Thursday, November 06, 2008

Obama refuses to stand up for civil rights; Californians lose theirs

The victory* of the anti-gay bigots in California in their constitutional amendment to "defend traditional marriage" by taking it away from gays, casts a real pall over Obama's victory yesterday. As Andrew Sullivan (a gay conservative who recently declared his support for Obama) writes:
It cannot be denied that this feels like a punch in the gut. It is. I'm not going to pretend that the wound isn't deep and personal, like an attack on my own family. It was meant to be. Many Obama supporters voted against our rights, and Obama himself opposes our full civil equality. The religious folk who believe that Jesus stood for the marginalization of minorities, and who believe that my equality somehow threatens their children, will, I pray, see how misguided they have become.

Unfortunately too few Californians bothered to run the Charlie Stross test over what they were being asked to do:
Here's a good diagnostic test for whether a proposed law is bigoted: if it applies to a group of people, replace the subject group in question with "Jews" or "Blacks", and see how it reads. If Adolf Hitler or the Grand Cyclops would approve, then it's a fair bet that there's something fishy about it. In the case of Proposition 8, how would you vote if it read, "Only marriage between Christians is recognized in California"? Or "Only marriage between white-skinned people is recognized in California"?

If you are a Californian voter and you vote for Proposition 8, then I'm afraid it means you're a bigot. You favour depriving a subset of the population of their civil rights, you are willing to vote for a measure that will destroy existing marriages, and you will refuse to honour marriage contracts acknowledged elsewhere in the world. And you've tacitly admitted that your own marriage does need protecting (which is kind of pathetic).

(That last bit wasn't the test, but I thought it deserved repeating.)

And as to the subject of Obama, the fact that many of his voters (he won California, after all) turned out to take this basic civil right away from gay people seriously tarnishes his victory. It implies that had he been more principled, and really stood for civil rights - and asked his voters to genuinely consider why, at a moment of the triumph of African Americans as a previously-persecuted group, they would even consider turning that persecution on others - then the gay people of California would not have just lost theirs.

I stand by my earlier refusal to get too excited by the election result.

*Temporary, of course - the tide of history is against the bigots.
blog comments powered by Disqus