Sex, politics and religion.
Nov. 13th, 2008 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skyringA 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 02:50 pm (UTC)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...