Anyone who has been following the 2008/2009 contest of California’s Proposition 8 (constitutional prohibition of marriage between people of the same sexual preference or same sexual identity) knows that it was submitted and promoted from Salt Lake City. The paper trail is clear. Arguably, Salt Lake City isn’t even in California. But that was not the issue, because the Utah money did persuade California voters.
Recently, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment. But Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta posted Am I a Bad Person If I Think The Prop 8 Ruling Was Correct?. His point is that this ruling will make it harder for anti-gay activists the next time around.
States are beginning to domino into accepting marriage between those of same gender much like they did for those of different races in the mid 20th century. Conservatives have a valuable role to play; they fear and resist change. They function as a drag anchor to force those who would move ahead to work out iron-clad methods before change is implemented. Our legal system therefore resists implementing anything new from the grass roots direction until it is acceptable to at least half of the voting population. Very frustrating, but a historical necessity. When the process is short-circuited, we get embarrassments such as the 18th and 23rd amendments to our Federal Constitution.
The harder the extreme-conservative movement pushes, the sooner the realistic world (including moderate conservatives) will realise what a colossal waste of time & energy this opposition to equality is. Of course the wingnuts will find some other pointless crusade to go on and waste everyone's time with, but that's par for the course. Patience is indeed a virtue when dealing with these fools.
Given the utter absurdity that heterosexuals have made of marriage in America, I continue to wonder what conservatives mean by the 'sanctity' of so-called 'traditional marriage.' When Britney Spears can enjoy a 55-hour marriage to Jason Alexander as mere weekend entertainment, and when other heterosexuals can have two, three or more marriages over the course of a lifetime, exactly why should homosexuals be banned from the institution?
Grumpy…
It's proprietary. "Marriage is ours (hetersexuals) to perfect or fuck up as we see fit!"
Although I agree with you, Mark, that many heterosexuals view marriage as proprietary, I don't believe they see themselves as having already destroyed whatever 'sanctity' in it that they claim exists. They march and shout about 'saving' marriage, while ignoring the fact that 'marriage' is merely a shell, and that its 'sanctity' doesn't come from people marching and shouting about it but, rather, from the two people who are in the relationship. When I see someone who presumes to 'defend' marriage, I see someone who is completely ignorant of the very institution he or she is claiming to protect.