Prop 8
The trial was not able to be watched by the American people, as cameras were blocked from the proceedings, and little was known about the in-case testimony except what was leaked out through social networking sites. Judge Vaughn Walker's decision Wednesday overturned Prop 8 and the decision made by California voters, although, due to appeals, will not be enacted imminently.
Basic civil rights- including the rights to marry, to have a family, to serve in the military, or numerous others denied to LGBT citizens- are not something to be awarded to specific groups of people. They are not something that people are allowed. Civil rights are automatic and each and every person in the United States- and in the world, for that matter- deserve them. Ending Prop 8 or even allowing gay marriages nationwide would not end the sort of discrimination that LGBT people face on a daily basis, but it would be a huge step forward. For years, African-Americans, Native Americans, women, and many other minority groups fought for representation, equality, and nonviolence. While even today some of these groups still face certain discriminations, the progress made over the past fifty or so years has been incredible. In another fifty years, it is doubtless that Americans will look back upon the fight for gay rights and discrimination against LGBT people, especially LGBT youth, as a blight upon the national history in the same way segregation and the Jim Crow Laws are.
The violence and taunting that have become dangerously mainstream against LGBT people is only propped up by laws like Proposition 8 that treat gay people as different from everyone else, therefore making it 'okay' to treat them differently, even violently. Treating gay people like this is not any different from beating someone for being black or tall or red-haired or Jewish. Prop 8's arbitrary treatment of LGBT people as unequal to everyone else make it unconstitutional, and it's repeal will be the first step of many towards true equality for all people.
Posts
3 comments:
Mmm, I agree in general, but how you define "marriage" is tricky.
If we're speaking religiously, then technically people do *not* have the right to that specific ceremony. The government isn't allowed to barge in and re-write the way the church operates.
BUT
If we're talking a ceremony that is colloquially to as "marriage" but doesn't carry the same religious connotation to the participants and happens to take place in a church, HECK YEAH that should be allowed.
I mean, I don't think churches should discriminate with the religious ceremony, but does the gov't have the right to tell them to go against their beliefs without abridging freedom of religion? I'm not sure. :/
To me, marriage is not religious, and I know I'm in a tiny minority there. But you're right, the government can't force churches to host gay marriages since they're private institutions, although its unfortunate that they won't. It will come with time, but, as always, it is difficult to know how long it will be until the church catches up with equality.
So, yeah, in the post I'm using marriage as a more legal term, but I agree with everything you said.
Woo~
(This is Patrick, btw...how do you pronounce your name?) :P
Post a Comment