Prop 8 Hate

Well, the decision is out on Proposition 8: it’s unconstitutional.  No real surprise to any Constitutional Law scholar.

And just as unsurprising is the immediate hate-filled reaction from its supporters. They decry the judge for overturning “the will of the people” while ignoring the fact that the judge upheld the Constitution. But, in their convoluted logic, the judge usurped the Constitution as well. Somehow, equal protection under the law does not mean equal protection for everybody, just equal protection for whichever faction can garner the most votes at any given time.

The Constitution was designed to be very difficult to change, and to protect everyone from the tyranny of the majority. Judges were intended to be the people’s last bastion of hope, of refuge, against such tyranny. What we see now is the anger of the “majority” when they don’t get their way, even if getting their way means taking away Constitutional Rights from others.

We are witnessing the fruits of the politics of division, the politics of fear, the politics of hate. Over two hundred years ago, wiser heads than this writer observed, “united we stand, divided we fall.” The Bible, the sacred book revered by those preaching the most hate now, noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

The United States is such a house now. “Terrorists” don’t have to attack us to destroy us; the likes of Rove and Rush, of Bachmann and Beck, of Palin and O’Reilly have done their job for them.

So, how do we save America? Essentially by ignoring the hate. Let them have their demonstrations and blow off their steam. Then vote Progressive.

add to : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook


11 thoughts on “Prop 8 Hate

  1. It’s only a matter of time…the youth are always more progressive than their parents. I’m sure in 10 or 20 years, we’ll look back at this the same way those of use today look back at the civil rights struggle or the fight for gender equality (a fight that’s still raging, though we have made progress).

    The thing about being progressive is that we do make progress….sometimes slow, sometimes rapid, but it does come. Conservatives can try to stop it, but face it–the status quo has to fall at some point. Old, entrenched ideologies die and new (progressive!) ideas take their place.

    That screaming you hear is the last gasp of old ideas dying an ugly, noisy death. RIP.

  2. As was pointed out on Rachel’s show last night, rights are something that you have and that cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote. Otherwise no one would have any rights at all.

    Not only that, when Barack Obama was born, there were still about a third of the states with laws that would have prevented his parents from marrying. This is why you don’t subject rights to a popular vote.

    It’s the 21st century, not the 18th. And people on the right need to learn that.

  3. “Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy,” Gingrich said in a statement.

    Sorry, Newtie. But Congress already did that with DOMA and I believe it’s being ruled unconstitutional, too.

    The American Family Association responded by saying that Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is reportedly gay.

    “His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute,” AFA President Tim Wildmon said in a statement emailed to media. “He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.”

    (No word yet on whether the AFA would have requested that a straight, married judge also recuse him- or herself on the same grounds.)

    I have no idea, nor do I care, if Judge Walker really is gay. If he isn’t, then I think Mr. Wildmon is guilty of projection. Again. And if he is, who cares? Aren’t judges supposed to keep their personal opinions from interfering with their decisions? By AFA’s logic, a white male judge cannot sit in on a trial for the murder of a white male. Pretty stupid reasoning, isn’t it?

    All quotes are from RawStory:

  4. Wayne, I particularly find that last point, about the judge’s own sexuality, to be particularly telling. I wrote a small item on that topic on my own blog this morning. According to right-wing hate, a gay judge can’t be trusted to try this case. But that means a straight judge can’t be trusted either.

  5. I agree, zxbe. It says a lot about the people fighting this.

    What really gets me is that I’m sure they all know at least one person who is openly gay. (Or else they wouldn’t know he was gay, of course.) And I’ll bet you anything they’ll say that guy is funny, great to be around, and one of their favorite co-workers or neighbors. And they’ll probably also tell you that if there should be any exceptions to this rule, their friend should be one of them.

    In other words, the ones they know are okay, it’s all those other ones who should be denied their rights.

    I also understand that when the laws banning marriage between people of different races was struck down, the ruling did not mention gender. It simply said that everyone has the right to marry whomever they want. So, in a way, there’s already legal precedent for gay marriage.

  6. Just so you know, zxbe, I tried to post a comment on your blog using my WordPress account, and it seemed to give me trouble, so I switched to Anonymous. That first comment is mine. Good post.

    • Those people who are in favor of denying rights to some people simply because they are gay shows that they are stunted. If something makes them feel “icky,” then it a bad thing that should be banned and never spoken of or thought of again — rather than conducting even the slightest self-examination to find out why something that is actually none of their damn business is bothering them so much. These people don’t mind peeping into the bedrooms of others to make sure they’re ‘doing it right,’ but they’d die of apoplexy if they knew someone was peeping into their bedrooms.

  7. Zooey,

    I agree completely. That’s the idea behind my parody of the song “Christmas” from the album “Tommy” by The Who. I called the song “Christians” and it starts like this:

    Did you ever see the faces of
    The Christians they get so excited.
    Waking up their kids to see if
    Armageddon’s finally been ignited.
    They believe in Christ and say His
    Teachings are a part of their philosophy.
    Peeking in their door we see their
    Lives are being lived in pure hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.