Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Since I know that not everyone on my friends list is in California, and perhaps if you aren't here you don't think that you can do anything about Proposition 8, which will amend the California constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, I'm posting a link where you can donate to No on 8. I don't know a lot of rich people either, but every dollar does count: if everyone on my friends list sent $10, No on 8 would receive over $1000 from just you all.

The fact is that out-of-state far-right organizations and individuals are throwing money left and right at misinformation campaigns and scare tactics designed to confuse California voters into voting Yes on Proposition 8 even if they are actually not opposed to marriage equality for any gender; thus I think it is necessary to make an appeal to fair-minded people across the country to send their dollars to the No on 8 campaign so that they can afford more TV air time, print ads, phone campaigns, and other efforts to educate California voters as to why marriage equality is not an infringement against religious freedom nor a threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage.

But the reason that this fight should matter to you, even if you are not a Californian, and even if you believe you would only be a candidate for that ideal male/female marriage, is that California influences national politics to even a greater extent than do the states who have fought against marriage discrimination in the recent past. And that's important. Not only so your gay friends can get married, but so that we do not have a wave of state constitutions being amended to demand a pants- or chromosome-test at the marriage license counter.

See, the definitions of "man" and "woman" have yet to be legally defined in most instances; making marriage exclusive to "certified" heterosexual couples would create the need to determine whether candidates for marriage are "really" the sex that they say and believe that they are. Strict heterosexual marriage virtually nullifies the rights of transgendered people to get married, and makes the matter of marriage for intersex individuals extremely difficult to decide. The conventional notions of what a "man" is and what a "woman" is will not be sufficient to decide cases in which chromosomal conditions create any sort of ambiguity in gender; imagine finding out that you cannot get married at all because you didn't realize your "sex" chromosomes were something other than XX or XY! Proponents of "heterosexual only" marriage don't realize that they are trying to create a hard distinction where none exists except in the popular imagination, based mainly on exterior appearances.

Anyway. Perhaps you didn't need the lecture. Maybe you've already sent all your eating out money for the month to No on 8. Cool! Thanks.

By the way, this amendment would complicate considerably any attempt yours truly made in the future to get married. Ha. You laugh. It could happen.

OK it probably couldn't, but if the universe were to split again like it did when GWB was appointed president in 2000, anything would be possible. Give now!


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 29th, 2008 01:32 am (UTC)
done. Thanks for the link, I've been meaning to do this.
Oct. 29th, 2008 01:45 am (UTC)
we thank you. :)
Oct. 29th, 2008 02:21 am (UTC)
Man these constitutional amendments really piss me off. They should be reserved for matters of the state, not everyone's little pet interests. I always vote no for those no matter what they are.
Oct. 29th, 2008 04:20 am (UTC)
I agree. the really awful thing about CA constitutional law is that an initiative like this can amend the constitution with a simple majority vote. not even two-thirds! 51% of the voters can amend the fucking constitution.

certain things about american democracy are simply crazy. there are better ways to implement it.
Oct. 29th, 2008 05:59 am (UTC)
California's constitution is a bit ridiculous because it's so easy to change, a lot of it contains strange things that would have been much better managed elsehow.
Oct. 29th, 2008 02:50 am (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the PSA.
Oct. 29th, 2008 04:21 am (UTC)
yay! thank you.
Oct. 29th, 2008 06:55 am (UTC)
As a longtime proponent of the idea that gender and sex are not binary, I have to disagree with this assessment. The establishment is SO tied to the idea that sex and gender ARE binary that discriminating against non-binary people by not allowing them to marry is really unthinkable to them. Those people MUST be shoehorned into the binary somehow or else the dominance of the binary system might start to unravel. So much as I hate Prop 8, voting against it because intersexed and transgendered people might be outlawed from marrying seems like a dumb idea to me. There are so many other GOOD reasons to vote against it.

(hi - here by a link from mactavish)
Oct. 29th, 2008 07:47 am (UTC)
I don't know. I find it hard to come up with a DUMB reason to vote against it. Especially as a transgendered person who otherwise could "fly under the radar"--i.e., pass. The attention that gender is getting in relation to marriage now makes it fairly unlikely that I could just go get a marriage license in a "man/woman" marriage state. I wouldn't pass a pants test, much less a chromosome test.

but whatever. just vote against the damned thing. I don't give a rat's ass whether you think my reasons for doing so are stupid.
Oct. 29th, 2008 07:44 pm (UTC)
That was perhaps poorly phrased. What I was getting at is that the argument reminds me a lot of people on the right saying "But if we let gay people get married people will want to marry trees! And dogs! And furniture!". And we LAUGH at those people. (At least I do). I think hyperbolic arguments like this hurt the cause more than they help it.
Oct. 29th, 2008 02:02 pm (UTC)
I am going to link this in my own lj if you don't mind.

Oct. 29th, 2008 02:50 pm (UTC)
cool with me!
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars

Latest Month

March 2012