![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 26th, 2009 12:15 pmThe outrage over the CA Supreme Court's decision is being much better voiced by others, but I want to add a little of my perspective.
This seems like a very awkward compromise, letting 18K marriages stand yet outlawing any in the future. It is reminiscent of racist debates about how much hereditary blood line makes you of a certain race even if you "pass." This seems like an incredibly pointless line to draw in the sand. How are the marriages performed a year ago any more valid that those that would be performed now? I wonder what would happen if we had rogue counties and rogue courthouses starting to issue marriage licenses regardless of the sex of those applying.
This decision only underscores the very broken nature of California's proposition system. We should not have a popular vote to decide about human rights. Also, we shouldn't have a popular vote to decide whether or not to raise taxes. Our proposition system does not foster democratic ideals; unfortunately it only fosters fear mongering.
Last Tuesday we Californians lost our chance to raise taxes enough to keep our public education system on life support (barely) and to save other public services that are direly needed. Today Californians lost the basic human right to marry whomever we choose. What's on the docket for next Tuesday?
Also, how can we really do this at a time when so many other states are acknowledging that marriage is a basic human right? I shudder to think that I live in a state that falls down on the right-wing, religiously extreme side of this conflict.
I wonder if the court decided to uphold the existing marriages so as to avoid the legal argument to transform ALL legal marriage in the state into civil union. That's a change I would get behind. I'm happy to allow marriage to be a religious term and to clearly delineate and separate it from the legal and civil concept.
We've always struggled to keep church and state separate in this country, but right now? Epic failure.
This seems like a very awkward compromise, letting 18K marriages stand yet outlawing any in the future. It is reminiscent of racist debates about how much hereditary blood line makes you of a certain race even if you "pass." This seems like an incredibly pointless line to draw in the sand. How are the marriages performed a year ago any more valid that those that would be performed now? I wonder what would happen if we had rogue counties and rogue courthouses starting to issue marriage licenses regardless of the sex of those applying.
This decision only underscores the very broken nature of California's proposition system. We should not have a popular vote to decide about human rights. Also, we shouldn't have a popular vote to decide whether or not to raise taxes. Our proposition system does not foster democratic ideals; unfortunately it only fosters fear mongering.
Last Tuesday we Californians lost our chance to raise taxes enough to keep our public education system on life support (barely) and to save other public services that are direly needed. Today Californians lost the basic human right to marry whomever we choose. What's on the docket for next Tuesday?
Also, how can we really do this at a time when so many other states are acknowledging that marriage is a basic human right? I shudder to think that I live in a state that falls down on the right-wing, religiously extreme side of this conflict.
I wonder if the court decided to uphold the existing marriages so as to avoid the legal argument to transform ALL legal marriage in the state into civil union. That's a change I would get behind. I'm happy to allow marriage to be a religious term and to clearly delineate and separate it from the legal and civil concept.
We've always struggled to keep church and state separate in this country, but right now? Epic failure.
