Sex, politics and religion.

[skyring]

A post from an LJ friend put me onto this video comment.

I'll begin by saying what I said in a comment. My thoughts exactly, except that my thoughts are never that beautifully expressed.

"Spread happiness," the guy says. Spread happiness, love, joy and delight. I've got two gay friends who are married. It is one of the most romantic stories I've ever heard, how they found each other, lived together and were married as soon as it was legally possible. Like my hetero friends in every tiny frissom of joy, except for the "as soon as legally possible" part.

Like many other people, I was astonished when Proposition 8 passed in California.

California? The most liberal state in the union? How could this possibly happen?

And why? It makes no sense to me. In this slowly enlightening, slowly more tolerant world, how could people vote for a backwards step?

And yet, recently I've come out strongly in favour of the democratic right of the voters to vote any way they wish, for whatever reason they wish. It's one of the fundamental Lego blocks in my edifice of personal belief.

The voters can't get something wrong in a free and fair poll, where the issues are well known and widely discussed, because if they are wrong, then all of democracy is wrong, and if democracy is wrong, then I'm wrong. Bring on the dictators and the despots. The people I despise have got it right.

I'm torn, deeply torn, in trying to understand this.

But the commentator strongly hinted at a reason for voting against gay marriage, and that reason is organised religion. People put their religious beliefs above democracy. If the gods and the priests say something is wrong, then dammit, it must be wrong. Let's stick it to the godless infidels and vote them down.

It all comes back to the football team mentality I've mentioned earlier. If you support a particular football team, party or church, then that team is 100% correct. All the way. Sing the songs and wave the banners and pray that the other team and their misguided supporters get smitten down and lose the cup.

I've seen it countless times. People will explain away the misdeeds of one of their own, that they would vilify if it were one of the opposing team. In politics especially, you don't publicly criticise one of your own. Bend the truth, apply the spin, bring out the smoke and mirrors, but your guy is NEVER wrong. The Pope speaks no bull.

Me, I've been part of that rubbish, and I gave it up when I had to try to defend some absolutely bone-headed policies. I'm no good at putting spin on things I don't believe. That part of the game holds little attraction for me.

The party, the policies, the church and the priests, the team and the players - they can all be wrong. I'm not fool enough to believe that the universe is somehow backing me or anyone else up in every little thing.

So was Prop 8 right or wrong? Wrong in that it appalled me as a backwards step, a defeat for fairness and love. Right in that it was a free and fair vote and the people had their say.

I think we'll be seeing a campaign to reverse or repeal prop 8. I don't know how Californian constitutional practice works, but I'm sure that people are working together to get it done. And the answer lies in educating the voters.

Beginning with that piece of commentary mentioned above. Go click on the link. Send it to others. Spread happiness.

Comments

[onyerbike.livejournal.com]

Keith Olbermann is an amazing speaker when he's passionate about something. I was awed by the sheer beauty of how he expressed himself on this. And he's right - it's not about politics. It's about whether or not you think others have a right to happiness. Gay marriage will not devalue 'traditional' marriage. Divorce has done a pretty good job of that already. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many people accidentally voted Yes when they meant to vote No. Yes I support gay marriage. When really, they should have voted No - don't eliminate the right of gay people to marry.

It mystifies me that some people of faith differentiate between civil rights for racial minorities and civil rights for gay people. As Keith said, Do unto others.

Californians are gearing up with massive protests against the vote on Prop 8, and I'm sure we'll see a repeal of it soon.

[elhamisabel.livejournal.com]

Californians are gearing up with massive protests against the vote on Prop 8, and I'm sure we'll see a repeal of it soon.

Let's hope for this to happen soon.

[strtmyorange.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're getting your information but it's not correct. As of November 5, 2008, 38 states either have amendments to their state constitutions or have voted to add such an amendment or have issued specific legal statutes to ban same-sex marriage and/or all same-sex unions. Forty states and their citizens did NOT vote to ban same-sex marriage. Some of these bans were explicitly the work of that state's legislature, without the input of the voters. Numerous states have passed laws allowing legal unions, conferring some or most or all of the legal rights on couples as those of marriage. Note that these states have NOT banned same-sex marriage. However, since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, no act or agency of the USA federal government recognizes same-sex marriage, making all states laws irrelevant in matters such as Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, Medicare, family leave, immigration law, etc. Furthermore, your statements regarding Latino/Catholic/Muslim voters are incredibly off base. Sixty percent African-Americans, who came out in record numbers during this election, voted for the bans. Not immigrants, not Catholics, not Muslims. Actually, the Mormon Church donated MILLIONS of dollars to the California campaign "Yes on 8". As for the East Coast, Connecticut now allows same-sex marriage; Florida does not. Massachusetts has a very large Catholic population, completely contradicting your theory, as the state was one of the first to allow same-sex marriage. Nothing personal, but I do wish people would do more research before saying things that come off a bit xenophobic and that not completely correct.

[silvanime.livejournal.com]

I was also very saddened to see the proposition go through. I completely understand what you mean with this post. I'm all for democracy, but this just goes against everything else I believe.

[sainity.livejournal.com]

Democracy is not a shining light of perfection.

Democracy is flawed.

The principle of democracy is reliant upon freely available information, balanced debate and people making *right* decisions.

Knowledge about an issue isn't always available. The main sources of information about issues comes from the media. The purpose of a newspaper is no longer to inform, but to sell newspapers. Television stations need high ratings. While in a perfect world, they would examine all sides of an issue, we don't live in a perfect world. So when voters make a decision, they might not be exposed to all sides of an argument.

Not everyone has the opportunity to hear an open debate. The average person doesn't always read the news each day, read political debate or discuss topics with people with a wide variety of different views. Most people hang out with people who have similar belief systems as they do. I'm not saying that you do, or that I do, or that whomever is reading this is. But the average voter may not, in fact, participate or observe a balanced debate.

Neither are people always correct and make the right decisions. Look at the way that Aboriginals have been treated in a past. Unfortunately, many of the policies that we now deem terrible were popular at the time. Popular opinion is not always correct.

You also mention that 'most people put religion above their democracy'. Democracy is for the people, by the people, right? Religion can shape the way people lead their lives, shape their values and their beliefs. It is only natural that it will shape their vote. That is the way democracy works: democracy is the reflection of people.

So, democracy is flawed. But that doesn't mean that it's not the best structure we have for society. It just means that we have to change people's minds and hearts before we can change their laws. When democracy fails, it is up to us to become activists. To raise the level of debate, to make sure that each and every person hears all sides of a debate, to demand the truth.

[resqgeek]

>>Right in that it was a free and fair vote and the people had their say<<

Well, sort of. Certainly, there weren't goons twisting arms or threatening violence if people didn't vote for the proposition. But, when you look at the language of the proposition and its history, you might wonder. The proposition was carefully worded so that a "Yes" vote was actually a vote against gay marriage and a "No" vote was in favor of gay marriage, which strikes me as slightly counterintuitive. This wording was not accidental. The opponents of gay marriage fought to have the original wording of the proposition changed this way. Were they hoping to gain from confused voters? I have to believe they were. As one of the other comments here notes, some people may not have voted the way they intended, simply because of the way the proposition was worded. Is this a free and fair vote?

This problem is symptomatic of many such ballot initiatives. Many ballot initiatives are phrased in ways that are confusing or opaque to the average voter, making it difficult for them to understand the issue or decide which way to vote to achieve the goal they desire. If ballot initiatives are a good way to govern (and I'm not convinced that they are, as they seem to run counter to the very foundations of representative government), then we need to be careful to use clear and easy to understand language to state the question in the proposition. Otherwise it will be impossible to know whether the outcome reflects the will of the people, or merely their confusion...

[shendoah.livejournal.com]

I'm browsing before getting the kids to school, so I don't have time to read everyone's comments just yet.

Is Cali heavily democratic/liberal? Yes. But if you look at a map (I'll try and find one later if you or someone else doesn't get to it first) it is predominantly a red state. The blue is just along the coast, surrounding SF and LA. We are also heavy in populations traditionally homophobic. Hispanic, Asian, Indian and Middle Eastern. It's these populations that voted for Obama, and FOR Prop 8.

Do NOT get me started on the religious slant. It's been a week and I'm still seething.

[resqgeek]

Here's the county-by-county break out of the vote on Proposition 8 (from Wikipedia):



I suspect that it correlates strongly with the red/blue map you've described.

[strtmyorange.livejournal.com]

A lawsuit has been filed that Prop 8 cannot amend the California constitution. Since an amendment to the constitution is not supposed to be only "voted in" by California citizens but must be approved by 2/3 of the California legislature. Fingers crossed that the vote on Prop 8 gets stricken or goes to a vote in the legislature.