October 28, 2008

Editorial


If you can't figure out my politics, you're just not paying attention, but this space tends to be non-partisan; like I've said before, as important as it is, politics is a lousy way to pick your friends. But I will make one public endorsement this cycle, and that's to encourage everyone in California to vote no on Proposition 8, which would rescind the right of gay couples in that state to marry. (Similar measures are on the ballot in Florida and Arizona.) I make this endorsement—stuck here in Massachusetts, I can't actually vote against the thing—because, honestly, I can't think of any reason for anyone of any political persuasion who believes in the virtues of a democratic republic to object to gay marriage. Except homophobia. Which I won't dignify with a response. Beyond that one, anyway. But if you need more convincing:
If you're a liberal: Come on, it's a straight-up civil-rights issue. It's the foam on your vote-for-Obama latte! It's the... look, just get some clich├ęs from your nearest wingnut and fill in the blanks. And vote, OK?

If you're a conservative: Do you really want the government telling you who you can and can't marry? That's the first step down a slippery slope leading to, um, progressive taxation!

If you're a member of the Thermodynamic Law Party: Without institutionalized marriage keeping open the possibility of energy exchange with the rest of society, gay couples will become adiabatically closed systems, preventing them from importing negentropy and thereby increasing, not decreasing, the entropy of such non-traditional but long-standing family units.

If you're a Narodnik: You know the Tsar would have been for Prop 8.

If you just don't like gay people: You know who I just don't like? Baal-worshiping smooth-jazz fans. There, I said it. I'm not proud of it, but there it is. And I still don't see where I get the authority to tell two Baal-worshiping smooth-jazz fans that they can't marry each other.

If you're a musician: Then this is the closest to a pandering pocketbook issue you're going to get in this election cycle. A "no" vote means that many more wedding gigs. Or do you want to give up jobs in the middle of a recession?
In all seriousness, if you at all value the idea of personal responsibility, as even this incurable lefty does, I would think that preventing any two consenting adults from legally and publicly confirming their commitment to each other should seem at least a little counter-productive. Here in Massachusetts, gay marriage has neither a) devalued or undermined my own straight marriage, or b) unraveled the fabric of society. In fact, four years later, it's exactly what it should be: a non-issue.

Also: Critic-at-Large Moe encourages Massachusetts residents to vote Yes on 3.

8 comments:

rootlesscosmo said...

Our household just cast two "No" votes. (We vote by mail.) I mean, Baal-worshiping smooth-jazz fans are OK as long as they're not, you know, flamboyant about it.

Sarah08 said...

The one hope we have of Prop 2 failing down here in Florida is actually the old people... Because of the way the thing is worded, it would also dissolve civil unions, which are pretty common among the hoards of widows and widowers. Too bad they'll all get confused and try to color in the bubble with the wrong side of the pen.

sfmike said...

I love "If you're a musician: A "no" vote means that many more wedding gigs. Or do you want to give up jobs in the middle of a recession?"

My converted-to-Mormon sister actually has a Yes on 8 sign in her front yard even though she has a gay brother and a gay son. She will not be forgiven, which of course will make Thanksgivings and Christmas even more fun and fabulous.

anzu said...

Thank you for speaking out against Prop 8. I live in CA and am appalled that this is even on the ballot. This might be the first time that a measure that would revoke a constitutional right is on the ballot.

The numbers are alarmingly close.

Empiricus said...

As a Californian, and a human being, I think it's my duty to recite the entire text of prop 8. It reads thusly:

Section 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article 1 of the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The End. WTF? And just in case y'all haven't read the entirety of other props (not saying you haven't), this is the shortest one by thousands and thousands of words, qualifying and defining terms and impacts. In CA, we get to vote on a definition. Weeee! Here's to acceptance, not tolerance! Or some logical term.

Why this , then?

Elaine Fine said...

(You might want to crop that gun out of the picture, Matthew!)

Matthew said...

Elaine: I don't know... reminds me of at least a couple of weddings I've been to.

senorton said...

As a fellow Bostonian straight lefty, i could't agree more with on on the whole "non-issue" thing. Wish i could mail in a "No" vote to CA, but i don't think that's allowed. I did, however, vote "Yes" on question 3.

Gobama, as they're saying over on Twitter....