Pages

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Happy “Day Without a Gay” Day

A grassroots group has planned to make today a “Day Without a Gay” day, taking the idea from a satirical (sort of) movie a few years ago, “A Day Without a Mexican,” to point up the fact that Gays are actually a vital part of our community. So the idea (like the missing “Mexicans”) is to have gay people stay home, no work, no shopping, zip, a boycott, as it were, of society. The organizers are “asking gay rights supporters to avoid going to work by ‘calling in gay’ and spending the day volunteering with in the [grass roots ] movement instead, as organizers get ready for the next move in this particular civil rights movement – depending on what the Calif. Supreme Court does on the Measure 8 issue.

Also, interestingly, in New Jersey, reports the L.A. Times (heading into bankruptcy) “A commission has concluded that legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the sate should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.” . . . . “The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem.”

Last night on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who believes that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” was asked by host Jon Stewart when he “chose” to be a heterosexual. Huckabee, like so many people who claim that sexual orientation is a “choice” skated past the question. Didn’t answer it. Which always speaks volumes to me, since people who believe that gay people “choose” to be gay never believe that they “chose” to be straight, which means that they must think that gay people somehow aren’t just as human as they are, but must operate on an entirely different system. After all, if you didn't "chose" to be straight, why didn't the same thing happen to another person who also didn't "chose" to be gay?

Of course, if you believe that you are somehow different from your fellow citizens, that allows you to believe that others are, well The Other, and as everyone knows, The Other can then be relegated to a less than human status. You know, there’s Us and then there's . . . . THEM . . . eeeuuuuuuu.

Stewart also had a couple of telling observations: Choosing one’s religion is truly a matter of “choice,” not choosing ones’ sexual orientation, and that history will show that opposing gay marriage will turn out to be as shameful a position as opposition to integration, interracial marriage, equal pay for equal work, even votes for women – all now considered shameful and embarrassing episodes along our bumpy march towards equality and justice for all Americans.

12 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

It would be interesting if people would stay home from work and call in gay ... sort of a test case for how large, organized and willing to get active the group is.

On the other hand, I really think that the CA supreme court should decide issues based on the rule of law and not just how large or vocal one group or the other might be. If the courts were always caving in to public opinion, desegregation might never have happened insome states.

The real legal issues here seem to be:

Whether a 50%+1 majority enough to make this sort of change to the state constitution? (I.e. was Prop 8 a minor clarification by the people of the definition of the word marriage ... or was it a major revision.) I would suggest that had Prop 8 been voted on before last May, the issue would be of the minor sort but now it seems more major.

Secondly, what about the current legal status of individuals who were married while legally allowed in California? The wording of Prop 8 would seem to make those marriages ... um ... not marriages.

Third, what about the current legal status of individuals who get married in, say, Massachusetts who move to California? I would think that this issue would be one for the US Supreme Court and I rather doubt they will take it up ... after all this court seems to live by the idea that rights not specifically given to the Feds (and defining marriage wasn't a right given to the Feds) are reserved for the States and the people.

ps - anyone wanna start a pool on how long it takes Mark to post a comment?

pps - anyone wanna start a 2nd pool on how long it takes until the topic is changed to something sewer related?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I like the pool idea! I don't know how to do it exactly though. I'll bet my "No on 8" sign that I think ws mark will comment here by tomorrow AM. (Although I don't really want to lose it, just in case I am wrong about ws m.)

I'll also bet that ws mark will be the first to comment sewer-wise as soon as Ann's last posting falls off the bottom of the page onto the sidebar.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Secondly, what about the current legal status of individuals who were married while legally allowed in California? The wording of Prop 8 would seem to make those marriages ... um ... not marriages"

If I understand correctly, marriage are now covered under the full faith and credit between states (allows for interstate commerce, extradition, etc) which allows for a reasonable interaction between states, would seem to force the issue to the Supreme Court -- i.e. why are some "marriages" given full faith and credit for some citizens but not other "marriages," both of which were legal in the states where they were filed & etc.

Another issue the CA supreme court needs to answer is: Can a popular vote trump equal rights for citizens? Or can a constitutional amendment trump equal rights for citizens? The CA supreme court has already voted that there is no compelling state (civil) reason to deny gays the same civil "marriage" rights as straight people, so now where do they go from there -- say, Heh-heh, we were just kidding?

LIke civil rights for African Americans, this likely will have to end up at the federal level under some equal protection clause?

As for the idea of the Sewer Pool. Hey, Mark isn't the only one who leaps into the pool on any non-sewer posting. So, you'd need to be careful what you're betting on.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

You are right Ann, ws mark is not the only one jumping in with sewer issues, but he is the only one jumping in to try to sell us various products that he represents.

Churadogs said...

Uh-oh, see the latest comment on my latest posting. Were your bets down?

Watershed Mark said...

As for the idea of the Sewer Pool. Hey, Mark isn't the only one who leaps into the pool on any non-sewer posting. So, you'd need to be careful what you're betting on.

Thanks Ann!

You are right Ann, ws mark is not the only one jumping in with sewer issues, but he is the only one jumping in to try to sell us various products that he represents.

Almost intellectually honest, Lynette. Nice try!

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Talk about staying on topic!

Alon Perlman said...

Ann, I think the previous postings are tending on the salacious.
Perhaps some judicious use of censorship or some PC equivalent would be appropriate.
Just as an experiment, you know.
Oh, and blah blah blah freedom of speech etc...

Churadogs said...

Don't check older blog entries every day so didn't see the idiotic postings above. Hit the little trach can, so hope they're deleted. Pathetic imaturity. Sigh.