The face of discrimination
November 5, 2008
Cute kid huh? Looking at her you can’t help but look into her bright future and wonder where she will go. Unfortunately for her, she lives in a country where she will be persecuted for her beliefs. Unfortunately, she lives in a country where it is a legal and accepted practice to discriminate. In this picture she isn’t thinking about the future things she will face.
She isn’t aware of the jobs she may lose or the housing that won’t be available to her. She isn’t aware that her very life may be in danger from street thugs and hate mongrels. She isn’t aware of the personal property that may be destroyed. She isn’t thinking of the derogatory remarks that will be shouted at her as she walks along the streets of town. She doesn’t know that her fellow countrymen will have the right to vote her rights away.
You may be wondering about what backward, horrible country she lives in. She lives in the United States of America. And yesterday her fellow countrymen took away her rights. You see, that cute little girl grows up and just happens to be gay. That kid will grow up and be a law abiding citizen. She never steals or murders or even cheats on her taxes. She will be employed and pay taxes. She will be a loving neighbor and friend who loves and cares about her fellow man. She will never beat her partner or her children and she will never willingly hurt another person. She will in no way be a threat to society, she won’t be involved in domestic violence or drug running or any of the other things that truly tears down societies. She won’t be a slum lord or line her pockets while her neighbor starves. And yet, she is not guaranteed equal rights.
She will not be able to put her partner on her insurance, she won’t be able to adopt or foster children who needs homes, she will not be able to protect her partner because she will not be allowed to marry her partner. And when she grows old and sick, her partner of 20-30 years will not be allowed to stay at her bedside. She may not be allowed to hold this woman’s hand as she draws her last breath. And she will not be entitled to inherit all of the things they spent a lifetime together obtaining. That cracked plate from their trip out west, the gold necklace bought on their 15th anniversary, their collection of glass bells.
Their home that was shared for those many years. The car not in the survivor’s name. And after a lifetime of following the rules and not breaking the law, everything may be stripped away from her survivor. Of course there will be no survivor benefits, no social security, just the same amount of bills with half the income. Is this separate but equal? Is this fair and acceptable to you? Is it okay for the majority to take away rights from a minority?
Would you agree with me if the example was of any other minority group? What if the picture was a little Latino girl or an African American? Would you vote the right for equal marriage away from them? Would you vote to not allow white couples to adopt children of different races? Would you vote to not allow Jewish couples to adopt? Are you willing to vote that inter-racial couples not be allowed to foster children? Are you willing to vote away anyone else’s rights?
A dangerous precedence was set yesterday. Any person who is in a minority group, now faces the possibility that the majority may vote against their rights too. Today it is the gays, who will it be tomorrow? God help us all.
Entry Filed under: family, homosexuality. Tags: discrimination, face of gay, prop8.
29 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
asimplesinner | November 5, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Some of us are of the thinking that rights weren’t taken away – you still, on paper have the same rights to do what all others can do, marry a spouse of the opposite sex.
Some of us are of the thinking that what happened yesterday was voters turning out to not expand or create a new class of protections… The individual predilections to any manner of home lives – some more mainstream than others – are out there. The voters of California simply seemed to re-affirm traditional marriage between one man and woman will remain the de facto norm.
2.
christina | November 5, 2008 at 8:24 pm
great post. this fight is far from over. they have filed a petition in california, if you seen it yet:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/upload/Autumn/LegalGroupsFileLawsuitChallengingProp8.pdf
3.
lisa | November 5, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Thank you for your post. It makes my heart ache, because it is the truth–until someone has lived that life they can never know what it’s like to want to hold your girl’s hand in public and have to think twice about it.
Today my heart broke with the passing of Proposition 8. Today I will be sad, but tomorrow I will know that the fight does go on…
4.
wvhillcountry | November 5, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Traditional, biblical marriage was between one man, many wives, and maybe even concubines. Not one man and one woman. So why aren’t those who voted for prop 8 fighting to go back to the way it was when Jesus walked the earth?
Christina, Thanks for the link. I’m going to go check it out.
5.
wvhillcountry | November 5, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lisa, Good to see you again. Today I was sad, then I was angry, and now I am determined. Determined to live my life the best way I know how and to do what I can to live equally.
6.
Lindsey | November 6, 2008 at 9:25 am
(((HUGS)))
I lit a candle and prayed for the better angels in people to win in this election. When I saw the prop 8 returns I had to lock myself in the bathroom to cry.
I am so, so sorry. But as long as we live in a democracy, it’s not over. I am devoting my life to fighting for love and tolerance and I am NOT STOPPING NOW.
7.
Stephanie | November 6, 2008 at 10:47 am
It’s not over Kelli, hang on to that hope my friend.
8.
wvhillcountry | November 6, 2008 at 11:14 am
Lindsey, Hugs right back at you girl. And with people like you fighting for love and tolerance, then it will not be over. I have missed seeing you on line and reading at your blog. I’m proud of the work you are doing, but I miss ya girl.
Steph, I know it isn’t over. I just had to have my moment to whine. Justice will prevail, hopefully sooner than later.
9.
asimplesinner | November 6, 2008 at 11:31 am
“Traditional, biblical marriage was between one man, many wives, and maybe even concubines. Not one man and one woman. So why aren’t those who voted for prop 8 fighting to go back to the way it was when Jesus walked the earth?”
Let us not put the cart before the horse… I never once used the word “biblical marriage”, so arguing against that is a straw man. (I am uncertain that there was still polygamy during the time of Christ in Israel either… either way…)
The voters in California didn’t – I don’t believe – set out to terrorize the adorable little girl at the top of the page, although such an emotive appeal is hear-wrenching, it is ultimately based on an appeal to emotion rather than a more thorough consideration of the objective.
Objectively, we all share the same rights. Some rights do not appeal to us (my grandmother would never run for office, my uncle has NEVER been interested in voting, sigh!)… The right to partner with someone of the opposite sex and enjoy simplification of certain contractual elements is out there and can be had by anyone.
What voters rejected was the creation of a new set of standards for a distinctive sub-grouping.
As it stands right now, with some time and expense (though likely far less time and expense than your average wedding ceremony) in fact you CAN have legal documents and contracts drawn up to ensure power of attorney and that you could hold your girlfriend’s hand in the hospital.
10.
wvhillcountry | November 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No we all don’t share the same rights. You have the right to marry the person you love. I don’t.
You have the right to foster and adopt children. That is not the case for gay couples in Arkansas.
As it stands, the rights I do have with domestic partnership in my state is not recognized in every state. Therefore if my partner and I were in an accident in one of those states, I would have no right to make her decisions or even demand to stay with her at the hospital.
And some states don’t even have laws against discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation. So Right now for example, my boss could fire me just because I am gay and there is no legal recourse for me. The doctor in the hospital could choose to not allow me to be with my partner and I would have no legal recourse. You can bet your last dollar that if it were your wife or husband (depending on your gender) that would not be an issue.
What would you feel like if the love of your life of 30 years was laying in that hospital bed dying and they refused to allow you to be next to her just because you weren’t legally next of kin? No that hasn’t happened to me personally but it did to my friend K in Texas. Her partner of 10 years died alone in a cold hospital room just because her doctor didn’t accept that they were partners.
As for the inheritance, yes I could leave everything to her including a large inheritance tax that wedded couples do not have to pay.
Okay you are right, you never said biblical marriage, you said traditional marriage. Which tradition are you referring to? The one of the last 250 years or so of marrying for love? Or the tradition up to that time of what a couple thousand years that marriage is a contract between families? The tradition of families picking your spouse or the tradition of finding your own?
You could argue that it was still one man and one woman, no it was not. Women were the property of their husbands and he could have more than one “piece” of property. Marriage has changed and evolved since time began. All of it is traditional now because enough generations have passed. People are just picking out the part of tradition that they like.
As for the “emotional appeal” comment, again you are right. This is an emotional issue for me. But do not think for one moment the supporters of prop 8 didn’t use emotional appeal. They put out half truths like charities being forced to do same sex adoptions. No they weren’t. Non state funded agencies place kids wherever they want to. Catholic charities were taking state money and had to follow state regulations. They don’t like the regulations, then quit taking the money. No one forced them to take state money, but once they did they were obligated to follow the state’s procedure. If you take home a paycheck, then you had better follow your boss’s rules.
Those kids were not forced to go to their teacher’s wedding. Every parent had to sign permission slips and not every child went. It was a parental choice to allow their child to go or not. Should the state take away the parent’s right to allow their child to attend the wedding?
And yes, it was an emotional appeal, because there are real people with real emotions behind this issue. There are real couples who cried yesterday. Real families that are at risk to be taken apart. What about that 15 year old boy in Arkansas who has been raised by his gay foster parents since he was 4 years old? Tell him that his family has the same rights as yours. Tell him when he is placed in an under funded over crowded group home, that it is in his best interest.
“What voters rejected was the creation of a new set of standards for a distinctive sub-grouping.” Your own words place gays and lesbians as sub (below, less than, not equal to)
It is too easy to picture the bath houses and gay bars and vote against “those” people, but the reality is, the vote affected stable loving couples some of which have been together 60 years. The vote affected families. The vote made a whole group of society sub standard. You can bet that I am going to remind them that they affected real people with real feelings.
11.
asimplesinner | November 6, 2008 at 5:45 pm
““What voters rejected was the creation of a new set of standards for a distinctive sub-grouping.” Your own words place gays and lesbians as sub (below, less than, not equal to) “
Nope. Nada. No way, Jose. Don’t even try to put that on me.
Sub-group is a sociological term that makes NO IMPLICATION WHATSOEVER of the group discussed being “less than” or “below” anything.
More practical example? I like dogs. I like all dogs. But the sub-group of dogs that I own, foster and do rescue work with is a breed. “Shiba Inus are a sub-group of the total canine population” does NOT mean “Shiba inus are less than other dogs.”
Don’t even go there. Don’t even try that.
12.
Stephanie | November 6, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Simplesinner-
“The voters of California simply seemed to re-affirm traditional marriage between one man and woman will remain the de facto norm.”
What does traditional look like?
It was traditional for us to oppress African Americans for years and justify doing it. It was traditional for us to not allow women to vote. It was traditional to not allow inter-racial couples to marry. So many things that are just plain wrong were and still are traditional.
We tend to be so focused on traditonal marriage, yet we turn the other cheek and look the other way when a mother is getting the life beat out of her or when a child is attempting sucide because they can’t stand the thought of their Father crawling on top of them and having sex with them one more time. We look the other way when we have a brother or sister who is mentally disabled, on the streets, poor and hungry.
We stay silent and do very little on these issues that continue on every single day yet you can hear the voices roar when two people, regardless of sex want to be married.
In many churches we don’t discuss the affairs, the husband in the strip clubs, the mother who isn’t around for her kids because her career has taken first place. We don’t talk about the sexual abuse, the drug abuse that is going on within our families. We don’t spend an large amount of time or money trying to figure out better ways to clothe, shelter and protect the homeless and less fortunate. We don’t spend a lot of time or money trying to help out that single mother who is raising her children on her own because the Father decided to leave. But we WILL spend millions of dollars, large amounts of time and go the farthest distance to make sure we keep traditional marriage.
It’s not right and it just amazes me the time, energy and effort folks will put into keeping marriage “traditional” . The hypocrisy of it all is disgusting.
May God have mercy on us all.
13.
Lindsey | November 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
@ stephanie: hear, hear!
14.
e2tc | November 6, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Kelli… (((((for you))))).
The end of life issues – and living on, alone – my God. I bet you would find common ground with a *lot* of women (straight, that is) who have been widowed.
I have been trying not to think about all of this, because it hurts. But now… I’m at a loss for words.
Know that you are in my thoughts, and mos’ def in my prayers…
15.
e2tc | November 6, 2008 at 11:29 pm
@ atephanie: Amen and amen!
16.
wvhillcountry | November 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm
asimplesinner, okay maybe that was a cheap shot, in going back and re-reading your comment, I realized I may have read into it more than what you intended in that one particular phrase. My apologies. But that doesn’t take away from the rest of my response. There is a human face behind the vote. And inequality faced everyday by gay and lesbian couples.
Steph, Preach it girl. You again say what I feel in such a magnificent way. You continue to ground me with what you write. Keep it up girl. Sometimes I need the voice of reason
My buddy E, (((HUGS))) to you too. I am continually amazed at how this society throws away its elderly. It doesn’t matter the group, too many of our elderly work their whole lives and are left with nothing. In the end it doesn’t matter why they have no homes, just that they need our help in finding shelter and survival.
17.
asimplesinner | November 7, 2008 at 2:13 am
First things first:
What does traditional look like?
For marriage, the Judeo-Christian tradition of now 2,000 years has been between one man and one woman. Going off on to a tangent about traditions in general, you write:
It was traditional for us to oppress African Americans for years and justify doing it. It was traditiolal for us to not allow women to vote. It was traditional to not allow inter-racial couples to marry. So many things that are just plain wrong were and still are traditional.
This is a rather morally neutral line of reasoning. A plethora of other non-marriage related traditions can re-affirm that there are good traditions. To cite that there are bad ones doesn’t prove that the one man + one woman marriage allowance is bad when it is exclusive.
But from here I am sorry, you confuse me asyou meander…
We tend to be so focused on traditonal marriage, yet we turn the other cheek and look the other way when a mother is getting the life beat out of her or when a child is attempting sucide because they can’t stand the thought of their Father crawling on top of them and having sex with them one more time. We look the other way when we have a brother or sister who is mentally disabled, on the streets, poor and hungry.
To interject into your response (very much out of nowhere) vivid mental images of child rape or child abandonment. Not only is this highly emotive and unrelated (the logic of including it – save to introduce a charged emotional response – elludes me)… Well are you attempting to say that supporters of proposition 8, bi virtue of their support from Prop8 – are indifferent to incestuous child rape or abandonment of the mentally handicapped? The inclusion of this confuses me.
We stay silent and do very little on these issues that continue on every single day yet you can hear the voices roar when two people, regardless of sex want to be married.
It isn’t “when two people regardless of sex” want to be married, it is when two folks of the same sex want to be married. But again, I bet if a “Prop9″ to ban incest (actually already on the book) or a “Prop10″ to ban leaving the mentally ill on the streets were on the ballot, those would have passed as well.
But again meandering begins with pontification about other social ills…
In many churches we don’t discuss the affairs, the husband in the strip clubs, the mother who isn’t around for her kids because her career has taken first place. We don’t talk about the sexual abuse, the drug abuse that is going on within our families. We don’t spend an large amount of time or money trying to figure out better ways to clothe, shelter and protect the homeless and less fortunate. We don’t spend a lot of time or money trying to help out that single mother who is raising her children on her own because the Father decided to leave. But we WILL spend millions of dollars, large amounts of time and go the farthest distance to make sure we keep traditional marriage.
On affairs, strip clubs, sex abuse, drug abuse, and single mothers who struggle in the face of dereliction of fatherly duties… How is this related? Folks looking to keep marriage in the parameters of the legal framework which it is now in are likely not indifferent to these other problems. The idea that they should simply go out and worry about those other things first could be equally applied to folks agitating for the creation of a new marriage class.
The “O tempora, o mores!” nature of the laundry list of
It’s not right and it just amazes me the time, energy and effort folks will put into keeping marriage “traditional” . The hypocrisy of it all is disgusting.
I suppose I can say the same about those who want to redefine marriage. It amazes me the time, energy, effort, and money that they put into this cause over and above aligning with measures to prevent and deal with the ills that you list above. That axe is double edged.
May God have mercy on us all.
Hear, hear!
18.
Khaki | November 7, 2008 at 11:30 am
Prop 102 passed in Az too….
I’m coining a term- the B4 – the Bible-Based-Breeding-Brigade
The tack to take is to talk about what the B4 can do to take away the rights of non-minorities. In AZ the 102 commercials said basically, marriage is for having kids, and I thought that was a huge tactical error on their part, and an opportunity missed by the opposition to argue against 102…
What next? Fertility tests as a requirement for marriage?
19.
Stephanie | November 7, 2008 at 11:57 am
I’m certain you missed much of my point.
‘I suppose I can say the same about those who want to redefine marriage. It amazes me the time, energy, effort, and money that they put into this cause over and above aligning with measures to prevent and deal with the ills that you list above. That axe is double edged.’
I guess when black folks had to fight and spend the money they had in order to receive equal rights, they should have not fought and put their money toward the list of things I stated. Or when women were seeking rights, they should have just remained quiet and spent more time focusing on other things. It’s not a doubled edged sword because it’s not the same.
You know, this sounds all too familiar really. Jesus had some serious issues with the Pharisees and the Religious Leaders hypocrisy. They were much more worried and concerned about law, what things ‘look’ like and tradition than anything else. Their motives were not pure and much what they did, they did out of fear. This too is a very old tradition that we still hold on to so tightly to this day.
I cannot help but believe that you are intelligent and you choose to remain ‘confused’ purposely, so I don’t really think there is much more for me to say.
Peace.
20.
Stephanie | November 7, 2008 at 11:59 am
The above comment was meant for Simplesinner.
21.
Khaki | November 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm
For real asimplesinner? You actually have the ovum to accuse someone of using descriptions that are “highly emotive and unrelated ” for no other reason than “to introduce a charged emotional response”. And you have also have the balls to say that the reason why ELUDES you.
It does not elude you, a 10 second peak at your fetus-photo-covered blog shows that you are a master of highly-emotive manipulation.
You are the poster child for my new Beat the B4 campaign.
22.
wvhillcountry | November 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Khaki, I did a small edit on your second post. While I truly understand your frustration, I don’t allow name calling, it doesn’t matter if the person agrees with me or not. I do understand, trust me I do.
I’m glad you stopped by and commented. I hear what you are saying. Should childless couples be force to divorce? Or sterile people never allowed to marry? And a very good point that emotive-manipulation isn’t property of any one group. Come back anytime.
23.
asimplesinner | November 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I would make a poor poster child for the B4 – I am neither an evangelical nor have I done any breeding.
Ah well.
Note that to date I have not engaged in vitriol or mean name calling. It would be appreciated if all of the participants – no matter their predilection or point of view – would do the same.
24.
e2tc | November 8, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Look, a simplesinner…. You’re not engaging in conversation here. Let’s be clear about that. You came here and used the comments as a place to start a tirade against gay people being married, without much, (if any) relevance to the content of wvhillcoutry’s post.
That’s trolling. Period.
25.
asimplesinner | November 8, 2008 at 9:16 pm
You’re not engaging in conversation here. Let’s be clear about that.
We can’t be clear about that because it is patently false. I came here on the wordpress “tag surfer” feature and I made a comment in a blog where I have commented before (and always found the interchange pleasant and civil) expressing (if one will actually read before going into full battle mode) that there are reasons for principled opposition to the expansion or re-definition of marriage.
If it is the case that folks who disagree and do so civilly are going to be considered “trolls”, get called names (thanks to WVHC that was edited) and be considered willfully ignorant when they simply don’t accept all premises presented here in the Hill Country, it can be assured that the choir will always be preached to, but no conversation will take place.
No, I am not a troll, I belong to the wordpress/blogging community, and when comboxes are open for discussion, I expect it to mean that intelligent conversation can be had.
Is that fair?
26.
asimplesinner | November 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“You came here and used the comments as a place to start a tirade against gay people being married”
Please quote exactly the comment where I began a “tirade”, and point out what the “tirade” was.
Can we avoid loaded and emotive invectives in a rational discussion?
27.
e2tc | November 9, 2008 at 1:14 am
You still haven’t really responded to the substance of wvhillcountry’s post.
28.
asimplesinner | November 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm
You still haven’t really responded to the substance of wvhillcountry’s post.
I rather thought I did when I wrote:
But you are now telling me (without noting what the substance is) that I have not addressed the substance of the post.
So in your view, what is the substance?
29.
e2tc | November 9, 2008 at 6:35 pm
You seem to be completely disregarding the 1st 3 paragraphs (and more, but that’s a start). The post is about real, live people, not ideologies or “talking points.”
I guess you could start from there and engage in a conversation… not that you have to; it’s just a suggestion.
Cool?