Posts Tagged Proposition 8
A Twinkie in California
Posted by zoboxrox in human rights, justice, politics on January 11th, 2010
Oh god no. Why this man? Eyebrows over here, Paul Katami, and his partner, Jeffrey Zarrillo, are among a group of plaintiffs going to court over the recent ban on gay marriage in the state of California, Proposition 8. Somehow, out of all the homosexuals in San Francisco, this is the one who got to do the talking when the time came. And here is what he had to say:
“[It's] like putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill and saying, ‘You can only have a bite,’ ” testified Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs. “And you want the whole thing. … All I want is to be married.”
Hey Paul — are you fucking kidding me? That’s the best you could come up with? First of all, Paul here obviously knows N-O-T-H-I-N-G about the history of his state, most notably, the late great Harvey Milk, who fought so vigorously for gay rights in the very same city Paul and Jeffrey call home. If Paul had studied up a little more, he’d know not to bring Twinkies into the fight (unless Paul is brilliant, and is purposefully evoking the painful memories of Milk’s tragic ending, thereby arousing some deeply closeted heterosexual guilt).
Complete and total mental lapse aside, this is simply not the right argument to be making. While how you feel is always very important to yourself, this will not sway a judge in a court of law, nor will it make all those evangelicals in California suddenly feel bad enough to change their minds. You must evoke the sensation of being denied a basic right by your government — you must shine light on the absurdity of this situation, which is clearly the most prominent case of persecution so far this century.
Why You Wanna Break My Heart?
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, human rights, justice, malfunction, politics, tragedy on June 16th, 2009
I realize I haven’t been completely objective (not that I ever claimed to be), and for a while there, I was a member of the Obama cheer-leading squad, but I’ve got to say, for me at least, the honeymoon is now officially over. Its not that I expected the new administration to do everything right, especially considering the seemingly insurmountable trouble they are faced with; its just, I never thought they would do something so clearly wrong.
To be fair, lets give a little context.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA as it is known, was a bill signed into law by President Clinton – NOT President Bush — on September 21, 1996. It basically says that no state can be forced to recognize other state’s same-sex marriages and that the federal government is required not to. So yeah, its pretty bad.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a gay couple who were married in California before Proposition 8 and had taken the two bans on marriage to Federal Court, were fought by the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. While it is rare for an administration not to defend the current laws (though not unheard of), whether or not they agree with them, it makes matters worse that Justice Department has written a brief which makes arguments comparing gay marriage to incestuous relationships.
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
This is not a direction I expected this president to go in. For someone who travels the globe, preaching tolerance and understanding, he should make more of an effort to practice it at home.
Recent Comments