Why is this important? It’s important because California voted to get rid of marriage rights for our community. It’s important because 29 other states have done the same. It’s important because LGBT people get fired from their jobs just for being who they are, kids get beat up in school for seeming “queer” while school administrators do nothing about it, and same-sex couples can’t foster or adopt while children in need go without homes. Isn’t it getting old?

The good news is that equality is coming into style. We don’t have as many supporters as we need (yet), but the community of straight allies is growing. LGBT visibility has brought a lot of progress, but the research we’ve seen says that being out and visible is not enough (read it here if you don’t believe us). What changes people’s hearts and minds and gets them to support equality is having had personal, close relationships with gay people. Relationships where – through conversations – straight people learn what it’s like to be LGBT.

Yes, the fifteen-year-olds of this country are overwhelmingly supportive of our rights. But if we don’t want to wait around for today’s teenagers to become middle-aged before we get equality, we’re going to have to get more people to support us. And the best way to do that is by Telling 3.

Marriage = legitimacy.

That is, if LGBT folks can marry, it means that their relationships are legitimate. Socially sanctioned. Official. Recognized. Everything else hangs off of that. Everything.

“Domestic partnership” or “civil union,” regardless of how many rights they confer on the couple, does not carry the same weight that the word “marriage” has in our society or our psyches.

From an article in the L.A. Times last May:

Many gay Californians said that even the state’s broadly worded domestic partnership law provided only a second-class substitute for marriage. The court agreed.

Giving a different name, such as “domestic partnership,” to the “official family relationship” of same-sex couples imposes “appreciable harm” both on the couples and their children, the court said.

The distinction might cast “doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples,” [Chief Justice] George wrote . . .

The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.

Unfortunately, it looks like the CA Supreme Court (after making such a sweeping statement in the marriage cases that allowed LGBT marriage in CA in the first place!) will decide that Prop 8 is NOT a constitutional revision to the CA state constitution. Their argument being, in short, that LGBT folks have all the same rights under the CA domestic partnership, so what’s in a name? (You can see why the lawyers arguing the case were shocked to hear this reasoning after the Court’s decision last May.) It’s only taking away a little bit of the rights of a minority (i.e. suspect) class to let Prop 8 stand. And it’s not really a structural change to the CA constitution and therefore not really a revision. Plus, the “power of the people” is also a right and striking down Prop 8 would infringe on that. Here is a decent summary in the most recent issue of Time and a really good, more in-depth article in the L.A. Times.

Fortunately, the law is pretty clear on retroactive propositions in California: if retroactivity was not specifically stated in the proposition, then said proposition is not retroactive. Prop 8 does not have any language along those lines (regardless of the one weak statement in a rebuttal argument in a voter information pamphlet). This means that the 18,000 LGBT couples who married in California will most likely get to keep their marriages yet no more LGBT folks can get married.

So, I have a few questions for the Court: I wonder what happened to the power of the 48% of the people who voted against Prop 8? And splitting hairs on how much of a right we can take away? Once you open that door, where does it stop?

Maybe hidden in the causes of his commitment to federalism is an understanding of the inherent civil rights of human beings — as stated in the the Bill of Rights and, oh, in this little phrase from a certain document: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — but I might be stretching my optimism a little thin.

I guess I’ll just be content with the fact that he’s calling for it to be repealed.

I know that the LDS church offers a lot for its members — community, faith, support — but what I don’t understand is why they should have the right to use their resources to force the rest of us to conform to their world view. It’s not only unfair and immoral, it’s unconstitutional.

(The genius of the constitution being to protect the minority from a hostile majority through an intricate set of checks and balances — one of them being the Bill of Rights. Each time I watch our democratic process at work, I am awed by the foresight and genius (and sheer dumb luck) of our country’s founders. For this very reason, I love my country.)

My friends (!) -

So you know how most of the world kinda wishes we could just undo Bush? Maybe take away the God-like power W gave to the presidency? Perhaps return some level of civility and worldliness to our approach to global enforcement? I see this happening in 3 steps:

1. Replace Bush with Unbush — DONE
Maybe a Democrat. An eloquent one. Ooh! And make him black. And from the north. And level-headed. And a good listener! Ooh, this is gonna be good!

2. Unmake Bush’s abusive laws — YOU HELP HERE
Support Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act”, which is seriously as close as I can imagine us realistically sending giant “f u” to Bush, and a pragmatic turnaround toward reason. I did, and it literally took two minutes. Don’t be lazy. It took longer to vote. I’ll even give you a note to copy-paste (thanks to Brad):

Please co-sponsor the “American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007″ (HR 3835). Undoing the damage done by G. W. Bush and his calamitous administration over the past eight years must be our single most important focus with the start of a new presidency and Congress. Please throw your complete support behind this bill to restore the American people back to the position that they deserve—the position that was created by the prescient and able founders of this nation.”

3. Repair the gaping wounds with the world and ourselves — AWAITING OBAMA PRESIDENCY
I’m hoping our nation will become a citizen of the world again (not its parent), refocus on domestic programs, balance the budget, reinvent health care, etc. You know, the basics. Easy-breezy.

Like most of you, I’m not an email forwarder (to be fair: I wrote this). But I do suddenly find myself a proud, caring American. I’m eager to help, but I’m busy. This is how I felt good today. I just wanted to share that opportunity with my friends. Please help!

Love,
Lee

UPDATE: Ah. The Onion explained it to me. I guess California hasn’t hit rock-bottom yet.

He sets up a false dichotomy between voting and otherwise helping out in the community. “So, this November 2, do the right thing for America: go to work and do a good job. Clean up some garbage on your street. Help a neighbor out.” The assumption is that I can’t do both. Yes, voting took some time. (For some people, it takes hours.) But I picked up trash yesterday, I’m going to work and do a good job today, and I’ll help a neighbor out tomorrow. Voting didn’t impede my ability to do any of those.

He invokes the paradox of an individual choice in collective action. “As the 2000 election showed, it’s not only effectively mathematically impossible that one vote could matter: it is politically impossible as well.” Doherty even hangs a lampshade over the obvious resolution:  “No American is responsible for the voting behavior of our countrymen; so don’t worry for a moment about what would happen ‘if everyone thought that way’.” There are better descriptions of how this paradox resolves, but I’ll invoke some examples: I picked up some garbage even though lots of people both litter and pick up garbage. I work even though my coworkers would take up some of the slack if I didn’t. I’ll help my neighbor even though there are a few other volunteers who plan to do the same. Why? Because each of us has been asked to make the decision for ourselves, so I make that decision as thoughtfully as I can.

He contradicts himself just by writing the article. “If you did control thousands of votes, the math might make it worth voting. But you don’t.” Ah, but how many people read Reason, and specifically how many like-minded people will be swayed by this particular article? The sheer fact that the article takes a tone of encouragement (“Don’t throw away your life; throw away your vote”) should discount the statement about “the math.” As another example, Ted recently asked friends to vote a certain way, “Assuming you vote. Which I don’t.” So it’s important enough to influence others, but not to actually state your preference when asked? I call shenanigans.

I posit that there is a way to vote in protest against voting, specifically in California. Using the ballot I cast this morning as an example, here’s how you could have cast a protest vote:

1. Register to vote and/or get a provisional ballot (if you changed your mind at the last minute).
2. Vote for any candidates or propositions that pass your “matters” test. (May be none of them, but I remind you there are Libertarian candidates on there, and local races often come down to a few votes’ difference.)
3. Vote “no” on all propositions. (For those unfamiliar with CA propositions, that means “No, you may not change the law, change the Constitution, sell bonds, or whatever else you’re asking me about.”)
4. Leave all other candidates blank, or fill in the write-in bubble and write “PROTEST” in the space provided.
5. Give your ballot to the nice lady at the ballot box.

As extra credit for super-vote-protesters, you could also:

• Attend the next city council / school board / mayoral meeting and participate in the process.
• Next time around, attend the debates and ask really really hard questions. If you doubt this is possible, talk to Eric Bidwell.
• Run for a seat on the city council / school board / congress and start disassembling government from the inside. (I’m sure Ron Paul would love the company.)

That said, your choice is your own. If that choice is to abstain from voting, I won’t harangue you further. I have more important things to do anyway. ;)

…and one of these two is derided for being a celebrity. BTW, the awesome Obama shoes photo is part of an amazing set by Callie Shell.

(via John Tantalo by way of Lee Fuhr, courtesy The Internets)