Why Proposition 8 is Right…and Why It's Ultimately Wrong
November 7th, 2008
The ongoing debate over Proposition 8 here in California, against the backdrop of President-elect Obama’s historic election has again ignited the civil rights discussion in comparing the strides of African-Americans and gays and lesbians.
My goal in touching upon this hotly contested and emotionally charged issue is to interject some semblance of intellectual honesty into the discussion. To do so, requires abandoning the emotion, which clouds all of our judgment.
In that sense, emotion is an equal opportunity offender, if you allow me one civil rights metaphor. African-Americans, we often let our emotional feelings about discrimination previously, cloud our judgment and prevent us from entering into reasoned discussion about civil rights presently. I would venture to say the same is true in regards to gays when discussing the issues of gay rights. These issues are intensely personal, entrenched in history and shake the foundation of our society. Why am I mentioning all of this?
It’s estimated that some 70% of African-Americans voted for the proposition.
That said…let’s put the emotion down folks and go from there.
First, this is where opponents of the measure have it wrong…
Proposition 8 ostensibly is to legally define “marriage” as a union between a man and woman. California does presently enjoy the most “liberal” domestic partner law in the country, and Proposition 8 has no ramifications on these laws.
Let’s remove the emotion…these are the facts.
So we know it’s not about “rights” in the sense of privilege or legal access. Please stop calling this a “civil rights” issue.
Respectfully, it is not.
Rights have to do with access and privileges; not titles of unions. There is a distinct difference. Civil rights by definition, is to rid discrimination of people in the eyes of the law. If we can agree that the legal rights of gay people are not negatively impacted here…then this is not a “civil rights” issue.
Let’s not mince words about “respect,” or “freedom” or “being treated differently.” Legally…gay couples would not be disadvantaged by Proposition 8 and that is what should be most important.
Hold on…breathe…opponents…hear me out. There’s more to this story.
Going further, although we are a nation built upon the premise of separation of church and state, the “premise” of marriage is borne out of religious tradition. The main differences between “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships” and “marriages” arguably all come down to this singular yet important distinction…and it’s relevant to the discussion.
Opponents of the measure can’t have it both ways. To use the term “marriage” yet not also acknowledge the religious implications of the word and all of what that entails is a contradiction. One does not need to agree with all of the tenets of religion to acknowledge the fact that marriage is by definition a ceremony based in religious tradition. Like it or loathe it, the religion(s) are unambiguous in this regard in its concept of “marriage.”
As much as gays demand that those opposed to a homosexual lifestyle “respect” their lifestyle and beliefs, that respect must flow both ways.
That’s where opponents of the measure have it wrong.
Now, let’s flip this over and look at it from the other side…unemotionally that is. This is where proponents of the measure have it wrong.
Not to oversimplify the argument, but the measure is excessive and mean-spirited in its conception and argumentation. One does not “need” to legally “define” marriage any more than one “needs” to legally “define” a high school baccalaureate service or a bar mitzvah. They too are steeped in religious tradition. Since proponents of the measure have openly argued that civil rights aren’t being taken away, then the real goal here is what? This measure ostensibly then serves as much purpose as legally defining said baccalaureate or bar mitzvah since the impact on legal rights and access (as PROPONENTS have argued) is none.
Hold on…breathe…proponents…hear me out. There’s more to be said.
There arguably is no “point” then other than “to make a point.” And that then leads even more credibility to the argument that the formulation of the bill is rooted in hatred of homosexuality.
This discussion is less about whether those opposed to gay marriage can push through such a law and more about whether they should in the first place.
The unemotional fact of the matter is that schools don’t “teach” marriage or the values supposedly attached to it. The responsibility for the values of children and their views on homosexuality will always lie with the parents. Never will a teacher outweigh the impact of active parenting.
If the parents are homophobic, then the children will most likely be homophobic, irrespective of what Mr. or Ms. Civics teacher has to say about the subject of marriage. To argue otherwise is specious in nature.
Going further, such fear tactics will always be tantamount to racism and discrimination. You will never hear me argue that those in opposition of the homosexual lifestyle should have to “accept” homosexuality. We all have our beliefs and our contrasting beliefs often times what makes this country great. But you will always hear me question the motivation of any superfluous legislation. There is no necessity for such a measure, not in letter or spirit of the law. It’s antagonistic and fundamentally contradicts the idea of separation of church and state. Its primary argument in support of it is based in religion. That “religion” knife cuts both ways in this discussion.
Where do we go from here?
We (African-Americans) are generally socially conservative yet politically progressive…hence the overwhelming support for the proposition. That isn’t odd to me. But two key points need to be stressed.
Gay rights supporters should not have an issue with African-Americans or those in support of the measure. They are not “traitors” to the civil rights movement. As stated before, this is not a civil rights issue. Also, African-Americans and others who support Gay rights generally must always be mindful and respectful of the reality that in this society; freedom means an ongoing dialogue, a freedom to disagree and a freedom to disapprove.
I’m not sure there’s any clear cut solution to this problem, but I am sure that this proposition only added to the problem, not decreased it. We are all worse off because of it.
And so there is no ambiguity…I voted no.
RELATED: The Right and Wrong of Amaechi/Hardaway
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex and Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.MrMoKelly.com.
Subscribe in a reader or by email
Help Bring Mo’Kelly to National Radio HERE
Visit Mo’Kelly’s GIFT SHOP HERE
Morris W. O’Kelly can be reached at Mo@MrMoKelly.com and he welcomes all commentary.
var AdBrite_Title_Color = ‘E1771E’;
var AdBrite_Text_Color = ’9D1961′;
var AdBrite_Background_Color = ‘FFFFFF’;
var AdBrite_Border_Color = ‘CCCCCC’;
var AdBrite_URL_Color = ’0000FF’;
try{var AdBrite_Iframe=window.top!=window.self?2:1;var AdBrite_Referrer=document.referrer==”?document.location:document.referrer;AdBrite_Referrer=encodeURIComponent(AdBrite_Referrer);}catch(e){var AdBrite_Iframe=”;var AdBrite_Referrer=”;}
document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,83,67,82,73,80,84));document.write(‘ src=”http://ads.adbrite.com/mb/text_group.php?sid=857309&zs=3436385f3630&ifr=’+AdBrite_Iframe+’&ref=’+AdBrite_Referrer+’” type=”text/javascript”>’);document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,47,83,67,82,73,80,84,62));
Posted in 
Tags: 16 Responses to “Why Proposition 8 is Right…and Why It's Ultimately Wrong”
Leave a Reply
Saturday and Sunday nights from 8pm - 9pm PDT on XM 244.
And at its essence, this “law” does just that, divides us with a clearer line of demarcation.I “understand” the arguments of both sides, but in the final analysis, it’s unnecessary and antagonistic. It serves no purpose.
One reason why we're all worse off for it is that it keeps us divided."The man" loves to see us divided. Gay, straight, right wing, left wing, we're all going down in flames together, starting with Cali.When the smoke clears and we look around at the devastation, let's remember that we're all in this together.The good news about the meltdown of capitalism is that we can now get to working on a system to replace it, one which is fair to all and doesn't waste so much human productivity and reward the greed that allows that to happen.
And at its essence, this "law" does just that, divides us with a clearer line of demarcation.I "understand" the arguments of both sides, but in the final analysis, it's unnecessary and antagonistic. It serves no purpose.
Mo,My critical point is that it does serve a purpose: it serves the man's purpose.He loves to see us squabble amongst ourselves.
Morris, I admire that you fear no subject. And as always, both of you gentleman had exellent points. This subject is really a difficult one for many African Americans, because we know it makes us look selfish if we don't totally support our gay brothers and sisters who have supported us. Many of us actually do, to the extent that we can. If you look at the stats for how each racial group voted for the proposition, then check the statistics on how those groups rank the Bible/God as the key inflence in their lives, you will see the numbers are consistent. It is hard for a people to ask for God to deliver, support, bless, etc. them, then totally support something that the Bible speaks totally against. In terms of civil rights, while the Bible says that some people were delivered into slavery, it also says that all are called to freedom, and every group that enslaved another was eventually punished by God. It also says that we are all equal, and that we should have equal rights, but marriage is between a man and a women. So you have Blacks and Hispanics who support equality of gay unions to straight unions, but cannot use the term marriage to describe them. I also believe, as Walt states, that it is being used as a wedge right now because their is too much unity going on. While the percentage of Blacks who voted yes may be high, the "number" of Blacks as an overall percentage of "yes" votes was significantly lower. As with the presidential election, the vote was primarily Whites verses Whites, and the Blacks were just as swing vote. To summarize, had they not been put in a position of feeling they had to "choose between God and Gays", most Blacks and would have continued the "they can do what they want to do if that's what makes them happy" concept… which isn't reflected in the polls. The legilations was hate based, and really hurts the good will the we should be sharing right now.
Dwayne,You write "The legislation was hate based, and really hurts the good will the we should be sharing right now."I would respond that "good will" is a panacea. Certainly the power elite in this country, the wealthy few, would love nothing more than for Obama to serve up an opiate of good will which will calm the masses as we undergo this severe economic retrenchment.On the other hand, Obama himself would prefer as little flack as possible from the left, to allow him to concern himself with the opposition to his right. He doesn't want to be pulled by "both sides."My suggested solution is to reject the entire concept of "good will." It brings me little pleasure to be the one to assert what I said on the Tavis Smiley show and to Morris personally, that Obama is an agent of change that he cannot even comprehend. Our civic and moral duty is to make sure that Obama fulfills our agenda. And where that agenda differs from his, we must exert enough influence to force him to either alter his agenda or explain why he won't, so we can fairly judge whether or not he deserves a second term.The ominous signs that he intends to start from the middle seem, to me, to be a clear signal to the left: "Know your place. You elected me, but I'm in charge."This is the man, remember, who voted for the Wall Street bailout and who will preside over much of the actual transfer of wealth from workers to the fat cats. He already ignored our voice on that vote.Once he's in office, will he continue to be allowed to ignore the will of the people?If we are dazed with "good will", perhaps he will get away with it. In other words, your opinion, my opinion, his opinion on gay rights simply don't matter. What is to be done now? What is to be done for workers? What is to be done for the poor? What is to be done for families who cannot afford basic services or secondary education?What is the way forward?I assure you of this: once we have evolved to the point where these questions are irrelevant, issues such as gay marriage will lose their power to divide us. Then, and only then, can we exist in any sort of environment that could be said to be based on "good will."I wrote about this issue on my blog today:Smoke And Mirrors (and 1994)Bennett Blog"…bring your informed opinion…"
Walt, I don't disagree with anything you stated in terms of what Obama may being doing, or why. I do believe that there will be different results than the ones you state though. Good will may be a panacea, but Doctors treat many ills with placebos better than with actual medicine. As I stated in one of my recent blogs, Obama not only makes us proud to be Americans, he makes us happy to be Americans. The healing power of joy, happiness, good will, etc., is vastly underrated. When nothing else seems to work, bring in Patch Adams. Unless we can find some common ground issues to focus on, we can not move forward "as a people".Obama is not the property of the left, or the enemy of the right, he is the President-elect of all of us. If he can get the 80% of the middle of the Bell Curve that is the US to move together, The 10/10 split of the extreme factions of our electorate will benefit, even though they may feel left out. If I'm correct, 17% of those who voted for Bush last time, voted for Obama this time. They expect him to honor their vote as well. Obama can't get where he wants to go until he unites us behind him. What you want can happen, but it will take more than one term if it does, and will not happen if we as a nation do not want it to. I believe in the old adage, "if the people lead, the leaders will follow". We are going in too many directions right now to have our driver take us anywhere. You said:"…once we have evolved to the point where these questions are irrelevant, issues such as gay marriage will lose their power to divide us."And you are absolutely right!!! But that evolution is "ours" and not Obama's. The wonderfully indisputable thing about Obama is, he give us our best chance to begin that evolution. He give us hope. Right now, that's the only thing that the 80% of the people in the middle of the Belle curve all have in common. Good will is not the end product, its the conveyer belt that will get us to the end product.
Dwayne,Where is your blog? I'd love to visit.You wrote: "Obama is not the property of the left, or the enemy of the right, he is the President-elect of all of us. If he can get the 80% of the middle of the Bell Curve that is the US to move together, The 10/10 split of the extreme factions of our electorate will benefit, even though they may feel left out."My view is that the vast majority of those who call themselves "left wing", "right wing", "Democrat" or "Republican" are really "left out."If Obama's election is to have any meaning and if his term in office has any chance to be "historic" or "transformative", the "left out" have to be brought in. As you point out, we are one people. What we lack is a consciousness as to what that means, hence the diversions into matters which do not address our real needs in any way.Obama will not address the true inequities in society because to do so would require him to tear down the apparatus which elected him and which permits him to govern. He would need to have a bold vision of what can be done, and then bring the masses with him. He would have to be spurred into that action by a dedicated core which understands the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system. One such example: wealth is produced socially, through the efforts of billions, but it is collected, accumulated and hoarded by an elite few. Capital does not "flow" in any way which is meaningful to the needs of those who create it. We earn some of it back; they take as much of it as they want. They resist our calls to earn more of it -- our own wealth! They resist calls to provide basic services to all -- these are our services, not theirs!You see what I mean: if Obama does not intend to redistribute the wealth being collected by and for the elite; if he does not demand a much higher level of government service to all people; if he insists on pursuing a "middle" course which assures that nothing will change in any fundamental way, then all of the "good will" he engendered will simply turn out to be the latest lie to poor and working people.And if that does come to pass, the limits of "good will" will be sorely exposed, which is exactly what I fear.That is why all of my efforts are in the direction of resetting expectations not lower, but higher than even Obama's own expectations. I don't know if there will be another chance in my lifetime to make such a difference. I've been alive for too many of these "reform" efforts, and what I've learned is that they've got two suits in the closet: the "less government" suit and the "more government" suit. As long as they switch suits every decade or so for a couple of years, capitalism is permitted to limp along for another wasted generation.This is your generation, Dwayne, and of Zack and of my five children. Do you want anything to do with the policies of the past? Presumably not. Therefore it behooves you to ask your president, "What will you do which is fundamentally different than what has come before, and how do you intend to unravel the contradictions of private wealth? What good has private wealth done for 95% of the planet? If that's the best system we can make, what does that say about our abilities and limitations as a species?"I cannot honestly believe that these would not be the most important questions on the minds of young people today.Bottom line: beware the opiates known as "consumerism" and "good will."Resist the temptation to believe that if you are doing well, the system is healthy.Resist allowing yourself to be bought off with slogans.
“Obama not only makes us proud to be Americans, he makes us happy to be Americans.”Dwayne, that’s one powerful statement and I don’t say that for hyperbole or effect.That’s the best distinction made that I’ve heard.
ScamBuster you’re back! Glad to have you here. I mean that sincerely.Walt…I think it goes without saying that Obama can’t possibly meet the lofty expectations set before him. So I expect a “sobering” of the American public in the first 6 months.But the reality is also that capitalism is cyclical. This economy will most likely correct itself over the next four years. Obama’s task is to have it happen sooner than later.As for why inner cities rot…there are a number of variables in that equation. Some are government related, some are drug related, some are capitalism related…etc.Capitalism only “works” when there is a clear delineation between haves and have-nots. Otherwise it’s called communism.So to continue to have capitalism, means by definition there is a wealth gap. We can try to soften the “bottom” of the capitalism spectrum, but what’s less talked out is that capitalism “thrives” when there is stark contrast in the ends of the economic spectrum.This is only an economic disaster because we’re ALL collectively moving to the financial basement. Again, economic equality is not the goal of capitalism.But back to Obama. His job is to quicken the economic rebound. He may get lucky and have it naturally happen…but such is the case often times that the president in power gets the credit for economic growth…even when he didn’t really earn the credit.
"Obama not only makes us proud to be Americans, he makes us happy to be Americans."Dwayne, that's one powerful statement and I don't say that for hyperbole or effect.That's the best distinction made that I've heard.
Mo, this was an excellent entry. I don't even think government should be in the business of marriage at all.Walt, can you clarify about what kind of society you are in favor of here? Are you advocating for the removal of capitalism from American society?
Morris,With all due respect, how long will that feeling last unless President Obama takes bold steps to rectify the economic meltdown and see to it that the innocent are not punished?I guess we'll see. What I have heard so far causes me to seriously doubt that President Obama will deal boldly with economic issues.And in my view, nothing else he may do would be enough to overcome that missed opportunity.Do you believe in the "rising tide" theory of capitalism, Morris? If you do, I'd like you to explain why inner cities continue to rot even in strong economies. If you don't, then what specific actions should Obama take to make sure the boats of poor and working people are permanently lifted out of poverty and hopelessness?Would you agree that the definition of "transformative" ought to have original answers to these questions?
ScamBuster you're back! Glad to have you here. I mean that sincerely.Walt…I think it goes without saying that Obama can't possibly meet the lofty expectations set before him. So I expect a "sobering" of the American public in the first 6 months.But the reality is also that capitalism is cyclical. This economy will most likely correct itself over the next four years. Obama's task is to have it happen sooner than later.As for why inner cities rot…there are a number of variables in that equation. Some are government related, some are drug related, some are capitalism related…etc.Capitalism only "works" when there is a clear delineation between haves and have-nots. Otherwise it's called communism.So to continue to have capitalism, means by definition there is a wealth gap. We can try to soften the "bottom" of the capitalism spectrum, but what's less talked out is that capitalism "thrives" when there is stark contrast in the ends of the economic spectrum.This is only an economic disaster because we're ALL collectively moving to the financial basement. Again, economic equality is not the goal of capitalism.But back to Obama. His job is to quicken the economic rebound. He may get lucky and have it naturally happen…but such is the case often times that the president in power gets the credit for economic growth…even when he didn't really earn the credit.
By the way, I have 3 new comments further down regarding taxation.
Scam,Why quibble? "Yes."I am in the process of formulating my position regarding how we get from here to there.Private accumulation of wealth has never been an especially balanced and productive system (unless you consider warmaking and consumerism valuable uses of human productivity).The most pressing problems plaguing mankind cannot be solved by capitalism and in fact are created or made worse by capitalism.Only those whose boats are above the floodline would see it differently, and that's only until their boat floods.