27°
25°
10°
A Few Clouds | Weather provided by KSTP.com
University first year Kristen Gladzel protests against Proposition 8 at Loring Park in Minneapolis on Saturday.
Armed with banners and signs, more than 1,000 people marched from the Government Center Plaza in downtown Minneapolis to Loring Park on Saturday, in opposition to a California constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage.
Called Proposition 8 , the amendment’s unexpected passage in solidly Democratic California on Nov. 4 shocked many in the gay community — a diverse group that even struggles with what to call itself; some members call themselves ‘queer’ while others use ‘gay’ or ‘GLBT’ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender).
Even though it won’t legally affect gay people in Minnesota, who also aren’t allowed to marry, although gay marriage isn’t banned in Minnesota’s constitution, Proposition 8, or as some young people refer to it, ‘Prop Hate,’ is a measurement of straight Americans’ view on gay Americans, Anne Phibbs, director of GLBTA programs office at the University of Minnesota said.
“It’s significant for the community and the University of Minnesota because it brings forward a national debate about where our country is on issues of equity and equality for GLBT Americans,” she said.
Exempting gay people from marriage creates practical problems for gay couples, said Phibbs, who has been an “out lesbian” for almost 30 years.
“It’s a denial of civil rights,” she said. “There are rights that are impacted in terms of children and how family is understood, financial rights, access to health care, access to health insurance and benefits.”
The protests, which took place in dozens of cities nationwide Saturday, serve as a way for the gay community to come together, said Phibbs, who planned to attend the protests with her children. But they also serve to send a message to Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.
“To those people who see us as different from others, as say, a threat to the American family, I want to … say, well I am an American family,” she said. “My personal values of equality for all people and respect and working hard and trying to be an engaged citizen of the United States of America — those are not antithetical to our traditional notions of family and what it means to be an American.”
Protest organizer Jessica Rosenberg said Proposition 8’s passage brought together a diverse gay community that often has little in common.
“If there’s a group of old gay men who want to get married and a group of young punk dykes who want to take down patriarchy, I know these groups don’t have much in common,” Rosenberg said, “but hey, homophobes don’t see the difference.”
Proposition 8, viewed by opponents as a civil rights issue, created an uproar after black people, who turned out in huge numbers to support President-elect Barack Obama, also voted in support of the gay marriage ban at a rate of 70 percent.
Rosenberg said she was drawn to organizing the protest even though gay marriage isn’t her main activist focus. She said she got involved because people in the gay community, especially on the Internet, were blaming blacks for the amendment’s passage.
“I don’t think it’s a bad idea to look at the breakdown of who voted for what,” she said. “But mostly we need to look at where we as a movement failed to build bridges and to organize.”
Rather than being discouraged by the amendment’s passage, young gay students, who didn’t have much interest in the issue before the amendment, say they feel spurred to action and inspired to reach out to people in demographics that supported the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Allison Witham , a theater and English junior, said the amendment’s passage was disappointing, but also served as an awakening for young people in gay-friendly cities.
“I think it reminds people of how important it is [to go to] places that aren’t gay friendly at all,” Witham said. “It shouldn’t be something that should come easy to us but it’s something that has to be fought for.”
For many young gay people, gay marriage has taken on a significance that it didn’t have before Proposition 8, Witham said.
“It is a basic right to pass on wealth to your partner or be able to see your partner in the hospital or buy a house with somebody that you’ve been with for years,” she said.
In order for the public’s perception of gay marriage to change, straight people also need to get involved, political science junior Rachel Struckmeyer said.
“I’d like to see more people getting involved in this, I’m not talking about the queer community, but allies,” she said. “We’ve kind of enclosed ourselves as a group and we need to start branching out.”
Phibbs said the protests are a first step in the gay community’s reactions to the marriage ban currently facing legal challenges in California.
“I know there’s anger and I know people are hurt, [but] I fundamentally believe that out of this will come more activism,” Phibbs said, “and that’s always a good thing.”
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
proposition 8
i personaly don't agree with same sex marriage, but what i do see is people that believe in something getting together to change it... if americans did this when it comes to keeping jobs here in america and trying to put a stop to all government rip off of the american people we could have change. One thing i can say for them they unite together to make a change.
People often use the rhetoric
People often use the rhetoric of "let the people vote" to decide what is best for this country. I can't help but think that history has taught us everything to the contrary with this mantra, especially regarding minorities.
If we "let the people vote" on Brown v. Board of Education, who knows where the Black communities civil rights would be, or how much longer segregation would've been acceptable. If we "let the people vote", chances are we'd all live in a theocratic state right now.
Sometimes it takes the intelligence and law-knowledgeable individuals in this country make the best decisions for us. I typically support people voting for things that affect them, but on issues of minority rights and minority agendas, the general public has historically proven themselves to be archaic and behind the times.
What kills me? The African-American population in California overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 8, saying gay rights are nothing like black rights were. Really? I would have to disagree. At one time, Afro "blood" was considered tainted and not able to be used on white people. At one time, people viewed blackness as a racial inferiority (scientific racism). At one time, interracial couples couldn't wed, and even further in history, two blacks couldn't wed because God wouldn't consecrate the union of their lesser human species.
The arguments are the same, and above all else, the hate is the same.
Methinks the blacks have lost touch with their history. They should be ashamed of themselves for helping to allow this amendment to pass, considering they weren't even able to sit on the same part of the bus as white people half a century ago.
The whole problem with this debate is that marriage was allowed to become political. It should've stayed in the church where it belonged, and no one would be able to question it. But becasue it's so caught up in the government, I can't see how it's legal to deny recognition of gay people marriage. Unless we want to rename marital benefits, bar county clerks from marrying people, and letting the government decide who marriage includes or doesn't include.
Give it back to the church. They can have their 50% divorce rate. Protect marriage, hey? Give me a break.
Thank you for covering this
Thank you for covering this story. It was well-written and well-sourced. That said, I have to take issue with the headline, which seems to assert that the gay community is the only group involved in this fight for equality. Many of the people marching in that protest are from the straight community and are just as angry about the passing of Proposition 8 as anyone. The gay community is not alone in this. They are not the only ones "inspired to take action." They have a whole lot of supporters working to push along this next step in the civil rights saga.
So many of these protesters
So many of these protesters compare their "struggle" to redefine marriage to the historic struggles of African Americans to achieve full recognition of civil rights.
These protesters have to prove to me that Prop 8 is legal discrimination by its definition. It simply maintains the definition of a relationship between two people. It's now a constitutional definition and is not subject to the California court's ruling on the DOMA legislation.
The claims these protest groups have made repeatedly are not equivalent to issues of historic racism against African Americans as it appeared in Jim Crow-era laws.
Miscegenation was discriminatory law because trampled on the civil rights of two individuals based on race. Prop 8 simply continues to define a relationship that exists between two individuals of the opposite sex who, for all intensive purposes, have the ability to, and in most cases will procreate.
There is distinct physiological consequence of copulation between two people of the opposite sex and sexual intimacy of two people of the same sex: procreation is the difference.
Therefore, since that is the basis for the definition of marriage, I highly doubt the higher courts will rule Prop 8 as discriminatory.
So then, it comes to to competition of values. It's clear that the majority California voters echoed the sentiments of California legislators in stating their belief that marriage should continue to be defined as an institution of legal partnership between one male and one female.
Just like it is not discriminatory for a state to legislate that two people who are related by blood cannot enter into marriage, so is it not discriminatory for a state to legislate that two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage.
You completely graced over
You completely graced over the entirety of what the other educated posters have said above you.
The same rhetoric being used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry was also used against two African-Americans during the slavery era, as they were 'lesser' and 'not the same quality' as Euro-Americans. Allowing interracial marriages would lead to higher divorce rates and 'mixed blood'. The arguments are the same, the color is not necessarily.
You see, there is one reason and one reason alone you can't deny gay marriage to people: the government. Marriage has historically been a religious institution, and while it still is, the fact that the government has been given the title of marital benefits to delineate those rights afforded to people who are married, as well as the ability to hand out marriage licenses and perform the marriages themselves depending on jurisdiction, takes marriage straight out of the church and injects it into the public sector.
And because of that, you have no right to deny it to anyone based on their differing criteria. The government is supposed to be blind to prejudice of all sort, and this is no exception. But because marriage has historically been a male/female union, and it's roots are in religion, we are seeing the religious expression of marriage tugging at the government. And that pisses me off.
If you want to control who defines what marriage is or isn't, take marriage back to the church and leave it there. Take it out of the government entirely and allow all marital benefits to be partnership benefits or something similar. From there, a couple can decide if they want the title of marriage or not, and find a church that will perform their 'marriage'.
There is absolutely no reason why gay couples, who do EVERYTHING that straight couples do, barring children (which some couples don't do/can't do anyways), but get absolutely no benefit from it. The arguments I've heard against it are illogical, conspiricy driven, and downright stupid.
If procreation is your argument, it's got holes all over it - there are plenty of straight couples who do not reproduce and there are plenty of straight couples who are INCAPABLE of reproduction. Similarly, there are many non-believers who are married as well. What a slap in the face to God, right?
Do I think marriage should be in the government? No effing way. But it is, and unless we want to rewrite what these benefits are called and who can perform marriage, tough shit - - this fight has a legitimate cause, and I'm happy that some people are able to see it.
Problem is, no one wins in this battle - - someone is going to lose. And if you ask me, it's going to be the religious. History has a way of proving itself liberalizing.
Thank GOD. In an era of so much hatred, division, and dissent, all we are worrying about is two people of the same sex sanctifying their love for each other. What a crime, hey?
I'm with Jeff on this one. I
I'm with Jeff on this one. I don't think that there is any way that you can compare this to the struggles that African Americans have had to face in this country, and are continuing to face (yes, Obama has been elected, but you don't know what it's like to walk down the street knowing people are judging you based on your skin color).
Prop 8 is not discriminatory close to the same sense, if not at all. Members of the gay community can still vote, can still go to any restaurant they choose, ride the bus, and have all the opportunity in the world. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with offering same-sex couples the right a legal-union that would give them certain rights, but by no means should marriage be redefined.
I don't mean to be
I don't mean to be disrespectful, bud, but have you looked at how gay people are treated in this country? It's almost exactly the way people viewed African-Americans. The difference is in the fact that with blacks it was the skin color and genetics (at one point). With gays, it is their same-sex attraction and genetics as well. There are tons of people who have the misguided belief that gays are somehow inferior genetically or the result of a mutated gene or disorder, just as blacks were once thought to have different blood and different genetics (which led to scientific racism, as someone else pointed out above). You can't deny that the parallels are highly obvious between the two.
The struggles for marriage rights aren't really that similar to the plight African-Americans faced not long ago (unless you count the whole interracial marriage thing), but the plight of gays in this country is very remniscent of how blacks were treated.
The difference? People feel justified in hating on gays because the Bible allegedly backs them up. Now, true Christians realize that they have no true place to judge, as we are all sinners, but a lot of people (Christians or otherwise) out there think that because it is foreign and weird to them, and because the Bible says 'it's wrong' (it also says we shoudl stone disobedient children to death and not shave), they believe it is justifiable to hate and cause acts of violence against the gay community.
The gay community isn't perfect and they've not done everything right the way they should have to achieve their rights, but if you look at history: nobody has been perfect.
But you speak of marriage being redefined. In this sense, those who VOTED for Prop8 are the ones who are redefining marriage, as it had been declared valid for same-sex couples not long ago. So...who is the one that is redefining marriage? Is it only okay when it fits into the scope of the 'majority is right'?
I guess so.
"But you speak of marriage
"But you speak of marriage being redefined. In this sense, those who VOTED for Prop8 are the ones who are redefining marriage, as it had been declared valid for same-sex couples not long ago. So...who is the one that is redefining marriage? Is it only okay when it fits into the scope of the 'majority is right'?"
How quickly you forget that many moons ago (during the Clinton administration) California legislature passed the DOMA, which was just 6 months ago overturned by the courts on grounds of not jibing with the state's discrimination policies. It was DOMA that was overturned and the judges therefore decided that anyone could get married.
In total, two people of the same sex could get married in California for about six months before Prop 8 was passed. SO don't play word games by trying to say that Prop 8 redefined marriage. Prop 8 took the matter out of the activist judge's hands by passage of a constitutional amendment.
And guess what? I can tell you first-hand that the societal "struggles" gay people encounter today in breadth or in depth are nothing compared to the lack of rights African Americans had up until the last 30 or so years.
Once again, this is not about legal discrimination. An individual who identifies themselves as gay, does not lack any civil rights. There are no civil rights being withheld from them.
Can a gay person not vote? Can a gay person not purchase a home. Can a gay person not co-habitate with someone of the same sex? Can a gay person not be elected president? The issue is not legal discrimination. It's an issue of values.
Why should the government recognize a relationship between two people who, in theory and in practice, cannot procreate, on par with two people, who in theory can procreate?
Two people of the same sex can own a home together. They can achieve a domestic partnership just like anyone else. They can gain power of attorney for each other. But they cannot procreate. So why should they be looked at as having the same intrinsic relationship as a couple who can? (And don't get into the "exceptions" argument. Yes, some male/female couples cannot procreate and some choose not to procreate, but those are the exceptions to the biological consequence of sexual intercourse. Two males or two females cannot procreate and there are NO exceptions).
BTW, no one answered the question I posed in my previous post:
Why cannot two individuals of blood relation not enter into a civil union that is on par with the current definition of marriage? If the anti-Prop 8 folks say it is not about procreation, then why cannot two brothers or two sisters, or a grandmother and her granddaughter, or a brother and a sister enter into a legal relationship similar to the one that the California state recognized for Ellen Degeneres and Porsha Derossi? I can make a number of compelling arguments for why two relatives would want to have the same benefits provided to Ellen and Porsha when they were recognized as married by the state of California. This lends to the argument that many libertarians pose, where either nothing is marriage or everything is marriage.
So what'll it be folks? Do you want everything to be marriage, or nothing to be marriage.
It seems as if the anti-Prop 8 folks are well-intentioned (although I beg to differ), but the practical application of their ideology on the matter leads to one thing: the destruction of the legal term marriage. Why don't the Prop 8 folks attack the issue from a church-state "let's get rid of legal marriage definition" angle? Then their relationships will be on par with everyone else's.
Regarding DOMA, no one can
Regarding DOMA, no one can answer the question as to how the federal government was able to intersect marriage, which is a state's right issue, not of federal jurisdiction, in deciding who could marry. DOMA was passed because Hawaii began allowing gay marriage in 1996, and the fear of it spreading to other states due to the Full Faith and Credit clause (which says that any legitimate marriage license, driver's license, birth/death certificate is valid in all 49 other states if valid in 1). People feared it would spread to other states, and DOMA was the result. It was a bullshit piece of legislation, and about as useful as Don't Ask, Don't Tell has become. No judge or lawyer I've yet talked to has been able to answer how Clinton's DOMA was able to supercede the Full Faith and Credit clause. If they can't, no argument you can possibly provide to me is even close to being on par.
Word games, right? So...if you want to start hurling words like that around, cut the shit with the "activist judges" comments. If it weren't for activist judges, "Jeff", your black friend's children may still be in separate schools. The "activist ruling" in Brown v. Board of Education (as it was considered by many) made a decision that ended up being correct (as they usually are). If it hadn't passed, and people like you insisted we let people vote instead of letting these "activists" decide what's right and wrong for us, who knows where black rights would be today. Your inability to recognize intersectionality is almost painful, Jeff, and so is your hypocracy in advising one not to play word games when you yourself are guilty of just as much. In the scope of minority legislation, when up to the people, it is almost always a set back. Sometimes it takes the voice of the educated elite to make things equal, and to decide the things the public is either too stupid or too ignorant to decide. I won't even try to show the parallels between Brown v. Board of Education's judges and the judges involved with gay marriage, as you are unable to grasp concepts of intersectionalism.
For someone who is obviously not gay, it is flat out insulting that you claim to know what society "struggles" gay people encounter today. You know NOTHING and your opinions speak loads about your ideologies. You mention that black rights and gay rights share nothing in common, yet you again fail to produce any evidence in the presence of your opponent's multitude of examples. You claim they are not the same, but fail to legitimize any coherent argument as to why they are not valid. Try again.
A gay person can vote. So can a black person. A gay person can purchase a home, just as a black person can, but both minorities have higher than average turn-aways from renting. The Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) found that over thirty-four percent of gay people have been turned away from renting or buying a home because of their sexual orientation. The number for African-Americans is probably higher due to their overt color differences, but that doesn't change the fact that both minorities struggle. You act as though gay people have 100% of the rights straight people do, and face nothing stereotypical minority figures face. It discredits your argument.
Your justification for banning gay marriage is fruitless. You make the argument that it would open the floodgate to incestuous marriages and marriages of convenience to take advantage of the system. The thing that is different between your sad attempt at the grandmother/grand-daughter argument is that two men and two women are consenting adults. They are not related. The key word here is consent. The government wouldn't allow polygamous marriages because deriving multiple benefits for each spouse isn't exactly a very 'legal' thing to do. Two people who love each other of the same sex, however, is a different story.
The only point I agree with you is the last part of your argument, that the Anti-Prop 8 folks attack the issue from a church-state standpoint, "let's get rid of legal marriage definition." As far as I'm concerned, the church can have it's broken institution back, including it's 50% divorce rate. I have no desire to be married, but I have no desire of telling others that they can or can't marry because I disagree with their lifestyle.
The sheer reality is that arguing from that basis is pointless. The government and church's involvement with marriage is too deep and the blood runs too thick for it to be removed. It's a mess, and the damn semantics behind it aren't going to change. But, for their relationships to be on par with everyone elses, they need to be afforded every single last right that marriage affords.
There will be some people who will continue to push for marriage, but the majority will be appeased. The problem is taht civil partnerships don't carry across state lines, they don't include all rights of marriage, and they are dissolved far easier than marriage is. And until that is changed...we move forward.
Well done
I'm impressed that this article has actually induced thought-out conversation and debate instead of the usual sophomoric postings the Daily generally achieves. Well done!
To those who say that this struggle is not parallel to the struggle African Americans experienced to obtain equality: Say that to kids like Matthew Shepherd who have been beaten and killed for who they are. Whether the characteristic is skin color or orientation, hate-filled people will destroy things they don't understand or are afraid of.
As an ally, I supported civil rights when we were helping African Americans to be viewed equally, and I will support the GLBTQ community. As a white, straight American, I see these issues as implicit to civil rights as well as human rights.
If nothing else, Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Post new comment