I am so deeply saddened by the right wing attack on gay marriage in my recently previous home of California. The implications for the potential ban on gay marriage are frightening, suggesting that any union that isn't between a man and a woman will become illegal. It is amazing how much money has been pumped into the Prop 8 campaign, because a few months ago many of us believed the prop didn't have a shot in hell. This video that I found via Amanda uses a play on words to show exactly how discriminatory a gay marriage ban is. They replace gay marriage with "interracial."
Also, this video from Yes on 8 enthusiasts in Oakland via Feminist Law Professors.
Prop 8 is just one piece of legislation to strips away the rights of and harms our gay citizens, it doesn't change harassment or hate crimes. It does however set a precedent of how society sees gay people and a marriage ban would tell us that they are not actually citizens. This has implications and Carolyn Goossen at New American Media takes a look at the harassment of gay teenagers in California.
While gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have achieved major gains over the last decade -- California and Massachusetts both allow same-sex marriage -- in many fundamental levels of daily life, prejudice persists and violence continues to threaten students like Almero.That is the basic finding of a survey released last week by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a New York-based policy and advocacy nonprofit. The network's National School Climate Survey, which is the only national survey that regularly tracks LGBT young people's experiences in school, indicates that schools are resistant to changing attitudes.
The survey of 6,209 middle and high school students found that nearly nine out of 10 LGBT students (86.2 percent) had experienced harassment at school in the past year.
The survey also found that three-fifths (60.8 percent) felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and about one third (32.7 percent) skipped a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe.
Kevin Jennings, director and founder of GLSEN, says that high levels of harassment and feelings of fear among LGBT students nationally have remained largely unchanged since 1999, when the survey was first conducted.
Read the rest here.
These statistics are deeply problematic. Homophobia is an insidious cultural setback and if we are to work towards being a more just and fair society, voting No on Prop 8 is only one step in the right direction towards that goal.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The discriminatory nature of CA Prop 8.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10100
I'm glad to see that people are seeing the connection to the Loving trial here. I wish it was seen as a precedent.
I'm sad to share a city with these bigots.
I've been following Prop 8 quite closely in the news; sadly, it's largely gone unreported here in my country. Which is really quite understandable - while miscegenation has never been a crime here, the remnants of British colonial law mean that sodomy is still a criminal offence under S377A of the Penal Code. (Similar laws apply in other ex-colonies like India.) There was a recent Penal Code division, about a year ago, and eventually it was decided not to decriminalise sodomy; one of the arguments used was that to decriminalise it would be to open the way for same-sex marriage. (Marriage is, I believe, defined under the Women's Charter (?) as between one man and one women, with the exception of polygamy under Muslim civil law.)
So, *sigh*, I of course feel personally opposed to Prop 8 in California... but really, really envy the fact that same-sex marriage was even ever legalised over on your side of the Atlantic too.
That said, best wishes on your efforts against Prop 8: according to polls the proportion of supporters is rising even as religious groups et al. are sinking yet more funding into supporting it. Hopefully pointing out that the ban on same-sex marriage is today's equivalent of the ban on miscegenation will make some of its current supporters think...
Wow, that video is very illustrative of how terrible Proposition 8 really is. I really hope that it will be able to sway pro-8 voters or people who are unsure.
The article brings up staggering figures and statistics. I came out at the age of fourteen or fifteen, but I never got much trouble for it and I live in the Bible belt. I feel so very sorry for the students that feel that they can hardly go to school and get their education for fear of being bullied or physically attacked like that poor boy earlier this year. This is truly a disgrace.
I believe that we will perservere and flourish, regardless of the hate in the world, but I am still resolved to do my part in bringing such injustice to a stop in any way that I can.
"Prop 8 is just one piece of legislation to protect our gay citizens"
This is an error! Prop 8 ELIMINATES the right to same sex marriage. Please fix to avoid confusion.
I too find it staggering that more people don't see the connection between gay and interracial marriage. It really wasn't that long ago that the majority of White Christians believes that POC were seen as inferior in the eyes of God, thus, marriage between a White and Black (or any other ethnicity) was seen as "unnatural". How is this any different from what religious extremists say about gay people in general?
Gay marriage isn't going to ruin the country. It's not going to attack morals, damage our kids or kill the economy. If anything, it helps strengthen our morals, by proving we belief in equality and allowing everyone the right to choose how to legitimize their relationships. It will help kids, especially those looking to get adopted by loving parents. And it will help the economy because weddings cost big bucks!
I'm a student at Mills College which is right on the sidelines of all the protests going on in Oakland. I know that quite a few women from Mills have been joining the No on 8 protesters, and it seems as though the campus consensus is one of general disgust toward the Yes on 8 folks. Just watching that video from MacArthur and Lakeshore made me feel violently ill... ugh. I will never be able to understand how people can hold strong convictions against other people's rights.
I'm a student at Mills College which is right on the sidelines of all the protests going on in Oakland. I know that quite a few women from Mills have been joining the No on 8 protesters, and it seems as though the campus consensus is one of general disgust toward the Yes on 8 folks. Just watching that video from MacArthur and Lakeshore made me feel violently ill... ugh. I will never be able to understand how people can hold strong convictions against other people's rights.
I'm a student at Mills College which is right on the sidelines of all the protests going on in Oakland. I know that quite a few women from Mills have been joining the No on 8 protesters, and it seems as though the campus consensus is one of general disgust toward the Yes on 8 folks. Just watching that video from MacArthur and Lakeshore made me feel violently ill... ugh. I will never be able to understand how people can hold strong convictions against other people's rights.
I go to Mills College in Oakland, and last week a bunch of us went and counter-protested against prop 8 at the corner of High and MacArthur. It was ridiculous. The Yes on 8 people had sign that said 8 equals less government (it's actually more), and free speech. And there were a lot of children and teens holding Yes on 8 signs. Some of the people I was with asked the kids if they knew what they were supporting, and they didn't. In fact, one of the women I was with asked a woman chanting "a mom and a dad will do" if she'd even read the proposition. This woman replied that she hadn't, that she didn't need to.
The yes on 8 people got meaner as the night went on. They yelled things like "you are gay," "no homo," "too much gay in the bay," and the very confusing "yes on Obama, yes on eight." At one point a man standing behind me started yelling about cleaning the earth, getting rid of sin, and getting rid of homosexuality. At that point I went to another corner of the intersection.
I think what was most distressing is that I go to a diverse school with a very queer-positive community. And only a few blocks away, there is this loud, verbal homophobia.
Oh, and the Yes on 8 kids were still there when I left at 9:30. It was a Thursday night.
You have a quite brilliant piece of propaganda here. Unfortunately, there is no moral import to one's racial identity as there is with one's sexual activity. You should not confuse the two. I guess if there can be gender neutral people, maybe there can be racially neutral people as well?
Maybe Asians can become African Americans, or European Americans can become Hispanic? Such changes could be justified by saying they've always thought of themselves as African American even though they were born white. I'm just following the logic of the ad in this post, lets just be consistent shall we.
http://whyimnotademocrat.blogspot.com/2008/10/propaganda-against-proposition-8.html
That Oakland video was really interesting, but one thing I'm a little disappointed in is the signage of the protest - everyone just had signs saying "yes on 8" and "no on 8" - they may have had subheadings but who's going to read that from their cars? As if it's going to have any effect on undecided voters who aren't aware of the issues. Couldn't they have been more informative? I personally would have made a sign saying "this is interracial marriage all over again: history repeats itself"
This video makes me sick.
The LDS Church is airing whole batches of equally hateful ads full of young, attractive college students from their private university in UTAH.
Yes, I'm sure most of these kids are FROM California, but it's sickening to see one state getting so involved in another state's politics, but even more sickening that they are doing it using such hateful and ignorant rhetoric.
The Mormon higher-ups deserve a Friday Feminst Fuck You, as far as I'm concerned.
@ Alan: "Yes, I'm sure most of these kids are FROM California, but it's sickening to see one state getting so involved in another state's politics, but even more sickening that they are doing it using such hateful and ignorant rhetoric."
Actually I disagree here that people from other states shouldn't get involved in other states politics, because that logic wouldn't stand up if you flip the coin to the other side - should the feministing ladies, who are mostly based on the East coast, just mind their own business about this even though they feel strongly about it just because they don't live in that state? I'm from the UK and have never even been to California, yet I'm following this debate with great interest because I feel very strongly about it, and have even considered donating to the No on 8 campaign (I didn't because it was only accepting US donations). Yes, the people who made this ad have reprehensible politics, but we should criticise them for that rather than because they're getting involved from somewhere outside of California.
Aideen - you're right. Even though I'd like to hold the Mormons down to Utah politics, the same logic would make it hypocritical for a feminist like me to get involved in feminist efforts across state lines. I stand - errrr.... sit cross-legged on my bed .... - corrected.
Snap! I'm totally sitting cross-legged on my bed right now.
Eh, can we maybe get some comment moderation? I mean, I love being reminded of what an abomination I am...
bluecollarphilosopher, I'm a bit confused by your approach--this seems to be more a criticism of trans* activism than same-sex marriage. Care to respond more on point?
@Aideen - wow. What an unreal coincidence! (If I could put a semi-sarcastic but overall jovial tongue sticking out smiley here, I would).
I just saw a new No on 8 ad where Dianne Feinstein calls it out as plain old discrimination. Frankly, I think the No on 8 ads that have been playing are too mild. This is the kind of clear message that is needed. Check out the new ad here: http://www.noonprop8.com/
@MK,
I was trying to flush out the analogy used in the ad in this post. To substitute interracial for gay to make the ad's point more powerful, then I think you have to apply that analogy elsewhere. If being gay is equal to being black, asian etc., then the "neutral" aspect must apply as well. If one can be gender neutral then following the gay=black, asian etc, then there can be racially neutral people as well or there can those who change their "racial" identity as those who change their sexual identity.
I would have a lot more respect for a gay guy who says he likes sex with other men, not try and say he was born that way and is doing something he does not like. Sex feels good regardless of who its with as long as its voluntary. So man up, no pun intended, and admit you all like sex with members of same sex. I could care less what is done in your bedroom, but when you want the same recognition via marriage, then it is no longer live and let live. That is why Prop. 8 is needed.
I think it'd be awesome if people could find footage from the past of preachers and other people condemning interracial marriage and then juxtapose that with people condemning gay marriage. It'd be hard but maybe not impossible to find - the Supreme Court overturned all anti-interracial marriage laws in 1968, so there might be some footage - and then it'd be really obvious that once again, the anti-gay marriage people are on the wrong side of history.
I think you're very confused, bluecollar"philosopher".
What do you mean by "neutrality" in regards to racial, sexual, or gender identity?
Why do you keep conflating gender identity with sexuality? They're not the same thing.
What exactly is your point?
Ugh, this video makes me sick, just to think that the real video is out there. Why do people care if we go and get married? What is the big deal? Its just love. I just don't understand.
Very clever! Hope it helps.
Just an FYI, most of the claim about schools and churches are completely false. Don't believe the lies!
bluecollarphilosopher:
I’m not quite sure what gender neutrality has to do with gay people or race, but think about this:
Actually, there was a point in time in this country when non blacks (Hispanics, as well as Irish, Greek) had to apply to be white. You’re also forgetting about multiracial people who can pass as many different races.
There’s an artist (if someone knows who this is, please tell me her name) who is ‘Asian’ who has takes photographs of herself with a group of Latina women, Asian women, and black women and passes in each group. So yes, there are racially neutral people.
The reason why they substituted the word “gay” with “interracial” is because many gays feel they are born that way just as black people are born with dark skin. I, on the other hand, chose to be gay. Why does that give you the right to discriminate against me? Try this if the race thing doesn’t work for you. Substitute “non-Christian” for gays. Still holds. People choose their religion, but they aren’t discriminated against by law.
I would have a lot more respect for a gay guy who says he likes sex with other men, not try and say he was born that way
Ah, okay. You want them to lie, then. Then you can respect them because they don't force you to confront uncomfortable truths about gender and sexuality.
Thank you for this posting! It is so true that while many people have mixed feelings about same-sex marriage because of their own personal biases or religious views, it becomes so clear that the state should have no part in systematic discrimination once you draw the simple parallel with race issues. I think women also have a real stake in this issue, both hetero and lesbian women, for similar reasons. Since at least the mid-1800s, feminists have realized that they advance their cause by fighting for all people's equality. It's still true now--we still have a long way to go before women are truly treated equally in family and society, and we will achieve that equality only if we can build alliances with other social movements and move a shared agenda for equity and fair treatment for everyone. I work at the Women's Foundation of California,and we just released an op-ed opposing Prop 8, you can check it out at www.womensfoundca.org/noonprop8
I could care less what is done in your bedroom, but when you want the same recognition via marriage, then it is no longer live and let live.
Er, why?
(Sigh. We can haz banhammer nao?)
OMG alice-paul i must be off my rocker..fixing it now.
Gender isn't race.
They're both socially constructed, but in different ways and with different consequences.
Changing peoples' words like this is a questionable strategy. I don't see why it's helpful, but I can see possible reasons why it could be seen as racist and sexist.
can't we just oppose a ban on gay marriage because it's discriminatory?
I would have a lot more respect for a gay guy who says he likes sex with other men, not try and say he was born that way and is doing something he does not like. Sex feels good regardless of who its with as long as its voluntary. So man up, no pun intended, and admit you all like sex with members of same sex. I could care less what is done in your bedroom, but when you want the same recognition via marriage, then it is no longer live and let live. That is why Prop. 8 is needed.
The logical leaps in this paragraph really don't make a lot of sense.
1.) You are reducing same-sex relationships (or is it only gay male relationships?) only to sex.
2.) You want homosexuals (bisexuals, too?) to "man up" and "admit" that they enjoy homosexual sex.
3.) You claim not to care what kind of sex they are having (so long as they enjoy having it and admit to enjoying it, pressumably in public by your use of "man up").
4.) You say that same-sex couples that have relationships that are not purely sexual and seek recognition of the non-sexual component of their relationship in public via a legal marriage (and that's government marriage, folks, not religious marriage) are breaking the code of "live and let live" (is that like "don't ask don't tell"?).
5.) ?
6.) Profit/Proposition 8?
OT: How the hell do you do strike-through tags here?
Also, this kind of discussion always reminds me of one of my favorite strips:
http://www.bizarroartist.org/gallery/cache/bizarro/left-handed.jpg_550.jpg
here are a few quotes from around the net regarding interracial marriage that closely resemble the arguments against sam sex marriage... cause someone asked.
The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
Supreme Court of Virginia 1878
“It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”
Missouri judge 1883
In 1958 — the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted — opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages (Gallup). By contrast, in November 1996, just 56 percent of adults opposed same-sex marriage in a Human Rights Campaign poll.
This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”
An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”
“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”
Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”
and on, and on, and on. serriously... wtf?!?!?