Posted by Eliza on: 11.17.2008 /
by Eliza
On Saturday, November 15th, people gathered in cities & towns all over the United States to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California, & to advocate for equality of marriage rights for same-sex couples. (Scan down at the site linked to see photos & comments from many cities & towns.)
My 10 yr old son and I attended the rally & march in Seattle, along with 3000-8000 other people (depending on whose estimate you believe). I ran into ~20 people I know, from various arenas of my life: work, my son’s school, my UU church, and an atheist group I belong to. The mayor, the county executive, a state Senator, and our Representative to the U.S. House all spoke at the rally (proving how liberal this area is). It was a stirring demonstration of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and it was upbeat and positive, yet it feels like it will be years before anything will actually change.
There’s a lot I could say. The observation I’d like to present is this: with ideas being communicated on placards and in chants, people distilled issues down to the features they felt were most important to communicate to others. I was interested in the range of focus of those one-liners, which (on the placards) ran the gamut from funny to thoughtful to smutty. Many emphasized love (as did Keith Olbermann); others emphasized their own orientation (gay or straight, sometimes spelled as “Str8″); others emphasized marriage or weddings (one pointing out that allowing gay weddings could stimulate the economy). Several commented on religion (specifically Christianity or the Mormon Church), some negatively & some by quoting potentially supportive phrases such as the golden rule. One quoted a line that was new to me: “Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.” (James 2:13) The four counterprotesters I saw along the march route had their message distilled down, too: “Repent! or go to hell.”
For me, the main issue was, and is, civil rights. While “gay rights” was the overt reason for this protest, in my mind it’s bigger, yet simpler, than that: it’s about fairness, equality, dignity, and respect. I empathize with the love aspect of it, and if I were gay I’d likely have a different view, but in other civil rights issues (such as re-instating the voting rights of felons), “love” isn’t what I’d describe as the basis for my belief that civil rights should be equal, across the board. It’s simply…basic fairness. (IMO.) One side of the sign my son & I made and carried read: “American Values: fairness, EQUALITY, self-determination, church [not-equal sign] state” - trying to distill down, & convey, my point of view…in a message that might be meaningful to a “true patriot” whose views are currently different from my own.
I actually liked the other side of our sign better; it read: “There is NO earthly reason to deny EQUAL rights!” I recognized during the planning that this message is ambiguous: it leaves room for people to present a “non-earthly” reason that’s meaningful to them, though so far I haven’t heard one that I personally find compelling. I was going to add “And any other reason is unconstitutional” at the bottom, but (a) there wasn’t enough room, and (b) I decided it was unnecessary. People at this event signaled their agreement with our sign; I’d be interested to hear reactions here, as I suspect there may be a wider range of responses, including disagreement. Are there “earthly” reasons to deny equal rights? Why should “supra-earthly” reasons matter to those of us whose focus is the here and now?
I was taken aback at the number of signs which referred to hate (or “H8″): signs like “separate church & hate” and “Fight the H8!” It seems to me that people who promote marriage as a covenant between men and women (1 pair at a time) would probably not describe their opposition to same-sex marriage as “hate” - or, perhaps they see “hate” as being completely justified (as in: “love the sinner, hate the sin”). Thus, I suspect that calling their position “hate” & implying hate should simply be stopped is probably an ineffective approach. But I’d be interested to hear the position/reaction of people on any side of the issue here.
I’d also be interested to hear anyone’s own experiences, either attending a march/rally against Prop. 8 (as a protester or counter-protester), or hearing about what happened in your community, or hearing your thoughts & reactions on the whole thing. Thanks!
Comment by: martin gugino
1Thanks for the post… (I wasn’t out there.)
Comment by: benjdm
2We had 300+ at our rally in Albany, NY. No counter-protesters and lots of cars traveling past honked in support. I didn’t bring a sign, but if I had, it probably would have been a big equal sign. I did wear my HRC hat, “Secular Values Voter” pin, and Secular Coalition for America shirt.
Comment by: Eliza
3I thought of another group lacking rights that some people want to have gain those rights, where love is the impetus: grandparents’ rights. At present I don’t see how grandparents’ rights can necessarily be given special recognition, in part because of how dicey the logistics would be (though that’s not a good reason to deny rights) and in part because of the slippery slope problem (couldn’t others in any extended family or circle claim similar rights), also other reasons. But who knows, maybe in 30 yrs we’ll look back & wonder why grandparents rights were ever even questioned.
Comment by: Eliza
4benjdm - HRC meaning Hillary? (Or does it have another meaning I’m not thinking of here?).
What signs caught your eye at the rally you went to?
Comment by: Helen
5Thanks for this report on the rally, Eliza.
Yes, I suppose your sign could be interpreted as “there’s NO earthly reason to deny equal rights but there IS a heavenly reason…” :) However I don’t think you’d use the phrase ‘equal rights’ if that was your message. Moreover, since you were in the rally, not the counter-rally, I suppose people would assume you’re on the pro gay marriage side.
Like you I doubt that use of the ‘hate’ word is effective. People who are against gay marriage don’t perceive themselves as hating gay people. They simply want to uphold what they believe is right and oppose what they believe is wrong. (But that doesn’t prevent gay people feeling hated/invalidated)
Thinking something is wrong doesn’t mean you hate the proponents of it or participants in it.
Comment by: Laryssa
6Thanks for the info! Too Shy to Stop photographer Shaun Bell attended the protest too. You can view the photo essay here.
Comment by: benjdm
7HRC = Human Rights Campaign
“The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.”
“Shouldn’t we all have the right to marry Rachel Maddow?” - I laughed at that one quite a bit.
Comment by: benjdm
8What group does hate people and doesn’t just perceive themselves as, instead, only upholding what is right?
Comment by: Doreen
9HRC could be the human rights campaign (www.hrc.org)
Eliza wrote
I tend to agree with you on this. I don’t think most LDS hate gay people; I think they really believe this is a definition of marriage convenant issue for many LDS. I don’t think this is the case for many who call themselves evangelical. I think many of them really do hate gays & lesbians.
That being said, as a lesbian, it’s hard to separate not having some of the basic rights most Americans have from feeling hated, especially when the reality is, I could have been killed walking away from the rally in DC just for being a lesbian. (There are frequent gay & lesbian bashings and murders in DC.)
An ex and I were almost physically atacked once in VA while minding our own business getting gas. We were verbally attacked. (A side note, this is how I knew Obama would win VA and hence the election; he drew 90,000 in that very town, Manassas, a few days before the election.)
I also experienced the hate when right wingers tried to have the gay DC newspaper banned from VA public libraries back in the 90s. They put fingers right into gay men’s faces and said, “You’re gonna die soon of AIDS.” That was among the NICER things they said in public hearings.
I liked the signs at the rally in DC that said, “No more Mr. Nice Gay.” We are tired of being nice, waiting patiently to be treated like human beings, afforded the same rights and responsibilities as other Americans.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10I didn’t get to go to the one in Charleston due to a previous appointment, however, I spoke with a friend who went and she said it was very moving - she was emotional the whole time. About 200 people marched (thats a sizeable crowd for conservative Charleston) and they had speakers. The news media showed up and filmed - and things went generally very well. Nothing ugly happened. She didn’t say if there were H8 signs. I kind of thought H8 was clever, but your point is well made. If clever sets up barriers to communicating, then ditch clever.
Comment by: Eliza
11Doreen - I didn’t mean to minimize the reality of hate crimes, & the larger cloud of knowing that being part of a minority group exposes you frequently to expressions of hate & to the risk of becoming a victim of hate crimes. What awful experiences you, and others “out” as LGBT have faced! Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism, IMO, & need the serious attention to prevention & punishment that would be given to other forms of terrorism.
Wikipedia has a quote from the NY legislature from 2000 that I think captures the difference, for me, between hate crimes as a reality and “hate” as a basis for laws:
The passage of Prop. 8 occurred as part of the democratic process & wasn’t a criminal act (though it sure feels like it, and though challenges are being brought on its constitutionality, yay).
Laryssa - thanks for that link!
Comment by: Eliza
12Julie - I’d been wondering how some of these protests went in conservative areas of the country - glad your friend got to go & found it moving, and also that it went smoothly. (I haven’t heard any reports of violence or arrests, though I haven’t looked very hard.)
benjdm, I think you’re right that people justify their feelings & reactions to themselves, maybe even more so in groups than as individuals (?not sure about that). The KKK comes to mind. But also, remember, in its original form the U.S. Constitution was rife with what we now consider to be uninformed bias, esp. racism, in its express treatment of blacks and Indians, and its preference for white, land-owning males over everyone else. But was it written that way out of “hate”??
Comment by: no offense
13I hate to be the one to point out the obvious here, but what is being asked for is exactly a redefinition of marriage. (See the Olberman video)
Of course hate is wrong, of course violence and verbal abuse is evil, of course it is evil even when ‘good christians’ do it. But let’s not confuse the issue. Some people are motivated by hate and bigotry, (if you don’t know that, you live on another planet), but there are plenty of people who are motivated by the fact that we are trying to call a cow a pig, and it just ain’t so.
Calling it a civil rights issue just confuses it. All people (including gays) have the right to marry (as it has been defined for millenia) if gays choose not to participate in traditional marriage, that is their choice, I will stand up to anyone who engages in violence against them, but I completely understand those who are upset and frightened by changing the definition of something that has been a constant for so long in our culture.
It is entirely possible to believe that homosexuality is immoral without hating gay people, for such people (who have gay friends and family members, and yet continue to believe that homosexuality is not an appropriate expression of human sexuality) a public redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage poses legitimate questions as to the nature of our society and its legal structures. This is not hate, but legitimate concern for our society and the people in it, including those members who happen to be gay.
Comment by: Helen
14no offense wrote:
I think that’s unfair - it trivializes the experience of gay people and the unhappiness experienced by both partners when people who are attracted to the same sex marry someone of the opposite sex hoping it will work and it doesn’t.
I understand those emotions too; I know they are real. Yet I think they are a terrible reason not to change something which is wrong. I expect there was a lot of fear when slavery was abolished but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been.
I understand that private institutions like churches may define marriage as they wish. But doesn’t the separation of church and state mean society’s legal structures should be free of restrictions imposed by the moral beliefs of certain groups, such as ‘it’s wrong for two people of the same gender to marry each other’?
If gay marriage demonstrably ruins society then there’s reason for society in general to disallow it. But I am highly skeptical of claims that it does/will. I don’t see the evidence for such claims.
Comment by: martin gugino
15Re: Hate
It is the victims of injustice who become resentful. The powerful remain calm. It is only when their power is threatened that they stir. Did the overseer hate the slave? He didn’t need to, until later.
Re: Marriage
Is it marriage®?
Comment by: Eliza
16no offense, what is “the” definition of marriage?
Hasn’t marriage already been redefined over the years, & in different cultures? The most stable factor may have been that it involved people of opposite gender, but it hasn’t always been (& isn’t everywhere) exclusive to one man and one woman - c.f. the Old Testament. It doesn’t have to be a permanent situation - people can now get married & divorced in at least one US state within the same day (well, same week), and have done so. It has often been arranged for people without their consent, by their families, often between children, often with money or other valuables exchanging hands. Developed countries don’t practice or condone these aspects of marriage, but we do recognize them as part of the myriad practices which are called “marriage.”
Marriage doesn’t have to include sex (though it usually does). It doesn’t have to include childbearing (though that’s the reason some people give as the most important basis for marriage being between people of opposite sex). People of the same sex have, on at least a few occasions in history, married legally - when one of them hid his/her gender from the outside world. (And maybe from his/her spouse? Unclear.)
But the real issue in modern times, IMO of course, is that the government confers benefits on the basis of the legal arrangement called marriage, and ~10% of the population is not allowed to obtain access to these benefits while living their lives according to “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Comment by: Eliza
17Sorry, that came out wrong…didn’t mean to sound so strident!
What I meant is: Yes, it DOES mean redefinition of marriage…but that’s been occurring over time & around the world anyway. This is just trying to expand the positive role of marriage.
Comment by: benjdm
18That all depends on the criteria we’re using. I could more easily defend a ‘yes’ than a ‘no’, I think.
My point was only that supporters of anti-semitism, racism, etc., would equally claim to be only doing the right thing. Using the word may be ineffective - I’m not sure. But it would be equally as accurate (or inaccurate) to describe segregation and Jim Crow laws as motivated by hate. That’s all I’m saying.
Can someone check - I think I have a previous comment caught in a spam filter?
Comment by: Helen
19benjdm thanks for alerting me you had a comment in the spam filter - I found it
Comment by: martin gugino
20In the ordinary sense, “hate” is an emotion. It is a feeling. No?
I think the word is used inappropriately quite a bit. Perhaps it is being “re-defined”?
Comment by: Doreen
21No offense, nooffense, my church already includes in its definition of marriage, a union between one consenting adult woman and another consenting adult woman but the state of MD is prohibiting my church from bestowing a marriage license on said marriage. So, IMHO, there’s no attempt to redefine marriage. There is definitely the interference of the state in the practice of my religion.
To say I have the right to marry - if I marry a man - is very insulting. Been there, done that, got the scars - so does he. I’m fairly sure the insult was not intended but it’s how I felt in reading that.
What is the legitimate concern for society, and perhaps more importantly, for me, as a gay person? I find such concern, frankly, illegitimate.
Comment by: martin gugino
22I wish you could make this part clearer. Your church does everything the same for same-sex marriages as it does for different-sex marriages. Why is the lack of recognition, by the state, an interference with religion? You could argue that it is discrimination, which it is, but that is a different argument, and problematic.
I believe that in the Catholic Church, the couple has to already have a marriage license from the state before they can get married in the church. That can’t be the procedure in your church, is it?
Comment by: martin gugino
23re: free exercise of religion
Would it help if the state eliminated the need for a ceremony, and made civil marriage like closing on a house: you sign the paper. Would civil marriage then be untangled from religion and religious activities?
Or wouldn’t that help?
The police are not stopping you, and filing a joint tax return is not religious experience.
I am not trying to be flip. I don’t see it.
Comment by: benjdm
24I thought that was already the case. There are legal requirements for a ceremony?
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
25Martin wrote
No, it can’t “do everything the same.” The state interferes and does not allow my church to “do everything the same”. That’s my point. Without allowing the same gender couple to get the marriage license, my church cannot “do the same” for same gender couples regarding marriages. In fact, it cannot marry them.
Comment by: martin gugino
26re: free exercise
If anyone else can see how to clarify this, I welcome the insight.
You say, “in fact, it cannot marry them”. But it can marry them in the eyes of the church.
It cannot marry them in the eyes of the state, but that is not an abrogation of free exercise of religion.
Comment by: benjdm
27The Join The Impact people who made the prop 8 protests happen are continuing their web activities.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38217858354
Comment by: Helen
28Thanks for the update, benjdm.