Saturday, August 7, 2010

Prop H8te Overturned, but the Fight Will Continue

On Wednesday, August 4, 2010 in an incredibly awesome decision, Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco overturned Prop. 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. With that, the right wing immediately went wild claiming that Walker's own homosexuality was an open secret in SF and he should've recused himself. Whether he is or isn't, is irrelevant. He followed the law. Are they actually implying only a straight white male could've made an unbiased decision about the civil rights of gay people? Does that also mean that the 3 women on the Supreme Court should not have a vote if Roe v Wade is ever contested? What I find very interesting about these howls of foul play is that these very people were high-fiving when the conservative Republican and GHWB appointee was selected to hear this case. Many of those same knuckle draggers screaming about how one judge invalidated the votes of the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8 were comfortable with the SCOTUS stopping the Florida recount in 2000. Remember when they selected arguably the worst (definitely the most inept) president ever in George W. Bush while ignoring 51 million voters nationwide? Here's the problem, if you let a majority vote on the civil rights of a minority the minority will never win. Certain people are fine with tyranny as long as it just oppresses minorities. It makes them feel superior. Walker's ruling was based in large part on the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Proponents of Prop. 8 failed to support their claim that same-sex marriages undermine the institution of marriage or are harmful to children. He asserted. "Moral disapproval" of homosexuality is not a sufficient basis for such discrimination. Good on him. As for the other complaint about the ruling - that judges should not force social change on a culture that is not ready for it - remember: It was the federal judiciary, invoking the Constitution, that desegregated schools and ended bans on interracial marriage. Discomfort with a minority group, whether based on skin color or sexual orientation, does not justify the denial of basic rights. 

I love the claim, "a culture that is not ready for it." Don't these people also claim that the U.S. is the greatest, most free country in the entire world? That we're leaders? How can we be leaders when we have a bunch of bible-thumping cowards and rednecks spending all their energy worrying about what total strangers may or may not be doing in their bedooms? I would suggest that the real sexual deviants are the one's obsessed with other people's "relationships"! My gosh, Mexico allows gay marriage! Our other neighbor, Canada allows it. The amount of countries who allow gay marriage or legal recognition is staggering. We are way behind the civilized world...way behind. More Info 

And it has been noted from various places how quiet the Republican Party has been about this ruling. While my go-to-gal Rachel Maddow mentioned the silence as deafening, she offered no suspicions as to what they may be up to. Here's my thought about their silence on this issue. I believe the whole "repeal the 14th Amendment" brouhaha has very little to do with illegal immigration or "anchor babies." Republicans like Graham, Kyl and McCain and whoever else has jumped on the bandwagon would like you to believe that the "Citizenship Clause" was the entire amendment, where children born here are legal U.S. citizens regardless of the status of childs parents. They're telling us that they must destroy the 14 Amendment so that the children of immigrants who have entered the country illegally will not be considered Americans, thereby "anchoring" the parents to the nation. Guess what else is in the 14th Amendment? The Due Process Clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. Also, the Equal Protection Clause which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This is how Section 1 of the 14th Amendment actually reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See that? Get rid of that pesky little section and you can kill several birds with one stone. With it's removal, not only will undocumented immigrants be out of luck, gay folks will be forced back into the closet, women will be pushed backwards, and heck why not segregate schools again. Party like it's 1868!

My last point is, keeping the population arguing about social issues is also a way to keep attention off of the fact that corporate owned politicians are fleecing us to a dramatic tune --- with our wealth being distributed up! The top 5% have more than 50% of the wealth, but let's keep worring about, "Adam & Steve" or "Abby & Eve." Let's step in and force a 14 year old who was raped by her step-father to carry that demons spawn for 9 months. If the president has dark skin, let's make sure we have the long form version of his birth certificate. How about we get a grip before our ignorance slips us any further into irrelevance?

No comments:

Post a Comment