
So California’s Supreme Court will announce soon whether Prop 8 will be thrown out because of claims that it was put to the ballot improperly.
Now this blogger believes that the pernicious Prop 8 should be discarded into the dustbin of homophobic history. But the religious right, as usual, will be doing their darnest to keep this bigoted ruling.
From the organisation Protect Marriage:
“The wait is finally over,” read a statement from its general counsel Andrew Pugno. “We’re confident that the right of the people to protect traditional marriage in the state Constitution will ultimately prevail.”
What are these people afraid of? That lesbians and gay men will have the same equality as straights when it comes to marriage?
My own political views is that I am against marriage as an institution but this hideous Proposition marks lesbians and gay men out as second class citizens and unequal. In other words, marriage is only valid and ’sacred’ between men and women. What utter reactionary load of rubbish.
And there are wider issues about the separation of the Church and State with Proposition 8 exposing entrenched homophobia.
Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.
And the Mormon Church organised and campaigned to get their vote out in support of Proposition 8. Again, imposing their own bigotry and homophobia.
The First Amendment gives us virtually absolute protection to preach, proselytize and evangelize. But the fundamental point about religious liberty in the United States is that it is private. Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right – indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution – when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.
In the UK, there is the ‘conscience clause’, where MPs have an opt-out of party policy based on religious dictates, on issues such as LGBT rights and a woman’s right to choose (Human Fertilisation and Embryology legislation was a case in point).
At least in the States you have the Constitution to fight your opponents with unlike the UK where there isn’t any pretence of a separate Church and State. For example, you have a state religion and bishops in the Lords etc. Though in Wales, there is a separation between Church and State.
Conscience is just a political cover for bigotry, misogyny and homophobia. Why are issues such as a woman’s right to choose and LGBT rights reduced to conscience when other issues that drastically impact on human lives…such as war.. are not?!
May 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
Our response will send a message to America – Will we be Rioting or Dancing in the Streets?
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/05/rioting-or-dancing-in-streets.html
May 25, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
I’m with you on the substance of Prop 8, but I wouldn’t be quite so dismissive of the conscience clause. It took a very long struggle to get the British Parliament to abolish religious tests, with the idea that Catholics or Jews (or atheists!) couldn’t be tolerated as legislators as they stood outside the values of the British people. Even though I’m in favour of abortion staying legal, it still bugs me a little to hear pundits saying that MPs who don’t agree shouldn’t be allowed to vote their conscience… in the name of tolerance, of course.
But extending conscience to issues like war… or, to put it another way, drastically weakening the whipping system – that’s a worthwhile goal.