People are surprised that it passed–I’m not surprised. I grew up in Orange County; I’m not surprised at all. I think that San Francisco and Los Angeles might be surprised by the result, but the rest of the state clearly isn’t. I fully expected it to pass. I attribute its success to a few things:
1. California isn’t as left as it’s often portrayed. The coasts (minus the OC) are, to a large degree, but head into the agricultural heart of the state and you’ll see something quite different in terms of political belief.
2. People hate being bullied. The commercials and campaigning on both sides were atrocious and incredibly boring. And no one likes getting phone calls about it–the roomies and I have about 9 unheard messages on our apartment voicemail regarding said prop.
The No on 8 supporters were definitely more militant than the pro side. Much more aggressive. I believe there was some screaming on bruinwalk, and more than once I almost got stickered without knowing it. I suspect that people who where on the fence did not take kindly to being told that they were intolerant and the equivalent of racists if they voted Yes. Perhaps this makes the No on 8 activists feel energized to say these things, but I would wager that it is not very convincing or attractive to the undecided voters.
I saw the Yes on 8 people talking to individuals, quietly, one-on-one, whereas the No on 8 supporters were shouting a few feet away and waving their signs around like madmen.
The No side very much used the language of the Civil Rights movement to make their case. To be honest, I don’t think that this sits well with people, particularly some African Americans who feel that the two causes are quite different.
3. Religious concerns. The ultimate concern behind many religious people’s support for this proposition is, I think, that churches, mosques, synagogues etc. will be forced to change their theology to accommodate the social institution of gay unions. The nightmare, is of course, that this is a slippery slope to the government demanding that churches allow gay people to marry in church, at the cost of religious freedom.
Therefore my suggestion is that we do away with the institution of marriage as a state-sponsored thing. I think any couple–gay or straight–should be allowed to have a civil union. Then they can go to the religious institution of their choice, if they so desire, and get married or call the civil union a marriage or whatever.
I’m increasingly coming to agree with you that the French model is the way to go — in order to be legally married, you go down to the courthouse and sign a certificate of civil marriage. If you choose to have a religious ceremony on top of that in order to be married in the eyes of your church, or a second secular ceremony so your friends and family can witness your vows, that’s fine but not mandatory, and not a replacement for the courthouse trip.
I think your explanation of why Prop 8 passed was really insightful. I happen to agree with the “No” voters, and I understand why they are so passionate in their convictions. But screaming at the top of your lungs that you’re right doesn’t actually convince people that you’re right. A lot of times people just get annoyed with the screaming. Take a minute to look people in the eyes and explain to them why you believe what you believe.
In most of the rest of the country, this is exactly what the anti-gay-marriage people fail to do. They just keep shrieking “gay marriage will RUIN society and will RUIN heterosexual marriage and DO YOU WANT IT TO BE LEGAL FOR A MAN TO MARRY HIS DOG? DO YOU?!” I have to say, I have never heard a convincing argument for why gay marriage should be illegal that doesn’t rely on a religiously-based assumption that homosexuality is a sin. I would be interested to hear what some of those “Yes on 8″ supporters were saying in their quiet one-on-ones with voters.
Comment by Lindy — November 7, 2008 @ 7:24 pm |
I’m glad that you brought up the militancy of the anti-gay-marriage people in the rest of the country as well. In CA they seem to be the ideological underdogs, thus forcing them to be a little more diplomatic than might otherwise be the case. Turns out that the underdogs managed to convince a lot of on-the-fence voters. I do think a confident, controlled, directed campaign is more effective than a sensationalistic one (case in point: Obama vs. McCain/PALIN).
Also lot of articles I’ve read have gay people complaining about the fact that all the TV ads here had celebrities saying no, and had no real people explaining their rationale. I also think it would be more effective for people to have seen how normal and regular gay people desiring marriage were, not some random Hollywood star.
I spoke with a grad friend of mine who voted yes on 8, and this person explained that they felt it was mostly a name thing; that marriage has certain cultural and historical and religious connotations and meanings, and that gay marriages are basically a contradiction of a lot of those basic beliefs. For this person, it was very much about procreation, or at least the potential of procreation, and I suppose that’s fair. Which, again, makes the universal civil union idea sensical for me.
I think that race is a big part of this too. A lot of minority voters came out to vote for Obama, and when they did so, they also voted yes on 8. I suspect that a lot of African Americans in particular were probably irked by the use of civil rights language; they do not think that gays and lesbians are or were subject to the same oppressions that African Americans are/were.
Comment by apricot — November 8, 2008 @ 9:21 am |
I’ve heard the procreation argument before, but for me it doesn’t wash. Should we also deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples who are medically infertile? Should women past menopause not be allowed to marry again, while men are allowed to marry at any age because they can always father children? The procreation argument seems uncomfortably close to the view that women are primarily valuable because of their uteruses (uteri?).
Comment by Lindy — November 8, 2008 @ 12:09 pm |
I suppose that they believe that the procreation principle is embodied by the union between a man and a woman; whether the couple in question can or cannot have children, or choose not to, is moot. It’s the embodiment of an idea that’s the thing, if that makes any sense.
I agree with you that this is not the best way to view marriage. I don’t see marriage in that way. But I think we academics have a blind spot in that we can see how social roles are socially constructed and are surprised when other people don’t or can’t see it that way.
By the way, I have to say that the protests against the Mormons are getting out of hand; from what I can see the church encouraged people to support the measure, but that’s no different in my opinion from political action of churches in the ’60s. I think that these protests are just going to create more polarization between religious people and everyone else, when what we really need is sensible dialogue.
Comment by apricot — November 9, 2008 @ 12:03 pm |
Apricot, I think hand in hand with the procreation principle is the idea that the genders matter in child rearing. Each gender is unique and beautiful, and has something to give by way of parental influence to the next generation. Gender modeling is important to children. In cases where both parents are not available either through death or divorce, society generally agrees that this is a tragedy in the life of a child. To by design embrace such a situation and celebrate it as equal to a dual gender family is purposely creating motherless and fatherless children. I agree with France, that the rights of children to have a mother and father has to supersede any adult right of sexual preference.
On the Mormon ground war, I’ve been gathering info on the protests. They’re already out of hand.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/pride-predjudice-prop8-rage/
Comment by beetlebabee — November 9, 2008 @ 8:36 pm |