Such a heart-breaking email to read, but the quote from Anne Lamott (in bold-type below) says it all. Dawn will still come. Prop 8 passed by such a small margin, so it is time to take this fight to the next level.
Prop. 8 was a direct blow against ALL MARRIAGE, gay and straight. In fact as a straight man, I wonder if I fell in love and wanted to be married, would it be right to enjoy the rights denied to gay people? Prop 8 taints what should be a noble and beautiful thing — a commitment to love another person “until death do us part.”
So, this fight ain’t over. The right to love is at stake, and its hard to think of anything more sacred than that.
Dear James M., We had hoped never to have to write this email.Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.And while the election was close, and millions of votes still remain uncounted, it has become apparent that we lost.There is no question this defeat is hard.Thousands of people have poured their talents, their time, their resources and their hearts into this struggle for freedom and this fight to have their relationships treated equally. Much has been sacrificed in this struggle.While we knew the odds for success were not with us, we believed Californians could be the first in the nation to defeat the injustice of discriminatory measures like Proposition 8.And while victory is not ours this day, we know that because of the work done here, freedom, fairness and equality will be ours someday. Just look at how far we have come in a few decades.Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn’t a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 — passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history.You raised more money than anyone believed possible for an LGBT civil rights campaign.You reached out to family and friends in record numbers — helping hundreds of thousands of Californians understand what the LGBT civil rights struggle is really about.You built the largest grassroots and volunteer network that has ever been built — a coalition that will continue to fight until all people are equal.And you made the case to the people of California and to the rest of the world that discrimination — in any form — is unfair and wrong.We are humbled by the courage, dignity and commitment displayed by all who fought this historic battle.Victory was not ours today. But the struggle for equality is not over.Because of the struggle fought here in California — fought so incredibly well by the people in this state who love freedom and justice — our fight for full civil rights will continue.Activist and writer Anne Lamott writes, “Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don’t give up.” We stand together, knowing… our dawn will come.Dr. Delores A. JacobsCEOCenter Advocacy ProjectLorri L. JeanCEOL.A. Gay & Lesbian CenterKate KendellExecutive DirectorNational Center for Lesbian RightsGeoff KorsExecutive DirectorEquality California
I’d be interested in a post from you defining what you consider “hate.” I feel like using the term too frequently dilutes its meaningfulness. There are some acts and speech that really are hateful. Then there are some that might rather be considered just extremely insensitive and/or inappropriately timed. I also worry that the term “hate speech” is often over-used as a way to excuse what really amounts to a refusal to allow free speech that one doesn’t agree with. I am not saying that you in particular use it in that way, but I feel like I’ve seen it done by various people. Anyway, it would be interesting to know your take.
I feel the same way Summer on the use of the word hate. It far too often is used to label a difference of opinion that isn’t one’s own.
On another note I don’t understand how anyone’s right to love can be denied and of course I wouldn’t want to see laws that prevented love if that is even possible. I suspect that partly the issue would be how one defines “love”.
But more over I think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage period.
Contracts yes the sacrament of marriage no.
You raised a good question Summer. I’ll have to think that over.
And, I agree with you Aaron. Marriage should be the domain of the church not the state. The only problem is that current laws give “marriage” much greater rights and power than do civil unions or any sort of private contract.
In the long run, I would like to see the government not give marriages at all and rather just allow citizens to create their unions by way of contracts. I think doing this would protect the civil rights of all, but also would allow the church to set its own standards for marriage.
The logic here is similar to what C.S. Lewis argued in “Mere Christianity.” Lewis was writing I think in the 50′ when the issue of divorce was hotly debated in the UK. Many Christians wanted to make it harder to get a divorce under the law, but Lewis argued that was a mistake. He said that the church should set higher standards for itself, but that it wasn’t right to use state power to force non-Christians to uphold the standards of the church. He also argued that forcing people to do the right thing would diminish the value of making the choice to do the right thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/08/same.sex.protests/index.html
CNN: Gay marriage supporters take to California streets
Yep and I agree with that completely.
I take that a bit further than I think you might and apply that also to things such as charity and helping the poor for example.
I think in this country we have resigned too much of our charitable giving to the government to where we are less inclined if not all together removed from giving directly ourselves.
In my optinion this is the danger of the nanny state; the feeling of content that the government is doing the giving and helping for us through our tax dollars etc…