Another step towards equality

Yesterday a federal appeals court determined that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. But you know, I could have told them that.

Of course, there will be another round of appeals...to the Supreme Court. That is a big deal--it will pretty much decide the constitutionality of this discriminatory measure nationwide. Bracing myself...

I LOVE NY: NY legalizes same-sex marriage

Last night Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the New York's marriage equality bill after it passed the Republican-controlled Senate on Friday night, making it the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Obviously this is an issue that is important to me as I posted on the infamous Prop 8 during the 2008 elections when I lived in California.  And more recently, I posted on the impressive turnaround of the former NOM tour manager earlier this year.  I think what is significant about the NY passage is the four Republican senators who went against general party lines to vote to pass this (and it should be noted that previous run of this bill in a Democrat-led senate failed miserably):

- Senator James Alesi
- Senator Roy McDonald, who I couldn't agree with more when he said, "You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing."  And well, more famously, "Well, f**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."
- Senator Mark Grisanti, who had this articulate speech on marriage equality as a civil rights issue.
- Senator Saland, who voted against the previous marriage equality bill, but this time around had these words: "While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience, I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Gentlemen, thank you for recognizing this is a civil issue, not a gay issue.  Thank you for doing the right thing.

Though I still believe civil rights is a national/federal level rather than a state-by-state issue, I think seeing these successful state passes let us witness the change and understanding that is happening through our country, little by little.  In time, I'm sure we will look back on this part of history in the same way we currently look at the anti-miscegenation laws of the '60s:  Can you believe that the US used to not allow gay marriage?

Until then, New York, I wish I was there for the celebration.

Prop 8: Update

Hopefully I'm leaving California on an up note. Here's one good sign: today a federal judge ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I downloaded the 138 page ruling and it looks like pretty interesting reading. Some key statements by the judge include:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

And:

"A private moral view that same sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation."

Of course, Prop 8 supporters are appealing the decision and this will eventually be decided in the US Supreme Court, which is where both parties pretty much want it to go as it would strike down or support all these other laws discriminating against gays and lesbians in various states. I'd like to remain optimistic and hope that federal judges will stay on the side of equal rights for all.

I remember when Prop 8 was on the ballot in 2008 and when the girl and I went to a rally protesting California's Supreme Court's upholding of Prop 8 in 2009. I remember being so appalled by these blatantly discriminatory efforts to legalize segregated rights. I certainly hope we look back on this as an embarrassing part of our history like we do on previous similar efforts. But now there is a part of me that thinks that Prop 8 could be a blessing in disguise if this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and justice prevails on equal rights for all.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Rally

It was a huge disappointment to hear that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 yesterday. Unfortunately, now the issue is bigger than just not allowing gays to marry--it sets a precedent where the majority vote is legally persecuting a minority (despite the fact that the State Constitution mandates non-discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation). A slippery slope if you ask me.

Needless to say, there were rallies and marches. Velina and I went to the one at the Old Orange County Courthouse in Santa Ana:

Velina gamely carried our sign:

She got restless during some of the speeches, but when we were marching, her energy came back up and she even joined in the chants (what do we want?!):

There were some great signs:

(Let me get this right. I can't get married.
But you can be a cheater
Get married 3 times?
Nice job on the whole
marriage protection thing!)

I loved some other signs. One said "WTF Cali?!" and the other said "I can't believe I'm at a protest for this!". I'm not sure which one was more apt for me. In the meantime, I try to have faith that Prop 8 will be an embarrassing blight of California's past.

Jon Stewart and Prop 8, sort of

There was a blog I used to hit daily but she started doing video posts, which turned out to be a pain because they take a lot longer to listen to than read, and the quality could be crappy sometimes. So I haven't visited her blog in a while. But I've noticed that nearly all my posts this week have included video. I'd like to think that it's not as frustrating because the video is supplemental; you don't have to watch the video to get the post itself.

Obviously, after a disclaimer like that, I've got another video. This was a discussion between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee regarding gay marriage. To a degree there weren't many new points, Huckabee opines that "marriage still means one man one woman, life relationship", while Stewart points out how marriage has been redefined through the ages, e.g. polygamy.

The salient point of the interview comes when Huckabee pushes that "...marriage still means a male and a female relationship. And until the laws are overturned, it still means that." And Stewart counters, "...you know... segregation used to be the law until the courts intervened."

Huckabee: "There is a big difference between a person being black, and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship that-"

Stewart: "Okay. This is helpful. This gets to the crux of it...Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.At what age did you choose not to be gay?"

That really is heart of the matter, isn't it? Many people still believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. And perhaps since one doesn't wear sexual orientation like skin color or gender, then it must be a choice, despite genetic research proving otherwise?

So the question is: what will it take for the general public to understand that gay people don't choose to be gay?

For those who don't want to watch the 7 minute video, here's a transcript at this blog.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Hey Sinners--if you've got 3 minutes

I happened upon this Prop 8 musical featuring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and others:



If I didn't embed this right, click here to see it.

The other Bradley effect

My friend Heidi let me post this picture of us on Election Day:


Apparently the 10 pounds I need to lose are from my fat head.

As we saw so many votes supporting Prop 8 (to eliminate a gay rights to marry) come in, we couldn't help but think that Prop 8 had its own version of the Bradley effect. I'm aware that a lot of folks who voted Yes on 8 don't harbor ill will or violence for gay people but it was disappointing to know people who are friends and even related to gays who still chose to eliminate their right to marry. Hey, I know some gay people and I'm fine that they "chose that lifestyle", but...please keep it in the closet and don't let my kids see it.

Anyhoo, as I questioned yesterday about the conflict of adding an amendment that contradicts the current state constitution, it appears that Prop 8 may be heading to the courts on those grounds. This has made me wonder how the whole proposition protocol works here in California. How did this proposition get on the ballot in the first place? Also, how do the propositions that make the state create more bond debt to support a new train line or hospitals get on the ballot? If I get enough signatures, can I get the "Frances needs a scrap room" proposition on the ballot? Don't worry, the bond will be peanuts compared to the ones on the ballot this year. It will for sure, be less than a billion dollars.

But back to Proposition 8--here's my suggestion if the lawsuits don't work. Per the language of the California Education Code, so fearfully quoted by Yes on 8, that marriage and committed relationships is taught in schools, there should be a push to include gay domestic partnerships in that education. If children were taught in an objective manner about all sorts of families, whether they be gay, straight, blended, single-parent, adoptive, foster, interracial, et cetera, there would be a lot less fearful, hushed tones that influence a child's prejudices as they grow older. As we saw in the presidential election this year, the younger generation played a significant role in the changing the direction of the leadership in the US. Perhaps instead of trying to change the fixed minds of the older generation, we should focus more on enlightening the next one.

I don't think this struggle raised by Prop 8 is over yet...

Yes We Can

Yesterday, I voted on a historic Election Day in US History. See? I've got the sticker and free cup of Starbucks coffee to prove it:

I reminded my girl that we were watching US history in the making as we all watched as our first African-American president give his victory speech last night. He kicked it off with inspirating words confirming that still, "America is a place where all things are possible." While he recognized the accomplishments of teamwork, focus, and hope, he soberly relayed that there is yet an uphill struggle, "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century", and that we would all have to pitch in and work together to succeed, because, America, yes, we can.

We also watched John McCain's concession speech. I have to confess that I haven't seen a lot of these types of speeches but I found McCain's speech a class act with a determined tone to still serve the US, and encouraged his supporters to rally behind our new president. Honestly, I have a lot of respect for McCain--as POW hero to the way he stood up against the current administration and, yes, his own Republican party, on the use of torture in US interrogation. Eight years ago, he was more moderate than the candidate he was in this election. After all, Rush Limbaugh had denounced the possibility of McCain running as the Republican party presidential candidate because Limbaugh deemed McCain wasn't conservative enough. With an non-endorsement like that, I had to give McCain some respect. And last night as he exited the presidential race, he retained honor and respect with his acknowledgment and reverence of this historic election and urging "all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." Optimistically speaking, thank you, Senator, yes, we can.

On a less optimistic front, Proposition 8 seems to be passing here in California. Currently, eliminating the gay marriage is leading 52% to 48%, with 96% of the precincts reporting. Though I can't believe that a discriminatory amendment that is in violation of the current constitution that bars discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation can be made (and I would wholeheartedly support that fight), it is a sad recognition of civil rights in this state that so many people would vote to support it.

On a related front, since my Amy Winehouse temporary tattoos have outlasted daily showers and 3 trips to the gym since Halloween, I was considering doing a No on 8 version of Conan O'Brien's strike beard. Unfortunately, with the likelihood of the voters passing Prop 8, I might just have to finally scrub these off:

I've been wearing long sleeves to the office, but I have to confess that I've started getting attached to the ones on my forearms:

My daughter, however, is tired of the booby pin-up girl and says I should at least paint a bikini top on her:

Well, with the depressing turnout of trampled civil rights, what excuse do I have to try and keep these temporary tattoos on?

Off to Vote

It's the big day--Election Day.

I wish I had researched voting early or voting by mail because now I have to stand in line. In the rain. How did that happen? I'm in So Cal and it rains like, twice a year. And it rains on a day when I'll be waiting in line outside.

But obviously, I'll do it. Going to make sure that there is another vote for civil rights and equality for all by voting No on Prop 8.

Happy voting to all--

Choosing my Legacy in American History

I have to say I was shocked and disappointed when Proposition 8 came on the ballot here in California:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This propostion immediately reminded me of the outdated posturing of the anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage) finally overturned in the last century. I had to go to the Yes on 8 website to see the arguments in support of this proposition.

Yes on 8 mentions a previous Proposition 22, a measure in 2000 to prevent recognizing same-sex marriage, including same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. The argument is made that despite a large majority vote, the California Supreme court deemed it unconstitutional (the court found the statute discriminatory by denying a fundamental right due to one's sexual orientation), and overturned the measure. The indignant tone is "can you believe a mere 4 judges overturned tens of thousands of votes?!" The argument ignores that it is the Supreme Court's duty to overturn laws deemed unconstitutional. For example, even if an overwhelming majority voted "no non-whites allowed in the same restaurantant as whites", the California Supreme Court should find it unconstitutional and overturn it.

Also, Yes on 8 is concerned that children in public schools would be taught that gay marriage is on par with straight marriage because of the California Department of Education's compliance to Education Code 51933 (b)(7), which, according to their website, states, "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Actually, due to California’s laws, which already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it appears the public schools would already be required to at least teach about gay domestic partnerships, as they can be defined as "committed relationships". The Yes on 8 website claims that "Prop 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have" So, are Yes on 8 supporters fine with teaching about gay domestic partnerships?

Obviously, the answer is no. According to their website, Prop 8 "prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs." Ultimately, this is a "gay" issue for Prop 8 supporters. It is very unfortunate that they are willing to curtail the civil rights of their fellow Americans to justify such discrimination.

Gay marriage has been legal for a few months now. Not much has changed because of it including a lot of personal beliefs. As an American whose heritage comes from one of the most homogenous countries in the world--Korea, I have had heard many arguments in the community on why marrying outside of an ethnicity is disgraceful, shameful, and just plain wrong, despite the fact that interracial marriage has been legal for decades. I've also heard of similar parental and family "guidance" from friends of other enthnicities and religions. Bottom line: though it is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, you get to keep your personal beliefs about Korean, non-Koreans, gays, and so on.

Is this an argument of semantics? Is the argument simply about the meaning of the word "marriage"? The American language, due to our diverse influences, changes as the population brings new words, like "bromance" (ironically, not a gay reference) and "ginormous", and changes how other words are used. Can you believe that "gay" simply meant "merry" at one point in time? Do Prop 8 supporters want to eliminate the use of the word "marriage" when there is a "marriage of ideas" or "marriage of flavors"? I doubt it. I'm guessing salt and pepper "marrying" is acceptable, but not same-sex couples who want to make life-long commitment. Or is this about the semantics of "traditional marriage"? Biblically speaking, are we talking about polygyny? Historically speaking are we talking about marriages when women were simply property and had virtually no rights or when you could only marry within your race? "Traditional marriage" has also been redefined throughout history. Some might say it's been for the better.

And throughout various venues, it has been offensive and outrageous to hear Prop 8 supporters co-opt God to claim that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Such claims were also used back in 1965, when Judge Leon Bazile, who defended anti-miscegenation laws in the original Loving vs. Virginia trial, said: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Bottom line, Prop 8 is trying to create a "separate but equal" scenario creating two classes of people who make committed and loving partnerships. If American history has taught us one thing, when you treat people differently, it is already separate and not equal. Further, by keeping them separate and unequal, the door is open for rights to be taken out of one group (and not the other) down the line.

Therefore I am choosing my place, my legacy in American history by voting NO on Prop 8. No matter how Prop 8 does in the elections, when I look back at this time in California history with my grandchildren, I will be able to say I voted to keep equal rights for my fellow Americans, not eliminate them.