WTF, California?

I am gravely disappointed in the California State Supreme Court for upholding the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in that state.

When considered in tandem with last week’s special election results, in which Californians voted down measures that could have substantially eased the financial crisis in their state, it becomes clear that Bill Maher was absolutely right when he argued that the tendency of  California’s citizens to rule themselves by ballot initiative has made their state impossible to govern. Left to their own devices, Californians will probably try to outlaw earthquakes, eliminate all taxes while guaranteeing everyone free college educations paid for with farts, and declare the state flower is a “blowjob tree.”

It’s all just so nonsensical. Try to follow along:

  1. The California State Supreme Court decides that same-sex marriage is protected under its state constitution’s equal-protection clause. So far, so good.
  2. A bunch of religious nutjobs appeal to a bunch of secular bigots to pass Prop 8, a Mormon-backed citizens’ ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in California. By a small margin, the measure passes. Appalling.
  3. The California State Supreme Court is asked to overturn the new law on the grounds that the court’s previous ruling established as precedent a constitutional protection for same-sex marriage; ergo, a law against it violates that state’s constitution. Driven by fear of a voter backlash (or perhaps its own prejudice), the court declines to overturn Prop 8.

So much for “liberal” California, folks. All I have to say at this point is that I’m proud to be a native New Englander.

4 Responses to “WTF, California?”

  1. Jim

    While I’m sure there are zealots supporting the ban, the vast numbers of people who observe religion are not “nut jobs”. That being said, those who based their decision on their faith are not “nut jobs”, but observant of or, perhaps, are adhering to their interpretation of their faith.

    “Secular bigots”, it would seem to me, would be people who were prejudiced against people of faith. Unless you’re speaking of those who you deem to be bigoted against secularists.

    I’m a Christian. I have gay friends. I have gay students whom I care about. I do not believe in gay marriage on the grounds that, to me, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I understand and sympathize with the position that the ban is unfair. But, and this is the part where you may grow angry (if you’re not already), much of life is unfair to each of us. There are no guarantees. The current economy has shown many of us that. In fact, the lack of fairness of life is something I try to help my students understand. Mind you, I don’t perceive “unfairness” as a political position, merely a reality.

    I oppose bigotry and intolerance. In fact, I would say that my position is much more tolerant than, say, Perez Hilton. Tolerance does not mean total agreement.

    To pass off everyone who opposes gay marriage as “nut jobs” is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst.

    • David Mack

      I’ll stop writing people off as a “religious nutjobs” when any one of them can make a rational argument — without any appeal to religion, religious “tradition,” or their fictitious “God” — for why it is necessary in 21st-century America to deny same-sex couples the same legal protections as heterosexual citizens.

      I’ve heard many “people of faith” try to argue this point, but in the end it always comes down to someone’s superstitious belief in an invisible sky-deity being used to inflict tangible legal and economic harm on fellow citizens. Sorry if this offends you, but that is nothing less than utter horseshit, and I will not cease decrying it for what it is: prejudice, bigotry, superstition, and injustice.

  2. Jim

    Wow. Bigot proponent of horseshit. Superstitious. Why stop there?
    And don’t apologize. You do mean to offend, as well as insult. Which you wouldn’t do if not behind a keyboard. Not a threat, just an observation on the vulgar, snarky tone. Guess I struck an unintended nerve with the Perez Hilton comment. Sorry. See, I can do it too.
    Good luck and continued success.

    • David Mack

      Actually, you are the one who has chosen to be personally insulting, by implying that I lack the courage of my convictions. I have on many occasions expressed exactly these sentiments in public, and I will gladly do so again. It has nothing to do with being behind a keyboard.

      You struck no nerve with the Perez Hilton comment, as I have only the vaguest idea who that is, and I don’t give a rat’s ass in any case. In stark contrast, however, my comments seem to have you all riled up. I think perhaps you are projecting a bit there.

      And I can’t help but notice that you have utterly failed to meet my challenge of making a rational argument for your position. Of course, there is a simple reason for that: When examined through a rational lens, your position is indefensible.

Comments are closed.