Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for May 28, 2009
I Do, I Do, You Too, but NOT You
Awww, Gawwd. Hand me that brown paper bag to put over my head. I don’t’ want anyone to know I live in California. I mean, the State is running on stupid now – partisan politicians unable to fix a busted budget, a state facing bankruptcy, a good portion of the pols having taken a blood oath to an anti-government, anti-tax zealot, they’ll slash programs designed to help the old, the sick and the poor before they’ll raise a penny to tax yachts.
Meanwhile, the populist/special interest-initiative process allowed in this state has resulted in overlapping populist/special interest-backed laws that can best be described as patches needed to fix previous populist/special interest-backed initiatives that created unintended consequences which needed more patches until the whole tangle is now crashing down like a bowl of spaghetti.
And on top of all this fiscal insanity, we now have the ridiculous spectacle of our Supreme Court hoisted on its own petard. In May 2008, the court declared that they could find no compelling (secular) state reason to deny gay couples the fundamental right to marry, a right that had been exclusively available only to straight couples. About 18,000 same-sex couples got married, including many who married in a church/synagogue of their choice, thus “sanctifying” what is, at its heart, a civil secular, state sanctioned legal contract – the old “by the power vested in my by the State of [fill in the blank], I declare you . . . whatever” once you sign the “state-issued marriage certificate.”
Well, having gay citizens enjoying the same right to marry as straight people did not sit well with the Mormon and Catholic churches, among other religious groups, who mounted a well-funded Proposition 8 campaign to change the state constitution to limit marriage to only straight people. The initiative, which passed by a slim majority, was fueled by the usual fear-mongering ads about gays molesting children, gays teaching gayness in schools and other such scoundrel-driven nonsense, and promptly ended up in front of the same Supreme Court that had already decreed that they could find no compelling state reason to deny gay marriage.
Which is why they came to be hoist on their own petard when they ruled that, Yes, the people of the state could indeed change their constitution to remove a previously granted right from a certain class of people, but they left intact the 18,000 gay marriages, thus creating a state with an Animal Farm system of justice: All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.
So, under our newly amended California Constitution, the one that used to guarantee equal rights under law for all, we now have a system that guarantees that ALL straight people and SOME gay people will be granted the full rights, privileges and responsibilities of “marriage, while ALL OTHER gay people in the state need to get to the back of the bus.
You see why a paper bag for the head is in order? I mean even Iowa’s Supreme Court, fer Gawd’s sake, sent down a more coherent ruling to ensure that all its citizens would be treated equally than our court did. Ah, the shame, the shame. IOWA?
Well, this whole mess isn’t over. Both sides are now raising war-chest money and there are bound to be various legal appeals making their way to federal courts that will likely have an impact on various states’ anti-gay marriage laws. Like all other civil rights issues, I have no doubt that this issue will be resolved in the same way: Full and equal civil rights under law for the latest “out” group.
But the real shame and evil is to be found in humans beings who waste so much time and effort dividing one another, excluding one another, demonizing one another, reserving and guarding tiers of privilege for themselves while using the might of the State to enforce second-class citizenship for the designated “Other,” or whatever group du jour is in the shooting barrel. It all eventually comes to naught. The “out” group, after often bloody struggle, much ugliness and worlds of pain, is finally included and everyone looks around and wonders what the fuss was all about. The Republic doesn’t fall. The world doesn’t end. God doesn’t send plagues. Previously designated “Second-class citizens” vote and buy houses and marry and raise families and one of their sons, one of those dreaded, ostracized, demonized “Others,” grows up to become President of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Ann,
Two things ...
You seem to be suggesting that the Prop 8 ruling yesterday was legally incorrect. I'm not so sure. The ruling shouldn't be read as the CA Supreme Court saying that Gay marriage is wrong (or, if they had ruled the other way, right) but that the particular wording in Prop 8 should be viewed as a minor change in the constitution (defining the terms used in the constitution might reasonably be viewed as such) and requiring only a simple majority not a major amendment which would require a 2/3 supermajority to pass.
Had those asking the Supremes to overturn Prop 8 used a different legal tactic the results might have been different.
I know we've discussed this issue before and the politics is all about the word ... some people want the word "marriage" mean one thing and another group wants another meaning.
On the whole state budget thing ... the problem is largely Prop 13. Because, as a state, we refuse to rely on property taxes for income, the revenue stream is highly variable with booms and busts and simply speaking, that sort of scheme (along with political pressures that the legislature is not immune from) prevents rational budgeting.
If we were to lower the sales tax rate and raise the tax rate on real estate, we would be lots better off.
Now some would, of course, say that we simply need to "cut waste" but when the size of the deficit is larger than entire cost of the entire state bureaucracy, it is silly to even suggest that cutting waste will solve the problem. The problem is structural, with revenue coming in below the required obligations of the state.
Certainly it's a mess, but even if the state were entirely run by one party or the other, the only solution is to modify Prop 13. Certainly dropping a supermajority requirement for budget approval and to raise taxes and dropping term limits would help ... heck, redrawing political districts might even help, but killing off 13 is the only salvation for our state.
I'll throw out a difference opinion on the Prop 13 issue... Before Prop 13, all the Counties in the State pretty much raised/changed Real Property Taxes at will... Each County played games with crazy formulas that could not be understood by the average property owner... there was no way a property owner could predict what the tax would be for the next year...
Prop 13, while admittedly is not perfect, did take the "game" out of the Supervisors and Assessors hands... Prop 13 has been modified by the legislature over the years, but the effect has been to provide a uniform tax calculation across the entire State... Prop 13 actually has kept taxes down... "Fees" however are supposed to reflect the true cost of some business operations of the Counties...ie building permits, vector control, "Bonds" are another government revenue stream...ie sewer and water improvements...
None of us seem to have any control over what the cost of "Fees" can be... and now HOW the real property tax collected can be spent should to be the real area of concern...
I personally like the cap on the Real Property Tax, but I sure don't like the way that revenue is spent... I'm also not sure the "Fees" are handle in a fair manner... "Bonds" are voter approved, so there is some control there... but there are waaaayyy too many special interest programs in my opinion... Maybe governments need to redefine their role and just what they are actually responsible for...
Anyway, my take on Prop 13...
Inlet, here's what's so peculiar about the Pro 8 measure. If citzens can change their constitution by initiative/ballot to create unequal-under-law categories (i.e. SOME gays get the benefits of marriage while OTHER (identical) gays don't, & etc) why can't we change our constitution to bring back separate but equal schools and redlining neighborhoods by race and return to making intterracial marriage (again) illegal? After all, there is no "right" to live in certain neighborhoods and if getting marriage isn't a "right" then The People can determine what criteria can be used to determine who shall and can marry whom, & etc.
Ann,
Perhaps then, another approach to the Constitutional question would be the best way to address the change you want.
The US constitution forbids separate but equal and redlining and interracial marriage, so that cannot happen ... at least in the way the US Supreme Court interprets it. Maybe the whole Gay marriage issue should be a federal one instead of a state issue because ... if, after all, the US Constitution doesn't forbid nor sanction the practice, individual states are given the right to make that decision.
In all fairness, the change in Prop 8 (minus all the politicking) would be something which seems pretty minor ... if the word "marriage" wasn't defined and the people want to provide a definition ... for fear that the courts who do not own the constitution would interpret it differently than the people, who do ... it is all very reasonable.
On the other hand, the definition of this particular word does have constitutional issues that are deeper ... but the challenge to Prop 8 was rather narrow and only on the question of whether this particular redefinition is an amendment or a revision.
Think of it like a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit. If the motion to dismiss fails, the real trial starts.
Even a crowd of liberal Ph.D. having tree huggers will act like Attila the Hun in a mob. That's why we have constitutional democracy. The California Supreme Court denied that we have Constitutional Democracy and affirmed mob rule.
It's the mob rule propositions that have this state in this fix.
@Churadogs:
Those rights are backstopped by the federal Constitution, which is, according to the California Supreme Court, now the only real Constitution of any permanence that guarantees our rights.
@Shark Inlet
The Court could have easily sustained Prop 8 on a number of grounds, but the grounds it chose completely abdicated the function of the judiciary in the constitutional scheme.
Looks like we had similiar reaction to the Court's decision.
http://www.sandraoffthestrip.com/2009/05/26/california-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage-ban/
Mike, I can appreciate the reason behind anyone's support for Prop 13 ... but it is the primary reason our state is in a real crisis. There needs to be some fiddling at the margain with 13 ... like setting new property taxes at 1.75% next year and 2% the year after that and 2.25% the year after that. And then, instead of allowing only a 1.5% increase in the tax rates, perhaps a 3% increase would be more reasonable.
There are some who would refuse to even reconsider aspects of Prop 13 as if fiddling at the margins opens the door to a complete repeal. That's just protective behavior by the Jarvis-type folks who somehow think that the number 1.5% was handed down to us on a stone tablet from on high.
Other big-cost issues are education, healthcare and prisons and interestingly enough, the voters and/or federal government have some control over those spending amounts.
Even if the entire state government were made to disappear overnight (cut the waste ... and everything else, just to make sure) we still would be in a budget hole.
Even if the entire cost of UC and CSU were passed onto the students (and they would not be happy with a 200% increase in fees), the budget could not be balanced.
No matter how much one says "waste", the problem is a revenue problem. Republicans block increases in any and all taxes (and in good years insist on excess revenues being "returned to the taxpayers" instead of being put into a rainy day fund) at the same time that voter-mandated and federal-mandated costs increase.
Nope, unless we are gonna give up on the idea of educating kids or having prisons or providing healthcare, the tax structure of the state will need to be changed.
Without changes in Prop 13 (which will hurt me more than it helps me), our entire state will fall into a state of disrepair.
Speaking of the Mormon and Catholic churches and other religious groups and their role in Prop 8, a recent Pew Research Center survey showed that those who regularly attend church are more likely to support torture than those with no religious affiliation.
Gay marriage bad. Torture good.
WTF
I posted a new blog article about Proposition 8. Take a look if you're interested.
I think we need to stop arguing about what we define as "marriage." Rather, we need to focus on the process of marriage, not who should marry. Marriage is a union of two individuals. That's the process. That's the process we should uphold.
Surely you realize, Aaron, that your statement is highly insensitive to all traditional Muslims who do not agree that marriage between man and man should be allowed.
Our country does not abide by Sharia Law... yet...
Aaron,
The point is that your suggestion that the definition of marriage (who gets to marry who) is not as important as the process is ... um ... perhaps ... horribly offensive to both the people who, for religious reasons say that marriage is for a man and a woman only and to those who are gay and want to be married but who cannot now do so.
Yes, the process is important and, especially when there are children involved, divorce is a tragedy ... but who gets to marry who is of great importance to many.
Word Verification: pardy
Shark,
I don't see how "horribly offensive" my comments were.
Marriage is a union of a couple. That's the process. Religious institutions have their own take of that said process, but one's interpretation of how marriage is defined shouldn't be the ruling law of the land.
Fundamental Judeo-Christian principles state that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's fine. Not everyone is a Christian, evangelical fundamentalist. Traditional Muslims condemn gay marriage, but that's fine as well. Not everyone is a traditional Muslim.
Why is "marriage" so important to the same-sex folks...??? What is wrong with leaving the tradition of marriage to a male and a female...??? Queer used to be an acceptable word, so was gay. But now there seems to be a whole lot of energy being expended for some perceived inequity... As far as I can find out, all the rights of the same-sex partnership are protected by Federal and State Laws... Insurance companies recognize "life partners"... We may need special lawyers for "gay-divorces"... If "Gay" is such an accepted word describing homosexual couples, then why are they so seemingly unhappy with the Prop 8 Ruling... Maybe another "word" should be selected....????
On a serious note however, the companies I've worked for over the past 30 years have made workplace changes and actively prohibit descrimination of any kind... Check out FedEx if you want to see a real working model for valueing the entire workforce...as individuals...based on performance, not on entitlements, handicaps, sexual preference, race, creed or skin pigmentation... and it is enforced without exception, top of management to janitor...
It's sure not my way, but if two same-sex individuals want to live together, so be it... BUT, why should I be assaulted by someone demanding he/she/it be entitled to some special "right" that they think heterosexual couples have that the homosexual couple doesn't... How long before some group wants to have the "right" to "marry" an animal or a vegetable...??? All of this over a word... it's about as stupid as fighting over a sewer...
Mike sez:"As far as I can find out, all the rights of the same-sex partnership are protected by Federal and State Laws.."
No, there's a whole raft of federal benefits NOT available to "domestic partnerships." (one is income tax benefits available to straight marrieds but not domesticaly registered, so straight married couples get a tax break not available to even legally (MASS, IOWA, etc) married gay people. More unequal protections & etc.) Bill Benica pointed out one here in California: Community Property. Under the present "domestic partnership rules" community property now only applies to "straight married people." Another "unequal" problem.
Inlet sez:"Mike, I can appreciate the reason behind anyone's support for Prop 13 ... but it is the primary reason our state is in a real crisis. There needs to be some fiddling at the margain with 13 ... like setting new property taxes .."
One of the key issues with 13 was the failure to deal with business property -- people move -- often -- so their taxes keep going up and up. Business (buildings) don't. The corporations can shell-game shuffle so that the big business properties, high-rises, etc. don't change hands so don't pay "new" assessments. HUGE hole in the whole Prop 13 measure from day one. And anyone think corporations will allow THAT to be changed???
Aaron sez:" think we need to stop arguing about what we define as "marriage."
That's exactly what we need to do. Marriage is a legal contract between certain people and the STATE. So, Society needs to ask itself What's the point of "marriage?" Clearly, it was originally set up as a method of state control (taxes for the king upon death of property owner, indeed in early Europe, for example, the Lord of the Manor was the one who gave his permission to marry, even before the Bishop or priest arrived, so the STATE preceeded the Church. And remember, under Elizabeth I, for members of royalty to marry without PERMISSION of the Queen (state) was treason!) of property, inheritance, & etc. Then it includes oversight of offspring (back to inheritance of real property, who's legit and who gets what),then organizing all this in a coherent fashion. But the question remains, Why do we grant certain breaks for certain people, but not for others? Simple example: If "marriage" is strictly the state's interest in protecting children, i.e. "the family" as a civilzing unit that benefits The State (i.e all of us) then make "marriage" only available to couples who have children, whether adopted or natural born or surrogate or whatever. Everyone else can get "Domesticaly Partnered," until they have kids, then they can get "married" and get more goodies. If it's about real property (the smooth transition of) then make "marriage" only available to people who have real property. (Like THAT'll fly!) & so forth. In short, we should be asking ourselves, What's the compelling STATE interest in "marriage" anyway?
The religious part of "holy" matrimony is private, as it is now.
Mike sez:"How long before some group wants to have the "right" to "marry" an animal or a vegetable...??? All of this over a word... "
Marry an animal. Ah, Mike, you lost me at stupid there.
As for "all of this over a "word." What you seem to be missing is this: Words have consequences in the real world. The Words "Prohibition Zone" has a$200+ a month meaning. Marriage is word that confers X # of real benefits on SOME people while NOT being available to OTHER people -- people who are all citizens equal under the law, supposedly. So words DO matter. A lot.
Ann,
On "marriage" ... the institution was set up before the stake took it over. The legal institution of marriage was set up by the state back then, but at least in the Christian tradition, marriage predates the flood, before any state of any kind.
This is probably why this is such an issue. If marriage is just a contractual relationship managed by the state, it would seem that there is discrimination going on from the point of view of tax breaks and adopting children and the rest ... gay marriage is considered the equivalent of polygamy by the state of California ... not allowed.
If, on the other hand, marriage is essentially a religious institution that the state has attempted to co-opt, we should simply stop using the term to refer to the contractual relationship that governs our lives and we should adopt a different term. Essentially, taking the state out of the marriage business and leaving it to individuals and their families and churches seems far wiser to me.
On Prop 13 ... it's like yeast in wine ... it converts sugars into alcohol but when the alcohol level gets too high, the yeast is killed off. Prop 13 was well intentioned and has had some benefits but now it is having a huge negative impact on our state and anyone arguing against even revisiting Prop 13 should propose a realistic solution to the state's problem with revenue variability.
Word Verification: bedybias
On other matters, do any of you know what the heck that booming explosion-like sound was last night about 8:30 or 9pm?
Twas a Morter, discoverd and detonated, and since the blast was loud, we can deduce that this was a live round which in the intervening half a century had not lost its contents in the forms of nitrates to the surrounding sands.
Word verification: destrus
Inlet sez:"This is probably why this is such an issue. If marriage is just a contractual relationship managed by the state, it would seem that there is discrimination going on from the point of view of tax breaks and adopting children and the rest ... gay marriage is considered the equivalent of polygamy by the state of California ... not allowed.
If, on the other hand, marriage is essentially a religious institution that the state has attempted to co-opt, we should simply stop using the term to refer to the contractual relationship that governs our lives and we should adopt a different term. Essentially, taking the state out of the marriage business and leaving it to individuals and their families and churches seems far wiser to me.
There's the problem. "Marriage" is both a legal contract AND a religious "contract." The problem is we do not live in a theocracy so we separate church from state. In this case, we really haven't done that. That's the problem.
If the state wishes to offer a compelling reason for giving benefits and responsibilities to certain people, then who (and why) gets these benfits has to be defensible. The Supreme Court (CA) earlier ruled that there was NO compelling state reason to ban gays from those "benefits," that "marriage" is a basic, fundamental human (right/activity/need) and should then be open to all humans as the institution is part of being fully human and part of participitaing in full citizenship/society & etc.
Right now, there is a proper disconnect between state and church. The state issues the licences, they can be signed at the courthouse and you're "married" in the state's eyes and that's where it should end. Consenting adults, gay or straight, who want to "marry" or "Merry" or "Dometically Conjoin" fill out the STATE forms, sign their lives away, raise their hands, speak some STATE words, and ka-boom. In the eyes of the STATE, you're Domesticated.
Then, IF you're religious, you go get some "HOLY MATRIMONY" at the religious institution of your choice.
But what's happened here is a muddlement of church and state. The core basis of the anti-gay marriage initiative is Biblical. There's the problem in a non-theocracy.
If the STATE has compelling reasons to ban gay "marriage" we need to hear it. Otherwise, the STATE should allow whatever-it-wants-to-call-it, a state issued legal contract. Then people are free to make holy whatever they wish to make holy in the way that their traditions make it holy.
Then we can work on a state initiative that would totally ban divorce! Heh-heh.
Post a Comment