The beatings will resume

[solarbird]

The LA Times has a story on a protest outside a Mormon temple in response to the Church of Latter Day Saints's co-ordinated "Yes on 8" money and efforts. It doesn't include things you can see over here, on YouTube, where you can see one police officer strike a gay protester hard enough to throw him head-first into a cement retaining wall before arresting him and his partner.

This is of course a very bad situation. The millions of dollars sent by Mormons at the behest of the Church were well publicised (and not just in California; see here), and there is now an effort to file political-action complaints against the Church with the IRS, with the intent specifically to cost it its tax-free status on the basis of political activity not allowed to tax-exempt organisations. I don't think this has any chance of getting anywhere - initiatives are not considered "partisan," even when they obviously and clearly are - but the situation has become volatile. Being forcibly excluded will trigger that.

In addition to the initiative's backers, Eugene Volkoh thinks that the plain language of the amendment effectively divorces all previously-married same-sex couples. California's Attorney General has ruled that it only applies to marriages going forward, but I have seen threats (sorry, no link, I lost it) of a lawsuit to force the state to revoke those licenses. The ACLU promises to fight any such lawsuit effort.

Matt Yglesias comments on the anti-gay "backlash" narrative, disputing it.

On a personal note, my friend Thom was arranging his marriage to his partner Jeff next year before this hit. He's an Obama supporter and wanted to be part of the celebrations last night, but, as he says:

...in the midst of those moments, though, I kept being reminded that the promises inherent in an Obama presidency were not truly mine, as a gay person in America, to fully share. And while at the time I wrote that I was happy again to be an American, the truth is that by the next morning, recognizing the passage of California's Proposition 8, I no longer felt as though I truly were even considered an American by even half my adopted home state of California, much less by anywhere near half the country as a whole... Fifty-two percent of California voters Tuesday night... amended the state's constitution to strip a civil right from one group of people only. ... That same night, 70% of California voters voted to give additional rights to farm animals raised for food.

How am I supposed to feel now that a sizable percentage of the people I see on a daily basis in my neighborhood, at work, in stores and restaurants, not only believe that my life and my relationship are worth less than theirs, but vote to back up their personal religious beliefs with the force of the state?

Thom's not the only person to note that the same California voters who stripped rights from queer couples endorsed - strongly - additional legal protections for farm animals. Which is nice and all, but the contrast really, really lets us know exactly where we stand.

Comments

[denelian.livejournal.com]

it may be petty... but if CA DOES revoke those licenses, are they going to give the fucking money paid for them BACK?

i'm sorry... i'm not gay, so i can't say i know how you feel. but *I* am pissed as hell. my whole family is. this is actually the first time i WANTED to be back in CA to vote, because i wanted to be a part of getting rid of the fucking hate. the whiplash, it sucks. i should have sent more money to the "No" campaign.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

i think you meant "yes on 8", not "yes on 9" up there.

i am being annoyed by the whole "IT WAS THOSE PESKY BROWN VOTERS WHO TURNED OUT AND PASSED PROP 8" bullshit going on.

my buddy sparkeymonster points out the fallacy (and racism) of this here (http://sparkymonster.livejournal.com/291430.html).

[solarbird]

Oops; fixed; thanks.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Well, chickens are important, you know. Jeez, I hate people some times.

[shadesofmauve]

There's a very clear statement in the federal constitution for not revoking licenses, isn't there? (No ex post facto). It's still not very reassuring in this case, because the state of California could choose to not recognize the validity of marriages going forward without revoking them, but it adds another tangle.

As bad as this is . . . (and it is sickening)

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

My computer at home has been semi-broken since Sunday (and may stay that way for who knows how long) so I may have missed earlier comments from you on this, but as upsetting and surprising as I found this initially, I have managed to pick up two grains of hope (maybe 3)--

Back in 2000, I forgot that a similar initiative passed w/61% of the vote, which I now recall shocked the hell out of me. So, 9% better. We're getting closer, maybe in a couple of years, etc

&

While the legal challenges based on "it's a constitutional revision, not an amendment, and therefore must go thru the legislature before being presented to the public" seem . . . strange . . . to me, they worked last time. While you probably don't approve of us outcome-oriented types, regardless of how much of a stretch these challenges might be, I hope to hell they pass.

&

This probably was a wash w/about the same # on both sides, but some people got confused, and thought a "yes" vote was *for* gay marriage. I talked to such a person who asked how I voted, agreed with me completely on rationale, but was confused as to why I voted no. They were horrified when I told them "yes" meant "ban gay marriage".

ps

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

that said, I of course voted for the "at least give the animals room to spread wings/stand up/maybe shuffle around a little" law.

I cannot in any way shape or form be other than happy that it passed, and the parental notification measure failed (again, and not getting any closer, but will that stop it from showing up over and over again? of course not . . .)

[parabasis.livejournal.com]

Oregon a few years back went through the same sort of situation. We were allowed to legally marry by permission of a county court, and my partner and I married within 4 days of it becoming legal. A subsequent ballot measure vote less than 7 months later overturned it. The county refunded our license fee. I cried the day the check came. :(
I can only hope, as someone above pointed out, that the courts see it as unlawful regardless of popular vote.

[solarbird]

I'm sorry. ;_;