Brilliantly executed, bone-chillingly accurate. If you’ve ever been attacked by the fundies, you’ll recognize their voices in this piece.
While on blogging hiatus the California Supreme Court heard arguments to overturn Proposition 8. Personally, I believe this is a heinous and offensive Proposition approved by the California voters; it’s embarrassing, and it should be eliminated.
However, I don’t believe the California Supreme Court should overturn Prop 8. The people created this mess and the people are going to need to clean it up. I suspect another proposition will be required to do the trick. The court shouldn’t overturn the will of the voters, however misguided, that is antithetical to democracy.
What this does mean is that the people of California, particularly people who care about equality for all people, need to pull their heads out of their hind ends and get some propositions on the ballot that take care of this matter. For instance:
Yes, these propositions would take us all the way back from the brink of destruction of the traditional marriage and would help usher in a new age of commitment to serious man/woman relationships the way they were meant to be. The fact that the state would be overseeing them and enforcing the terms would only encourage more traditional marriage, after all, anyone seeking the validity of such a commitment wants the support of all their fellow citizens.
Or, we could take a completely different direction:
In any case, I think all of these should be ballot measures on the next statewide election and that would truly bring this business to a head. Proposition 8 effectively starts the ball rolling for other kinds of modification to our state Constitution that people only object to when it direct affects them. I say the state has no place in the marriage business as marriage is practically a contract to the state. Let’s treat it that way and let’s ensure that any combination of committed couple has access to the exact same rights for hospital visitation, wills and survivor benefits, healthcare, citizenship, etc.
If we’re not willing to take that step, then we should follow the definition of traditional marriage to the most extreme point possible, so the bigots who voted for this so-called law, supported it with money, lobbied for it, will suffer the consequences of their own actions. It will be entertaining to see those birds come home to roost. People then disenfranchised by the majority could observe “Oh, you don’t like it when others legislate your rights? Hmm, well, that’s too bad. Guess you’ll have to work to change that sometime in the future.”
Perhaps you missed me, perhaps you didn’t. I can assure you there were some items I wanted to comment about that have transpired over the last month or so, we’ll see if they come out. BTW, I thought I’d know if I wanted to continue blogging or not – but I don’t have that answer. So for now, I’m back and I wanted to leave you with a little literary chuckle:
Well gentle readers, all three of you, it’s time for me to take a break from blogging. After 400,000 words (that’s about six books worth of words,) I’m tired. I still have much to say, but I think it’s time for that to take shape in meatspace, the real world. Am I done blogging? The honest answer is, I don’t know.
What I do know is that from a priority perspective, writing blog entries is the lowest one and I’m out of time. So……lowest priority on the list gets whacked. Since the next two weekends I’m engaged, and during the week for the next two weeks I’m more than engaged, it’s pretty low probability that any new content will make its way here.
Consider March a no blog zone. After that, we’ll see where we are.