November 07, 2008
How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Proposition 8
We're all clear that high turnout among black and Latino voters killed gay marriage in the Golden State, right?
The best roundup on this is probably over at Eric Scheie's Classical Values:
Out Magazine editor Aaron Hicklin has a piece in the Guardian titled "The success of Proposition 8 in California was one negative consequence of Obama's victory" and he does into some detail discussing something that isn't getting much play in the American press—that black voters (many of whom were voting in unprecedently large numbers, thanks to Barack Obama) voted overwhelmingly (70% to 30%) in favor of Proposition 8 (to ban gay marriage in California).
The Prop 8 vote was 52% to 48% , and considering that blacks were 10% of the voters (yet 6.7% of the electorate), and far more in favor of the initiative than whites or Asians, it's quite likely that had Hillary Clinton been the nominee, Prop 8 would have been defeated.
My emphasis.
Well, that is an inconvenient truth. Scheie remarks:
As a libertarian I have had reservations from the start about the wisdom of bringing the state into the bedroom where I never thought it belonged, and I also think a good privacy argument can be made against gay marriage from a libertarian standpoint. To focus on it as a "right" overlooks its misuse as an arduous bludgeon, which could be deployed by vengeful lovers and blackmailers against partners who never sought to be married, just the way marriage laws can be for straight unmarried couples. But my position is a fringe one, as I freely admit. Soon we will all be wedded by and to the state, and all bedrooms will be subject to examination and scrutiny.
It may be a fringe position, but it is my very own. The state should not be in the business of certifying marriages. We might very well need a legal mechanism for creating economic communality—particularly between two people who are not blood relatives, such as two elderly women who live together but are not lovers—but we do not need the state to define the word marriage. We really don't.
In fact, most people seem to have their morality and logic inverted: all anyone should have is a "civil union." It is up to one's church and one's social circle to determine if and when these unions constitute a "marriage."
Via Insty, whom I suddenly realize I disagree with. Eric claims to have found Reynolds' original assertion about gays 'n' guns, but Glenn has reiterated the gist of it countless times. Insty:
It's often struck me that opposition to gay rights, and opposition to gun ownership, have a lot in common. Most people opposed to each are concerned as much with symbolism as with practical effects (you often hear comments prefaced with "I don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to do that") and it seems more an aspect of culture war than anything else.
Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.
I'd say "happily unioned," which is all any of us should be demanding of the State. The rest is just Humpty Dumpty-ism—an endless, unwinnable series of arguments about which words mean what, and to whom, and why.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Well, wouldn't it? And if not, why not?
If you are with the person you love, and you enjoy the appropriate legal protections, what is it to you how others label it? I mean, it's annoying that they assign a different nomenclature, but surely that isn't something that a nice trip to the firing range won't fix, is it? Put some lead in the air; you'll feel much better afterward.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:32 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 650 words, total size 4 kb.
1
actually, you and I have very similar positions on this. I think the government should only be in the contract business, and the "marriage" should be up to the church or the society of the couple in question.
Posted by: caltechgirl at November 07, 2008 03:18 PM (IfXtw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2008
Actually, I've Never Had Much of a Problem with The Word.
I mean, I don't mind cunt that much, and I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by pretending that we are somehow physically harmed when someone uses it.
I've always gotten along just fine with my cunt. I get along just fine with my niggahz, too.
But to answer the larger question: Yes. Obama is perfectly willing to reap the benefits of sexism, just as McCain is perfectly willing to reap the benefits of female anger over same.
And, as most of you know, McCain's got a lot more female advisors than Obama (starting with his wife, his daughters, and his running mate).
And his campaign staffers are paid more, on average, whereas Obama's female staffers are paid less. Whaddya mean, the mainstream media didn't tell you that one?
Did they tell you Palin supports equal rights for same-sex domestic partnerships? Did they tell you she thinks distribution of condoms in high schools (and mention of same in sex-ed classes) is fine? Did they tell you she never took any action to restrict access to abortion in Alaska? Did they tell you that the charge about her allowing rape victims to be billed for evidence collection turned out to be a lie?
No? Hm. Either they're getting increasing lackadaisical, or they're in the tank for Obama. Wonder which one it is. Toughie.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:34 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Er, well my sense of it is that "cunt" is more a reference to the woman to whom it is attached, than to the sexual organ itself, and is more than a tad harsher than "bitch". C.f. I get along just fine with my prick and my asshole, but to be called either one is another thing. It is low, but then so are very many Obama supporters.
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 14, 2008 12:59 PM (6go9w)
2
Well, we do equate people with body parts pretty much all the time, it's just that we don't often think anything of it. The major issue is, when call someone a body part name, you're dismissing the
rest of that person, and concentrating on a single aspect. Which is not too bad, if it's a complimentary aspect...
"Geez, you libs are all heart, ain'tcha?"
"Hot damn! but that Dilton is a brainiac!"
"Surely I hooked up with
someone
Posted by: Gregory at October 16, 2008 02:14 AM (cjwF0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 18, 2008
Fucking FISA.
Interfering with our fucking privacy.
And, of course, our God-given right to monitor the emails of people we don't like.
Fuckin' Bush administration . . . wait . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
May 15, 2008
Well, Then.
Let us go
gaily forward.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:55 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bother! Just as I finished typing a beautifully worded rant about love and devotion knowing no gender, about gay marriage being just as valid and committed and honorable as straight marriage, about straight marriage having declined quite in the absence of any influence from gay couples, and about God not actually planning on smiting anyone if we legalize the democratically legitimate right of gay couples to marry in America, my internet connection froze.
Drat!
I will say this: I've known gay couples that weathered cancer, the loss of children, and other heartbreaks, and I can only hope that some day I'll have a spouse whose devotion, honor, love, trust, respect, compassion, humor, and generosity are as great as theirs.
Posted by: Rin at May 15, 2008 06:14 PM (cxzm+)
2
You will.
BTW, I generally prefer that these issues get decided by legislative means, rather than judicial fiat, but at least this is at the state level, rather than the one-size-fits-all Federal fiasco that was Roe v. Wade.
I see the problem as linguistic: now that everyone wants the word marriage, those who are deeply religious in an orthodox denomination/faith simply need a new word that suggests a female-male life partnership, since "civil union" fails, and doesn't carry all the Federal protections.
If they are obnoxious, they will simply put quotation marks around marriage when it's homosexual. But I would hope they try something else: (1) really BITCHIN' marriage; (2) New Testament/Old Testament marriage; (3) Complementary marriage; (4) gender-balanced marriage.
So that it's like, "I approve of people getting benefits who deserve benefits, but I've always thought that God/the forces of evolution favored this old-fashioned man-woman thing, and to me it's still the ideal. Or, at least that is what my faith teaches."
That would solve the language problem without resorting to scare quotes.
We would, for the record, be SO MUCH BETTER OFF if the state had not become so deeply involved in the marriage thing.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2008 12:47 AM (Hgnbj)
3
Or, for the traditionalist with a sense of humor,
innie-outie marriage
;-)
Posted by: Rin at May 16, 2008 09:50 AM (7EbKE)
4
but if traditional couples invent a new word that means "REAL marriage," won't gay couples want that term applied to them too, both culturally and legally?
wouldn't it just be simpler to agree that any two people who agree to live together, have physical intimacy (of whatever sort or level), bring each other soup when they're sick, and not make too much fun of the other when s/he does something really boneheaded, are married?
it's all about the soup, baby!
Posted by: Rin at May 16, 2008 01:09 PM (bSHZa)
5
Nope. We cannot force people whose religious scruples force them to feel that society ought not place a "stamp of approval" on homosexuality to use the same word for male-female marriage as for female-female marriage.
It isn't right. We cannot simply co-opt the language in an attempt to force our particular notions of inclusivity down people's throats.
Everyone has a fundamental right to be left alone. That applies to gay couples, but it also applies to the religiously orthodox. Society is best off when both of those groups participate, so each much do its best to avoid being too abrasive toward the other. And each must do its best to avoid being too sensitive.
It's the only way classical liberalism can work.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2008 03:32 PM (Hgnbj)
6
But it's a game of catch-up. If straight America allows gay couples to use the word marriage, but coins a new term (superduper marriage) for themselves, gay married couples will then want to be included in the new term. And so on and so on.
I absolutely agree, we cannot force people to like it, nor force churches to sanctify it. But in the legal, civil service sense, it should have the same name and standing as straight marriage, and churches should be free to call it a marriage if they want to.
Making up a new word just starts a new phase of the same old dance. The whole point for gay couples is that they want to be included in the agreed-upon definition, 'cus all the cool kids are doin' it.
Of course, an ever-shifting terminology is probably inevitable, but I don't think it's desirable.
Posted by: Rin at May 16, 2008 04:06 PM (m82W1)
7
I don't know if I believe there is any such thing as "straight America."
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 17, 2008 10:37 AM (Hgnbj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 13, 2007
What I'm Reading.
A cool
book about the erosion of civil liberties by Jonathan Rauch. (A bit out of date; I hope he revises it at some point.)
In case my SoCon readers want something to be annoyed by, they can always check this one out.
I love Jonathan Rauch.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
October 20, 2007
Insty on the Long, Slow Decline of Civil Liberties in This Country
. . . Some of the backlash against things that the Bush Administration has been doing probably stems from a lack of understanding of just how bad the law has always been in many areas, leading to a false impression that things represent shocking new departures from the Constitution when they really represent . . . er, . . well-settled departures from the Constitution.
True that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:07 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The short, pithy summary:
"George Bush did not *invent* the practice of urinating on the Constitution. That has been going on longer than any American has been alive."
Posted by: John at October 22, 2007 01:48 PM (TWQ6W)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
39kb generated in CPU 0.0219, elapsed 0.1188 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1081 seconds, 425 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.