Dagmar points out that today is the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht – the night of broken glass. Back then, the assertion that “these people are not like you and me – they do not deserve the same rights that we have” led to unspeakable horror. Given that this essentially the sentiment behind Proposition 8, it is tempting to look nervously for parallels.
I am reminded of the scene that I found the most powerfully disturbing in Roman Polanski’s brilliant 2002 film “The Pianist” – a film with many powerfully disturbing scenes. It is the moment when two guards in the Jewish Ghetto, feeling bored, decide to make the Jews dance. The guards shoot their guns around the feet of the captives, forcing the horrified Jews, men and women, to dance and jump about, like marionettes in hell.
I remember thinking, while watching this scene, that six years earlier those two guards, if told that one day they would treat people in such a way, would probably have recoiled with horrified disbelief. The difference is that six years earlier the two guards would have seen these poor suffering people as human. Now, after years of systematic brainwashing, the guards no longer see certain types of people as human. And therefore they no longer feel empathy for those people.
We see the guards as monsters, but they don’t see themselves that way. And that is an important point, perhaps the important point. People never see themselves as monsters. Rather, they are led to stop seeing the humanity in others.
And so we come to Proposition 8 (or “Proposition Hate”, as I’ve found myself calling it). I think the point that Andras makes is enormous: The Obama victory has been a triumph of reality over preconceived prejudice. As such, it has given millions of people in this country the good, clean, heady feeling that comes with being able to look past one’s fear and see something for what it actually is – in this case the election of a level-headed and competent leader, for a nation that sorely needs one.
People are in a mood now to embrace that positive energy, an energy that is so much more empowering than fear. When I have talked with people since the election, black or white, young or old, I have seen a solidarity with gay and lesbian Americans from people who were never before so openly welcoming. The change is palpable.
People are realizing that Proposition 8 and similar acts of legislative hate across the country are, in effect, an attempt to label ordinary people as criminals, people who simply want to be left alone, to be accepted for who they are, to be allowed to have a long-term committed relationship acknowledged, the same as their siblings, their co-workers, and their next door neighbors.
I think the Obama victory really has changed the discourse. Hopefully on this day of sad remembrance of Kristallnacht and the horrors it prefigured, we are starting to see something beautiful and opposite emerging in our culture – an embracing of love for one’s fellow humans, rather than fear and hatred, and a greater willingness to stand up for our friends and neighbors, to march alongside them in protest when somebody tries to deny them their humanity.
Perhaps Proposition 8 was one too many rocks through the window, one act of hatred too far. Maybe this time people will pick up those shards of broken glass, and we will see not the self-administered destruction of a society, but a wake-up call that saves one.
From what I have seen of churches’ opposition to gay marriage, it’s mostly about who gets to define right and wrong. Is what is right something that we work out together as a society, by reasoning and efforts to persuade, or is it something that is handed to us from the church? The arguments that the church uses in favor of its positions are mostly come up with to justify a position that already exists. And the leaders believe as much as the most devout members that what actions are right is something imposed from the outside, that can’t be argued with.
Certainly any group of people, such as the congregation of a church, is free to organize itself into a top-down hierarchy, subjugating each member’s will to a chosen authority. But that’s not at all what we’re talking about here.
Denying an individual their right to civil marriage has real consequences. It reduces their access to health care, insurance, tax deductions, hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, and many other things that most of us take for granted in this country.
I’m sure that Aryan supremicists who believe blacks and whites should not marry are equally sincere in their beliefs. That doesn’t make them right. Any time one group within society imposes its power and will to take away rights from innocent people, that is an act of evil.
Our job as American citizens is to oppose any group that attacks our friends and neighbors who are just trying to live their lives in peace, no matter how sanctimonious or sincere the attacking group is.
“Our job as American citizens is to oppose any group that attacks our friends and neighbors who are just trying to live their lives in peace, no matter how sanctimonious or sincere the attacking group is.”
Not only as “American citizens”, but as human beings, I would say.
I think it was Carola Bloch who once spoke about “the desire of human beings, to be a real human being” and this is I guess exactly what she meant with it.
It disturbs me that so many people consider a different opinion, or, the assertion of a different set of values as “hate”.
I was 100% for proposition 8. But, not because I hate anyone. Because I believe in the institution of marriage and family. I believe in this institution in the same traditional sense that we have all grown up with.
I am not a religious person. This has nothing to do with church or god, or anything like that (as many assume). This has to do with raising kids and having families.
Of course there are deviations, but, given a perfect world, children are the product of a man and a woman. And, I don’t think anyone can argue that the best way to raise a child is with and by the child’s
mother and father.
Homosexual relations are a deviation from the norm. Deviant doesn’t necessarily mean “bad”, but, this is a deviation. I don’t hate people for being deviant. I strongly believe that we should all have the right to our deviations, but, I don’t believe that we should institutionalize these deviations. I don’t want my children to think that these deviations are normal. I don’t want them taught about Billy’s two daddies in school. I want them to have the best chance of a normal and fulfilling life with a single partner who will be the co parent of their children. I want them to know that the family that you, yourself, grew up with is the best possible situation.
Perhaps there is some prejudice here, but, it’s the exact same prejudice that I have against FLDS children being forced into marrying relatives. It’s deviant, it’s non tradition, and I don’t like it. I don’t want my children growing up thinking that marriage is anything other than a union between a mommy and a daddy.
Proposition 8 was a change to the constitution of California that defines marriage. It’s not excluding any specific group, it’s just defining what we have all grown up knowing what marriage is. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This is the entire change to the constitution.
This statement doesn’t single out homosexuals, or FLDS members wanting to marry their 13 year old nieces, or a group of 3 men wanting to marry a goat. It simply defines marriage in terms that we, as a society, have always recognized.
I keep hearing the arguments about sharing property, hospital visitation, etc… This constitutional amendment doesn’t help or hinder that. Civil Unions are the alternative. Couples in California have the same rights as a married couple through a civil union. So, why are we so hell-bent on changing the definition of marriage? I occasionally receive junk mail with headlines depicting deviant relationships between women and farm animals… Is it hateful if I don’t recognize their right to marry? It’s simply someone exercising their rights to deviant behavior… Let’s recognize that as equal to what your parents enjoy.
I’m curious how many people raising children out there believe that this is the right thing to do. I know there are a few of you out there, but, I do believe that the majority of people out there that are fighting non traditional marriage are not raising a family of their own. Speculation, of course… And clearly, the majority has spoken on this over and over and over.
Here’s the clincher… I voted for Proposition 8 for a reason that had nothing to do with marriage. Here’s where the hate comes in… I absolutely HATE the thought that the people of California voted for something. Anything. And a couple of judges overthrew the Will of the People. Proposition 8 was crafted to restore the will of the people, and it passed. Now, there is still a lunatic fringe trying to overthrow the will of the people one more time. How many times must the people speak before they are allowed to be heard? This is not a fluke, the voters of California don’t want this.
We have to decide, as a people, if our vote counts. I’m not happy with the outcome of every vote, but, I do believe in our democracy. I also believe that it sets a terrible precedent to allow a minority of the people to legally change law to the contrary of the will and the voice of the people. Why does this minority take it upon themselves to assert their assumptions of enlightenment or superiority? When we, as a people, decide on a course of action, it’s never going to be a unanimous decision. So, we have to decide if democracy is right for us or not. Perhaps Obama will be our new Fearless Leader and we can just get rid of this whole, ridiculous “voting thing”.
Proposition 8 passed with almost the same margin of the popular vote as Obama did. Should we also consider Obama’s election Hate against McCain? Perhaps we should seek to legally have that overturned. Clearly nearly half of the country that voted weren’t happy with that outcome… He only one by 6% of the popular vote… Again, I’m not happy with Obama. I think he’s a dangerous proposition. But, I will support him as my president and will oppose any attempt to circumvent the will of the people for better or worse.
I don’t see any contradiction here. People voted time and again against black and white people getting married because it wasn’t “normal”. The argument was essentially the one you make – such a union should not be institutionalized because it’s not the “best possible situation”. Just like you are doing, they argued from a conclusion: This is wrong because it is wrong.”
If we follow the logic of your argument, it could also be argued that I should not be permitted to marray because I come from a Jewish background. By definition I am a deviant in this society, since most people in the U.S. come from a Christian background. Following your logic, you might tolerate my claim that I have the right to marry, but then again you might not. After all, most people in this country are not like me. You could also argue that your objection to allowing Jewish people to marry is not religious – why bring religion into it! – but rather that fact that I am deviant, and therefore it would not be the best possible situation to have children raised in a deviant subculture.
What is “deviant” is not absolute, but subject to change as society shifts over time. There came a time when interracial marriage became normal, and now most people have difficulty remembering why anybody had a problem with black people marrying white people. People kept voting one way, while societal norms gradually shifted, and then at some point they voted another way.
Yes, the majority has spoken, and Proposition 8 is the law of the land in California, just as “separate but equal” was the law of the land in an earlier era. The current massive rallies are intended not to invalidate the Nov 4 vote, but rather to shift majority opinion, as part of a democratic process. It’s all part of democracy in action – the Nov 4 vote as well as the rallies that have followed.
Troy, it looks to me like we have a functioning democracy here – we’re all expressing our opinion, and in the long run either Proposition 8 will stand or it will fall, following the shifting will of the majority in a changing society, as segregation did before it.
By the way, I like your “Fearless Leader” shout-out – a allusion to the old Rocky The Squirrel cartoon. I can’t be sure about this, but I suspect that Bullwinkle is probably feeling pretty good right now that Sarah Palin is not in the White House. 😉
Funny, I always wonder who will get my obscure references… Of course, it was based on my belief that I don’t think the moose and squirrel should be allowed to marry… 🙂 (please read last sentence with Natashia’s Russian Accent)
So, going back to your comments about blacks/jews/etc not being able to marry outside of their own. I agree that these ideas are ugly and wrong. (my children are, of course, all jewish) But, where I draw the line is not from inter-racial/inter-religious, or other reasons. We, here, are questioning the very institution.
My question is, where do you draw the line? Should we allow poligamy? Should we allow arranged marriages with minors? Clearly these are just minority deviations. Are we opressing the minority FLDS cults and not allowing them fundamental equality by not allowing them to marry their prepubescent 1st cousins? Should we also consider that a “marriage” even if we allow them to “unite” for religious, or some other reason?
Believe me, there is not Hate here… There’s not even judgement here. I have no problem with inter-ratial, intra-sexual, or even inter-species unions. If you want to make a commitment to anything, that’s fine. It’s just not what I choose to do, and not what I choose to regard as normal or natural. It’s just not a marriage.
Also, once again to re-iterate… I have my beliefs. I support my beliefs. I voice my beliefs. This is how you spread your ideas, and, it gives others a basis to tell you why they don’t believe the same thing. If nobody knows why you think what you think, it can always just be sumarized by something silly like “hate” or “fear”. That’s not the case.
So, if I have a government that doesn’t represent my thinking, I can only blame myself if I didn’t make myself heard. Also, if I am heard, but, the majority sees otherwise, then I hope that the masses were more enlightened or smarter about something than I was. In any case, I did my part, and move forward from there.
So, let’s keep voicing our concerns, try to educate each other, try to be educated by each other, and assume that the Obama supporters were smarter than me, and the Prop 8 supporters were smarter than you… 🙂
troy,
please let me ask you for a favour. You are using two words, that I would ask you not to use in this context:
firstly) normal
secondly) natural.
Because you disqualify other people and their lifestyles, beliefs at the very same moment as unnatural or abnormal.
You may say something like “those lifestyles don’t get along with the consensus we have reached in our country, society” or something similar.
Dagmar, I’m sorry you find those words offensive or politically incorrect. They are simply words that state, succinctly, what I was trying to convey. Normal is the correct word for what I was trying to say. I refuse to be politically correct and have the words obfuscated into PC obscurity. You can’t argue that it’s “normal” because what I am describing uses the definition of abnormalcy. That which is not the norm…
As for “natural”, that is obviously opinion. Everything is natural. Plastic is natural as it is made by humans, which are, arguably, also natural. Perhaps gay marriage is a natural human progression to limit proliferation… who knows?, it’s all a matter of opinion…
Also, I don’t subscribe to the idea that abnormal is a negative. I would much rather be unique. Clearly my uniqueness will be praised by some, and criticized by others. But, I would be insulted for anyone to veil their discourse on either side with crippling political correctness…
Troy, you would absolutely have the right to say that because I come from a Jewish background I am somehow unnatural. You also have the right to look at somebody with blue eyes and express revulsion because you think there is something sick and twisted about their eye color. You can refuse to take a shower with somebody because you found out that they were left handed. It’s entirely up to you. There’s no law that says that people have to try to be likeable.
Speaking from a scientific perspective, I don’t see anything particularly notable about whether somebody is homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, or any basis for making such an assertion, so as far as I can see, you’re just spinning wheels. Functionally it’s a non-difference. People can hold down the same jobs, learn the same skills, function with the same social and intellectual facility, whatever their natural sexual preference.
You like to verbally set apart a particular group of people who are actually the same as other people in any way that could possibly matter in a democratic society. The fact that you like to do this is a characteristic of you, not of homosexuals. But yes, you are free to posit whatever arbitrary distinctions you want, whether about Jews, or blue eyed folks, or homosexuals, or left handed people.
It’s a free country.
Ken,
I think you have mistaken my intent. My note was simply on linguistic semantics, and, I thought, I was making the argument that pretty much everything is debatably natural, but, not everything is normal.
If I see someone walking down Times Square naked, that is not normal. But, that’s also not a statement that I hate nudists.
So whether or not your are a blue-eyed, left handed jew, does not make you unnatural (I still won’t shower with you though). But, it may make you abnormal.
OK, fair enough. I can’t argue with that, but it ends up being a weak statement. I guess it’s fair to say, if you frame it in this way, that we are all abnormal. If you consider together even a few characteristics of any individual, that individual quickly finds themselves in the minority.
For example, I’m left handed, which immediately makes me abnormal in these terms, even before we consider anything else about me.
And I’m quite happy being left handed, even if that means that some may refer to me pejoratively. I may be gauche at times, but I’m definitely not sinister. 🙂
Dear Ken, dear Troy,
you can easily say that you are happy to be called ‘abnormal’, if you are left handed, because you wont be in any way discriminated, because you are left handed.
You still have the same civil liberties as anybody else.
You can easily say that you are happy to be unique, if you aren’t in any way discriminated.
So Troy, if I asked you to use an expression like:
“those lifestyles don’t get along with the consensus we have reached in our country, society” not because of any kind of political correctness, but because that is exactly, what the people did, when they voted, nothing else.
They said and that is what you say too, is I don’t like the lifestyle of grown up homosexual people and I don’t want them to have the same rights, like heterosexual people.
And please you have every right to do so.
Maybe it will be ‘normal’ in the future that homosexual people can’t get married in the US, that homosexual people, in spite they are as normal (for troy: as abnormal) people like you and me, are not granted the same civil rights, like heterosexual people.
Dagmar, you and I are not going to get anywhere with Troy. He has this notion in his head that some people should not be permitted to marry the person they are naturally attracted to and are spending their life with in a committed loving relationship.
I could point out the science to him – the fact that every species scientists have studied contains a substantial proportion of homosexual individuals (it’s hard to get more normal than that), or the fact that homosexuality in men has been shown to be genetically linked to increased fertility in related women (and therefore is a trait that is naturally selected for).
But I suspect that Troy is not really listening, and that he’s not going to listen. We need to focus on enlightening the majority. Troy’s having fun with his “ornery” opinion, and I suspect that he will never agree on a gut level that this is irrational prejudice, or care to acknowledge that so much of the misinformation that led to the passage of Prop 8 was deliberate, and was paid for by the Mormon Church.
Dagmar, you and I both have friends, neighbors, coworkers and relatives who are arbitrarily being denied civil rights because of prejudice and misinformation. Domestic partnership in California (it’s not called “civil union” in CA) does not confer the same rights as marriage. There are no federal benefits to such unions, including Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits or federal tax breaks.
Arguing with Troy about things like this, when he’s just having fun sharpening his claws, is not going to help undo this damage to peoples’ civil rights. Getting the facts out to people is a much better use of one’s effort.
Wow, I realize this is an emotional issue for you, but, I really didn’t expect the personal attacks… “sharpening his claws”? “Troy is not listening and not going to”? I have listened to and considered everything that everyone has written. It amazes me that, this topic in particular, always seems to come down to personal attacks.
In San Diego, it got downright nasty… vandalism, violence, personal attacks aimed against anyone that had an opinion supporting traditional marriage. I’ve never seen a group of “haters” as large or active as the prop 8 opponants. But clearly, the more active and louder opponants didn’t sway the supporters of traditional marriage. Just proves that attacks don’t move the discussion further, they just cause people to dig their heels in.
Yes, the Mormons supported prop 8 as did many other religious organizations. But, it was also financially opposed by many large groups in California and abroad, by Teacher’s Unions, gay rights organizations, and “Anti-Hate” organizations. Both sides were represented financially as well is vocally.
Personally, as I indicated much earlier, my position on Prop 8 was geared more at the judicial branch of government trying to overthrow the will of the people, whatever that will might have been. I don’t hate homosexuals, jews, blacks, or left-handed people. I have many friends that fall into some or all of the above categories. (don’t forget, I started out as a professional ballet dancer) I just have an opinion, that there is value in the notion and preservation of traditional marriage. This has nothing to do with any deviation in behavior from the norm. I don’t hate anyone because they are gay. I don’t think that they should be dissalowed to do whatever they want to in private. (I say in private, not because they’re gay, but, because I don’t want to witness lewd acts of anyone, gay or straight) It’s just an institution that I believe in and have conveyed without using any personal attacks or assumptions on the stubborness, ornriness, or claw-sharpening simplemindedness of anyone else.
Clearly not on this topic, but, in general… I think it’s valuable to discuss differing opinions, no matter how strongly you feel. It may amount to nothing, or, it may enlighten someone… “Hey, Ken’s got a good point there that I haven’t thought of” or “Hey, Troy’s really more of a redneck than I suspected” Whatever the realization, education, understanding, or lack thereof comes out of it can be valuable. Resorting to personal attacks such as “he’s incapable of understanding my righteous and undisprovable truths” just results in either 1. the discourse degrading into personal attacks or 2. The slamming of the door of argumentative discourse thereby leaving both parties in the dark.
So, in conclusion, if we ever find ourselves single again, I’d love to marry you so that we can continue a life of intellectual discussion that degrades into endless bickering… 🙂
Gosh, I didn’t mean it as a personal attack. I was intending to compliment you on your debating skills. This is clearly a topic in which you have formed very definite conclusions, and so I was trying to point out to Dagmar that you seemed to be continuing the discussion mainly because you were enjoying the argument. I quite enjoy reading your arguments – and seeing how you use those sharpened rhetorical claws – whether or not I agree with you on a particular topic.
To me the problem to be solved in this case is giving all citizens equal rights under the law – not ceremonial rights, but actual rights. If federal law recognized California’s domestic partnerships and conferred the same rights to domestic partners that it does to married couples, I most likely wouldn’t care a fig about Proposition 8.
I agree with your point that we should always be debating the relative power of the judiciary branch, although I most likely come down more on the side that the judiciary acts as a useful check; the judiciary is supposed to resolve whether laws are consistent with the current state of the Constitution.
I recently reread “The Federalist Papers” – I highly recommend them to anyone who is grappling with questions touching on the balance of powers.
In conclusion, I can honestly say that yours is the best marriage proposal I have had so far today. 🙂
Ken, forgive me if I jumped to conclusions here. I’m glad to learn that you understand my position. I am not emotionally attached to this issue and really had left it behind when I moved on to linguistic semantics and political correctness.
My intention was to discuss exactly that… semantics, and not the issue of gay marriage, about which we have both made ad nauseum points. I don’t mind continuing the debate, but, that wasn’t really what I was referring to when we continued the conversations about natural, normal, etc.
I actually thought that I’d made the concession that my use of “natural” was misplaced, and, that I considered “normal” to mean exactly what it says in the dictionary without any emotional baggage attached.
My further discussion, with Dagmar, was not for or against gay marriage, but, was about my perception of the influence of political correctness in any discussion. I think it’s often misplaced. I would rather live in a world where we have thicker skin and can handle an actual thought that is not veiled and obscured with concerns of political correctness… This had nothing to do with the original topic, but, was a generalization based on a request to not use certain words.
I have plenty to make fun of. Make fun of me for being a farmer, about being an ex ballet dancer, about being a combat veteran in the Air Force. I really don’t care if you are making a point other than “he simply can’t accept my truth”. That, I take as an attack on my intelligence and a wholesale discounting of my right to an opinion.
The reality is, I’ve lived and learned amongst so many different types of people, rich, poor, gay, straight, liberal, conservative, military, civilian. Heck, when you first hired me, I was an Arts Administration Major working in the Art Department at NYU… Now, I drive a diesel, dually pickup, grow grapes, and fly helicopters for the Air Force… You meet a lot of people on a journey like that. I try to understand them all. And, whether I believe in something, or not, I will always debate the contrary… 🙂
Yes, that was pretty much what I meant. I wasn’t trying to imply that you weren’t listening because you weren’t capable of listening, but rather that you were no longer engaged in that particular argument – you had already stated your opinion on the Prop 8 topic, and had moved on to the meta-discussion about word meanings and political correctness.
One day you really should write a book about your trans-cultural journeys. I’d probably disagree with lots of it, but I’m pretty sure I’d have fun reading it.
I may write that book… I don’t know if you’d agree with it all or not. It would still be fun to write. You’d probably be surprised at how influential you were in the middle part of my life.