(Sorry for the Wizard of Oz reference.)
ETA: New Video at bottom of the post
ETA 2: You know what state is also cool? Vermont.
The BarbouRoske family after the Iowa Supreme Court decision.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Iowa declared that their previous ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional on the grounds of equal protection under the law, and basic simple fairness. Marriages are supposed to start on the 24th.
A lot of people are scratching their heads. Iowa? Connecticut, they can understand and the and the same goes for Massachusetts. To states from the North-East coastalregion. A lot of states on both sides of the coast have civil unions which provide varying degrees of rights that are usually associated.
The Iowa decision is a huge boon to the cause as gay marriage is not just a thing for us liberals on the coast, but part of something that is also a part of the heartland. It may start to bring about a simple idea that fair is simply fair. Now a realistic scenario might see states here and there across the U.S. will reach similar decisions. The next state might be Vermont.
Which leads to the next question most people who are paying attention to ask: why the hell can’t California get gay marriage to go through?
Well, the same reason New York is having some trouble. A lot of people think of California as Los Angelesor San Fransisco, a city so gay that it’s only rival is NYC. (Castro vs. Chelsea, to be more specific.) The thing is that both states have a north that is far less liberal than what most people associate with the state.
For example, try and name the capital of California.
Stumped? Sacramento in Northern California. Same with Albany, New York which in itself is an argument for NYC to be a state capital. There are enough people that do not agree with the idea of gay marriage. This is not to say that all are against the general concepts that go with marriage for homosexual couples. They just rather it be called civil unions. Of course, there are those that flat out just do not like the idea of (open) homosexuality, however their numbers seem to be descreasing as time goes on.
It seems that in this point at time, that a majority of what would be my parent’s generation are split on the issue and with each generation younger you have more and more support for civil unions, if not full-on marriages. This is not to say some of the older generation aren’t for this; in fact, I have heard some really great stories about really cool grandparents who are really supportive.
From what I have been reading since November 2008 with the fight over Prop. 8 in California is that communication about this issue, not only sheer numbers is the key. Many people do not see gay marriage as just two men or two women or two consenting adults getting married. Maybe because us Americans can be a cynical bunch, and are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I am not talking about those who argue that each decision like this slides the country down a slippery slope into pedophilia and bestiality. Arguments have been put forth about Christianity and the definition of marriage, most people have argued these over and over again. These people have been thinking that America has been going to hell in a hand basket long before Harvey Milk came along, and honestly don’t want to listen even if people tried talking to them.
No, the people who need to reached out to are ones on the fence, who probably know gay people and know gay couples and parents, those who are family members. The ones that recognize that some of the arguments in the above video are specious at best and some are just plain lies. (Will churches have to marry gay people? No, unless they want to. And it’s always churches too. Never any mosques or any types of temples.)
Some of the problems with fighting against Proposition 8 was that people assumed that voting “Yes” was voting for gay marriage. It was hard selling “No” in order to keep something that California already had.
But beyond there are other questions, such as:
Why should judges should be allowed to make decisions about this, not voters? This requires a two part answer. 1) Courts have been able to declare a law constitutional or not since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, and this power is part of the checks and balances of our government. 2) There is the idea of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ took effect in the Prop. 8 vote, that people should not be allowed to vote on people’s rights, especially that of a minority group of people.
Don’t civil unions give the same protections? They should, but often times there is still discrimination. There are horror stories where partners are not allowed to visit each other because they are not ‘technically’ married.
The last part is why many people are fighting for marriages full stop, as the language of the law is important. It would be one thing if everyone got civil unions, and marriages were saved for religiousinsitutions. However, those fighting for marriage rights cannot get that compromise from people.
Not only do those fighting Prop 8. and supporting bills that would allow for gay marriage have to get those on the fence, but get the inactive out of their seats.
Probably one of the problems withProp. 8 in California was that it was that it was California and you’re not going to ban gay marriage in California, I mean, come on– oh, it just happened and with the slimest of margins. The complacency is something that needs to be fought. There have been a lot of rights that have been gained for GLBTQ people since the Stonewall Riots, however there are still things that need to be fought for, even in 2009.
On the other side is apathy, as many people feel that their vote doesn’t count, especially people my age. Many of us feel that we grew in a time where the government was not representing us and our attempts at changing.
Our generation has a lot of potential to do things as evidenced by the previous election and it needs to be realized the previous generations and within ourselves. The generation gap has to bridged. Gay marriage is not something that is just a baby-boomer age issue, it fighting for an option even if you personally do not plan on going that route. It’s not just not marriage that needs to be fought for as well, for example: there are many places where sexual orientation is not on the list of things that cannot be discriminated on in the workplace. There is also much to fight for around the world in terms of LGBTQ rights.
Outside all my talk of activism, much can be done just be being alive. With the way Iowa works, gay marriage won’t be up to be overturned or up for vote until a few years from now. So gay Iowan couples living their life with out the world blowing up or mass panic in the streets might convince some people that fighting for gay marriage is simply a question of “Why not?” and become supportive allies.
Then again, there’s also the argument via musical:
ETA: Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal on why he’s blocking an admendment to reverse the gay marriage decision.
