Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: Why overturning Proposition 8 is not enough

By: George Einsetler

George Einsetler — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:53:37 +0000

A majority of Californians or a majority of all Americans voting to ban equal marriage does not make it right. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville, and later in 1859 John Stuart Mill wrote of the “Tyranny of the Majority.” The idea that the beliefs of the majority of a people that are so opposed to those of a minority population as to resemble the ideals of a tyrannical despot. They believed that safeguards must be put in place to guard against such tyranny. In our country those safeguards are supposed to be the state and federal Constitutions. As a gay man, my civil rights are no less important and I am no less American than any other citizen. There are those who say that domestic partnerships and granting some of the rights of married couples is enough, but the reality is that a same couple is denied over one thousand rights that married couples enjoy. There was a time in this country that “separate but equal” was the law of the land and many white, “Christian” Americans belonged to the KKK. The rights of the African American community were not won by accepting a vote of the majority. Those rights were hard won. The gay community is engaged in just such a struggle and we must not accept this example of the tyranny of the majority.

By: j solo

j solo — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:18:51 +0000

you are about FEDERAL rights being the key because many of the health plans are federal and use a federal definition of marriage when talking about spouses which seem to supercede state laws. CANADA (and the others) have the right idea. Hopefully we’ll get there before i die.

By: drewski

drewski — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:11:43 +0000

When Ataturk established the modern Turkish state, in the early 20s, the state was given exclusive domain over marriage. Turkey is 96-97% Muslim, and most Turks will have a religious wedding, but the one that counts is the one performed by a government clerk.

Why don’t we have the same set-up in the US? You wanna get married in a church? Fine–nobody really cares. But if you want state recognition, you would have to go to a government office.

Marriage is also the basis of contract law. How the hell is it that gays don’t have the same rights under contract law as other citizens do? How can one group of people be arbitrarily and summarily excluded from ONE type of contract? Anybody know if this argument has been tried in any US court?

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:14:33 +0000

You have hit THE nerve of this SAME GENDER marriage rights legal battle. Of the 1,138 federal rights: not being able to file joint federal taxes I have had to spend thousands of dollars to make sure ALL my and my spouses legal rights are protected. Not just a will but mulitple power of attorney and guardianships if I’m unable to care for my self mentally not to mention giving legal rights to my spouse to make life and death decisions if I am unable to make them my self and to protect my estate from others to be left to my spouse. Many families take EVERYTHING from a gay spouse if one dies! We Gay couples have to jump threw so many legal hoops and spend way too much money that straight couples don’t when the get married!
This is what must stop and on a FEDERAL level not just state to state!

By: Mercedes

Mercedes — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:05:35 +0000

Well said and very funny about the empty shopping bag. I think it is important not to settle for Civil Unions granted at a Federal Level…..it should be marriage or everyone gets civil unions and goes to their respective church to call it what they want. In other words, a full separation of church and State.

By: marriedman

marriedman — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:44:43 +0000

Yes, you are technically correct that the real issue here is federal marriage recognition. We can, and should continue to fight for our rights at the fereral level.

However, we can’t deny that having marriage equality in a state such as California – with its large population and substantial economy – is incredibly important in our fight. If we are somehow able to overturn prop 8, the pressure on the federal government to repeal DOMA and extend benefits to all legally married couples would dramatically increase. A shopping bag from California would be very difficult for the federal government to ignore.

Our enemies know this – that’s why they mounted such a vicious effort to pass the amendment.

Please, everyone, attend your local rally.

By: Pati

Pati — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:43:08 +0000

I agree Emma. This Saturday’s National Protest is for much more than California’s overturning Proposition 8. I believe this is the setback we needed to start a new movement in gay rights history. We must demand civil marriage rights at the federal level and nothing less!

By: Mark Salzwedel

Mark Salzwedel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:23:41 +0000

I have been pretty apolitical until attending the Wednesday night protest at the NYC Mormon Church. I just went to the LDS web site (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3e920fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=true) and left them some feedback about their support of Proposition 8.

I’m planning to attend the next rally Saturday afternoon at City Hall.