one step forward, two steps back
it is a great honor and pleasure to have witnessed the victory of the first president of color. downtown oakland was just overjoyed lastnight, everyone celebrating on the streets with obama paraphernalia, star-spangled-banner, fire works, and music.
however, to my dismay, prop 8 passed... i've been following incessantly the progress of where this is going to go, and decided to speak up on kqed discussion forum, particularly in response to someone who were making fundamentally faulty argument for prop 8.
here is what he said:
Why does the news media insist on calling this a "Ban on Gay Marriage". It was never intended to be a "ban". Pete Wilson, not us, defined it that way to bias the voters. Prop 8 is about restoring traditional marriage as we have always known it. What actually happened when the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 is that marriages could no longer be between a husband and wife. It now was Party A and Party B. Our marriage institution had been destroyed. We could no longer be married as husband and wife, but only as Party A and Party B. I think the voters saw through Pete Wilson's trickery.
We, the YES voters of Prop A, have no grudges against gays and lesbians, except that they kept stealing our signs and accosting us, taking away OUR freedom of speech. If any rights are being trumped, it is ours, not theirs. We believe they should have all the same governmental rights as traditional marriage partners. However it is not "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians should be provided government ceremonies that guaruntee equal rights, but it cannot be called "marriage". It is simply a civil union, call it whatever else you like.
Please stop refering to prop 8 as a "ban on gay marriage". It is, in fact, simply "restoration of traditional marriage".
- Ken Hatch
And to that, I responded:
I would like to respond to Mr. Hatch's idea of "restoring traditional marriage."
Let's think about this for a moment - what IS a "traditional marriage" in the context of present society (or even in the past)? A man and a woman "married" but each having acknowledged extra marital affairs considered "traditional marriage?" How about a man and a woman "married" on paper but for the sole purpose of getting around certain tax/financial/asset related regulations? How about an arranged or forced marriage between a man and a woman? What if that marriage is abusive and one was physically threatened into it? Are any of these sound like "traditional marriage" to you? They don't to me, but if you are defining "traditional marriage" on the basis of gender like you are doing (which I don't), these are all considered "traditional marriage." So if Prop 8 is truly about "restoring traditional marriage" NOT related to homophobia or bigotry against those who are in same-gender relationships, why didn't it address OTHER pertinent issues around this idea of "traditional marriage?"
Besides, if Prop 8 supporters are honestly not being hateful against people in same-sex relationships - or rather, who are sexually diverse different from the social norm - do you think they would be happy with a transgender man and transgender woman getting married? I highly doubt it.
In my opinion, defining "marriage," especially "traditional marriage" by gender is fundamentally faulty. It is merely an excuse to hide the underlying homophobia/transphobia and hatred towards those who are different.
No one CHOOSES to be born autistic, Asian, or overwight, black, white, woman, man, or hearing impaired, or any of these things. No one CHOOSES (at least to the most part) to become an alcoholic, homeless, or abused either. Sexual and gender identities/experiences are just the same. So why OUR civil rights challenged on the basis of something so natural as the colors of our skins?
Yes, I hated the fact that some "No Prop 8" activists vandalized and took more violent means to get their point across. But why should the rest of us who are good, honest, respectful, conscious, peaceful be repremanded - stripped off of civil rigths - for their wrong doings? Why then, shouldn't straight people's civil rights be stripped off for the death of Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena and thousands of others who were KILLED based on hate crime? "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" right? So please, spare me the beacause-you-did-this-you-deserve-it argument.
I had a dream, and now it is shattered. But I will continue to live a positive, honest, and peaceful life, and I will do what I can to change the ways of the world.
Yumi Aikawa
let us not go gentle into that good night. obama just changed history and overcame racial prejudice. we can do the same. we can change history and overcome homophobia.
however, to my dismay, prop 8 passed... i've been following incessantly the progress of where this is going to go, and decided to speak up on kqed discussion forum, particularly in response to someone who were making fundamentally faulty argument for prop 8.
here is what he said:
Why does the news media insist on calling this a "Ban on Gay Marriage". It was never intended to be a "ban". Pete Wilson, not us, defined it that way to bias the voters. Prop 8 is about restoring traditional marriage as we have always known it. What actually happened when the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 is that marriages could no longer be between a husband and wife. It now was Party A and Party B. Our marriage institution had been destroyed. We could no longer be married as husband and wife, but only as Party A and Party B. I think the voters saw through Pete Wilson's trickery.
We, the YES voters of Prop A, have no grudges against gays and lesbians, except that they kept stealing our signs and accosting us, taking away OUR freedom of speech. If any rights are being trumped, it is ours, not theirs. We believe they should have all the same governmental rights as traditional marriage partners. However it is not "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians should be provided government ceremonies that guaruntee equal rights, but it cannot be called "marriage". It is simply a civil union, call it whatever else you like.
Please stop refering to prop 8 as a "ban on gay marriage". It is, in fact, simply "restoration of traditional marriage".
- Ken Hatch
And to that, I responded:
I would like to respond to Mr. Hatch's idea of "restoring traditional marriage."
Let's think about this for a moment - what IS a "traditional marriage" in the context of present society (or even in the past)? A man and a woman "married" but each having acknowledged extra marital affairs considered "traditional marriage?" How about a man and a woman "married" on paper but for the sole purpose of getting around certain tax/financial/asset related regulations? How about an arranged or forced marriage between a man and a woman? What if that marriage is abusive and one was physically threatened into it? Are any of these sound like "traditional marriage" to you? They don't to me, but if you are defining "traditional marriage" on the basis of gender like you are doing (which I don't), these are all considered "traditional marriage." So if Prop 8 is truly about "restoring traditional marriage" NOT related to homophobia or bigotry against those who are in same-gender relationships, why didn't it address OTHER pertinent issues around this idea of "traditional marriage?"
Besides, if Prop 8 supporters are honestly not being hateful against people in same-sex relationships - or rather, who are sexually diverse different from the social norm - do you think they would be happy with a transgender man and transgender woman getting married? I highly doubt it.
In my opinion, defining "marriage," especially "traditional marriage" by gender is fundamentally faulty. It is merely an excuse to hide the underlying homophobia/transphobia and hatred towards those who are different.
No one CHOOSES to be born autistic, Asian, or overwight, black, white, woman, man, or hearing impaired, or any of these things. No one CHOOSES (at least to the most part) to become an alcoholic, homeless, or abused either. Sexual and gender identities/experiences are just the same. So why OUR civil rights challenged on the basis of something so natural as the colors of our skins?
Yes, I hated the fact that some "No Prop 8" activists vandalized and took more violent means to get their point across. But why should the rest of us who are good, honest, respectful, conscious, peaceful be repremanded - stripped off of civil rigths - for their wrong doings? Why then, shouldn't straight people's civil rights be stripped off for the death of Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena and thousands of others who were KILLED based on hate crime? "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" right? So please, spare me the beacause-you-did-this-you-deserve-it argument.
I had a dream, and now it is shattered. But I will continue to live a positive, honest, and peaceful life, and I will do what I can to change the ways of the world.
Yumi Aikawa
let us not go gentle into that good night. obama just changed history and overcame racial prejudice. we can do the same. we can change history and overcome homophobia.
posted by rikitikitembo at 12:10 PM
1 Comments:
Hello Ruggerkio (your KQED discussion name):
I found my way to your blog through your post on KQED's discussions that you reference in this post.
I'm a student looking at KQED's community features including their discussions. Would you please complete a one page survey I've made about this? It shouldn't take more than a minute or two.
The survey is here:
http://bit.ly/kqed
Thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home