americans representing the minority, the government has failed in its second function. And while that second function is the hard one, it's also the part that's made this American experiment with democracy so great.

With that I'll consider my position stated and may stop harping. May. I sort of doubt it. But, shoot, anything is possible.

Gay Marriage: Or, If It Weren't For All the Nuance!

This morning, Rex Huppke had a front page story in the Tribune all about teh gay marriage. I was interested when I read this:

Each side in this debate tends to broad-brush the other: radical, bigoted, asking too much, giving too little. But in the calm reflections of the Creswells [straight] and Neubeckers [gay], a more nuanced disagreement can be found. And while it may not be settled, it can at least be better understood.

Oooh, "nuanced disagreement." Love it!

Let's get all up in the Creswells' nuance!

They've seen firsthand how the legal definition of a family can work against people bound by love and support but not necessarily blood or formal documents.

Ah, but:

"It seems inconceivable to me that you'd say, 'OK, let's redefine marriage, let's go further with this experiment,' and then the next day there wouldn't be a polygamist at the door saying, 'What about me?'

Ah, I see. By nuanced disagreement, Rex Huppke means "the same tired and easily refuted (each petition for amending legal marriage should be taken on its own merits. KaDUH!) argument that's been made against gay marriage for the past 20 years or so."

For too long, this "nuanced" discussion has been led by towering intellects who oppose gay marriage because if two dudes get married than it's inevitable that your next reservation at Spiaggia will just be RUINED when a dude and his goat wife are seated at the next table. I am sick to death of treating these arguments (oh, who am I kidding: this argument) as legitimate. You can't win a debate with these people. It's time to stop having it.

Traditional media has recently glommed onto the idea that weirdo sex freaks who are not skeeved out by two men kissing have been making for years: get government out of marriage all together.

It's time to go full on Ron Paul up on this. If we can't stop legitimizing "it's a shame for the homos, but if we let them get married than all my weird, sick fantasies will surely come true", then it's time to give the argument up all together. No more legal marriage. Civil unions for all!

Proof that a Five Year Old Could Lead the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement

So this morning in the car I was talking to Laney about the protest downtown against prop-8 (or for gay marriage). She was asking me to explain it and so I decided to make the hypothetical real. I told her that her aunts in Phoenix loved each other the same way her daddy and I love each other (apologies to my Arizonz bee-otches. I hope you don't mind me using you as examples). Then I asked "don't you think it's fair that they should get to be married like daddy and I are?

She agreed.

Then she said "Could I marry Madison?"

And I said no, since they were too young.

Then she asked if she could marry Ginger (the dog).

And I said she couldn't marry an animal, and besides she's still too young to get married.

Then an entirely complicated hypothetical arose in which she and Madison were grown up and Madison was married to someone else and could she then get married to Madison.

And then it hit me: she was articulating the main talking point of the anti-gay marriage adult. If you allow gay marriage, then all bets are off: marrying children, marrying animals, polygamy! Oh my.

But the thing is, Laney is FIVE! The concept of what marriage is; the fullness of it, its rewards and complications, are beyond her ken and will be for some time. But I'm willing to bet the mortgage payment that at some point today, on Fox News, there was a 45 year old posing the exact same hypotheticals Laney was making in the car today.

Government Marriage

What do you think: can't the government just get out of the marriage business all together? It's just a loaded word.  Get married in a church.  Get unioned by the government.  I think this is more a matter of language than anything else.

I mean, don't get me wrong - there are some homophobic motherfuckers out there.  But, you have to own your homophobia to be against a civil union.  There is no polite society for "I don't think this lesbian should be able to visit her dying partner in the hospital*."

Forget trying to change the people - just change the language.  Get your government papers down at the city hall, gay or straight, and if your god wigs out over the gays, then get married in your miserable gayless church.

That's all I'm saying.

* This is sort of the go to anecdote for gay marriage advocates.  However, as I've said many times before, I think the eensy conveniences of every day life matter more.  Like when I rent a car, Don can drive it without having to present his driver's license to the Avis guy.  I think this is awesome.