![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaSomething has been troubling me about the "talking points" chosen by the
Constitution Defense League. I'm still volunteering to help them, since they
seem to be the only anti-2 game in town. But I have a hard time with
pandering to bigotry, and that seems to be part of the game plan.
This is a partly-misremembered paraphrase of the phone script from
Saturday's phone bank stint (you'd think, after repeating the same text
dozens of times for four hours, I could remember it more accurately. Maybe
it was my vague distaste for it that made me try to forget.
The amendment does not in fact deprive anyone of civil rights, that has
already been done. What it does do is ensure that no Missouri court can
determine that doing so was unconstitutional under the state constitution.
We were told to impress upon indecisive voters that failing the amendment
would not change anything about Missouri law, and would not be a vote to
support gay marriage. But I think that is untrue. Failing this amendment
will mean that the current law could be found unconstitutional if the right
case reaches the right court. And that is a consummation devoutly to be
wished! I think that is in fact the desire of many (though not all) the
amendment's opposition, and it's disingenuous of us to pretend otherwise. It
may gain us a little support for the cause now, but will perhaps bring a
backlash down when the inevitable Supreme Court case does materialize.
However, I do agree with the statement that the constitution should not be
used to strip rights from any group of people. The purpose of the US
constitution is to restrict the government, not the people. The Bill of
Rights was added to enumerate certain rights that the founders felt
particularly strongly about, but the most important one of all says that
just because a right isn't enumerated does not mean it does not exist!
Unfortunately, I'm not at all clear on what is or is not already contained
in the Missouri constitution. Which doesn't stop me from believing that it,
too, should not be used for discriminatory disparagement of rights.
I really think we'd do better to frame this as a separation of church and
state issue, and a freedom of religion issue. Putting a religiously-based
definition of marriage into the constitution (or any other law, in fact)
gives that religion the state's sanction. This is against all the core
principles of the United States. Why oh why can't we just define marriage as
a contract between individuals, to share their resources in specified ways,
and to divide them in other specified ways if the marriage breaks up or upon
the death of a member of it? If that means taking the word "marriage" out of
all laws of the land and replacing it with some version of civil unions for
everybody, that's fine with me. Let the churches (temples, mosques,
grottoes, etc) have the word "marriage", as long as it's the same way for
everyone there's no problem. In France, clergy do not have the power they do
here to enact civil weddings, and it's the civil one that gets you the legal
entitlements and entanglements. Everyone has to be married once in a civil
ceremony and again in a separate religious one if they so desire. Or
for that matter, I think they can choose the opposite: to be married in a
church but remain legally single.
I was also disturbed by the suggestion someone made that we should tell the
non-supporters "See you in November!" Note that it's not in the script, but
it was said. I believe it would have been unethical to say that, but I
certainly did not feel compelled to remind them when the vote really is.
I hadn't so much noted the phrase 'gay marriage' as a problem until I saw
someone's comment elsewhere this morning that she feels it is ipso facto
evidence of prejudice. I don't agree with that, but the use of a qualifying
adjective does imply some distancing, and potential prejudice. I'm not sure
the alternative phrase 'same-sex marriage' is any better, though. It still
defines and separates, like 'lady doctor' or 'black lawyer', or even
'interracial marriage' or 'interfaith marriage'. The defining aspect of any
marriage is that it is a commitment of love and support between people, not
what kind of people are in it.
[Selections from the US
Constitution. Italics mine, of course]
So. Even if the amendment passes in Missouri, the US Supreme Court could
strike it on the grounds of Article VI. And there is the reason Bush wanted
the FMA; it would have modified the meaning of every clause and amendment
quoted above. I find any attempt to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights
horrifying. I am delighted, of course, that the FMA failed to pass the
Senate, which keeps us safe from it for a time at least; I hope our
representatives continue to realize that.
Babbling on...I've yet to see any NO on 2 yard sign other than the one in my
yard and the ones at the CDL. I saw two "Yes on 2" signs yesterday. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
eleazar mentioned, they feature the bathroom icons for male and
female: "[M icon] + [F icon] = 2". I don't know whether they mean the
"result" of their equation to be Amendment 2 or two people. If Amendment 2,
well, duh. If two people, duh also. I mean, all sorts of combinations of
people can be counted in twos, but that has nothing at all to do with
marriage or anything else.
I keep wanting to find the logical fallacy in "1 man + 1 woman = marriage".
I am firmly convinced that no one in their right mind wants to say a
marriage can't be a man and a woman. All we're doing is making the
"equation" non-symmetric.
Change that equals sign to a subset operator, and I'm delighted to agree
with you.
I suppose that's enough out of me for now; I've spent nearly an hour at this
and I probably ought to get back to actual work.
Constitution Defense League. I'm still volunteering to help them, since they
seem to be the only anti-2 game in town. But I have a hard time with
pandering to bigotry, and that seems to be part of the game plan.
This is a partly-misremembered paraphrase of the phone script from
Saturday's phone bank stint (you'd think, after repeating the same text
dozens of times for four hours, I could remember it more accurately. Maybe
it was my vague distaste for it that made me try to forget.
| Hello, my name is Fiona and I'm a volunteer calling registered voters to talk about a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Constitutional Amendment 2 would ... permanent discrimination against gays and lesbians, using the state constitution as a tool. The thing is, Missouri already has a law making gay marriage illegal, but the amendment would write discrimination into the constitution, by depriving gays and lesbians and their children of civil rights (the right to visit each other in the hospital and the right to Social Security survivor benefits). We would never use the constitution to discriminate against groups of people for their race or religion, because discrimination is simply wrong. We believe the constitution is a place to preserve rights, not to take them away. Can we count on you to vote "NO" to Amendment 2, keeping our constitution the way it is? [If yes] Great! Thank you very much, and remember the vote is August 3, not in November! [If undecided] Remember that a NO vote is not a vote to support gay marriage, only a vote that the constitution is not a place to discriminate against groups of people. [If no]Thank you for your time, have a great evening. |
The amendment does not in fact deprive anyone of civil rights, that has
already been done. What it does do is ensure that no Missouri court can
determine that doing so was unconstitutional under the state constitution.
We were told to impress upon indecisive voters that failing the amendment
would not change anything about Missouri law, and would not be a vote to
support gay marriage. But I think that is untrue. Failing this amendment
will mean that the current law could be found unconstitutional if the right
case reaches the right court. And that is a consummation devoutly to be
wished! I think that is in fact the desire of many (though not all) the
amendment's opposition, and it's disingenuous of us to pretend otherwise. It
may gain us a little support for the cause now, but will perhaps bring a
backlash down when the inevitable Supreme Court case does materialize.
However, I do agree with the statement that the constitution should not be
used to strip rights from any group of people. The purpose of the US
constitution is to restrict the government, not the people. The Bill of
Rights was added to enumerate certain rights that the founders felt
particularly strongly about, but the most important one of all says that
just because a right isn't enumerated does not mean it does not exist!
Unfortunately, I'm not at all clear on what is or is not already contained
in the Missouri constitution. Which doesn't stop me from believing that it,
too, should not be used for discriminatory disparagement of rights.
I really think we'd do better to frame this as a separation of church and
state issue, and a freedom of religion issue. Putting a religiously-based
definition of marriage into the constitution (or any other law, in fact)
gives that religion the state's sanction. This is against all the core
principles of the United States. Why oh why can't we just define marriage as
a contract between individuals, to share their resources in specified ways,
and to divide them in other specified ways if the marriage breaks up or upon
the death of a member of it? If that means taking the word "marriage" out of
all laws of the land and replacing it with some version of civil unions for
everybody, that's fine with me. Let the churches (temples, mosques,
grottoes, etc) have the word "marriage", as long as it's the same way for
everyone there's no problem. In France, clergy do not have the power they do
here to enact civil weddings, and it's the civil one that gets you the legal
entitlements and entanglements. Everyone has to be married once in a civil
ceremony and again in a separate religious one if they so desire. Or
for that matter, I think they can choose the opposite: to be married in a
church but remain legally single.
I was also disturbed by the suggestion someone made that we should tell the
non-supporters "See you in November!" Note that it's not in the script, but
it was said. I believe it would have been unethical to say that, but I
certainly did not feel compelled to remind them when the vote really is.
I hadn't so much noted the phrase 'gay marriage' as a problem until I saw
someone's comment elsewhere this morning that she feels it is ipso facto
evidence of prejudice. I don't agree with that, but the use of a qualifying
adjective does imply some distancing, and potential prejudice. I'm not sure
the alternative phrase 'same-sex marriage' is any better, though. It still
defines and separates, like 'lady doctor' or 'black lawyer', or even
'interracial marriage' or 'interfaith marriage'. The defining aspect of any
marriage is that it is a commitment of love and support between people, not
what kind of people are in it.
[Selections from the US
Constitution. Italics mine, of course]
| Article. IV. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. |
| Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
| Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. |
So. Even if the amendment passes in Missouri, the US Supreme Court could
strike it on the grounds of Article VI. And there is the reason Bush wanted
the FMA; it would have modified the meaning of every clause and amendment
quoted above. I find any attempt to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights
horrifying. I am delighted, of course, that the FMA failed to pass the
Senate, which keeps us safe from it for a time at least; I hope our
representatives continue to realize that.
Babbling on...I've yet to see any NO on 2 yard sign other than the one in my
yard and the ones at the CDL. I saw two "Yes on 2" signs yesterday. As
eleazar mentioned, they feature the bathroom icons for male andfemale: "[M icon] + [F icon] = 2". I don't know whether they mean the
"result" of their equation to be Amendment 2 or two people. If Amendment 2,
well, duh. If two people, duh also. I mean, all sorts of combinations of
people can be counted in twos, but that has nothing at all to do with
marriage or anything else.
I keep wanting to find the logical fallacy in "1 man + 1 woman = marriage".
I am firmly convinced that no one in their right mind wants to say a
marriage can't be a man and a woman. All we're doing is making the
"equation" non-symmetric.
Change that equals sign to a subset operator, and I'm delighted to agree
with you.
I suppose that's enough out of me for now; I've spent nearly an hour at this
and I probably ought to get back to actual work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-07 09:53 am (UTC)It was a nice surprise to see you and your SO's at the meeting. Do you go often? I thought there was some great discussion (which is why I am commenting to this entry.) It really got interesting when we were discussing the meaning of marriage, etc. and this stupid amendment.
Anyhoo..this is my new LJ, in case you didn't know...I think I probably told you back when I killed off indigobynight, but don't recall. I realized when I wanted to comment to you about the meeting that I had never added you to the new one--do you mind if I do now?
Rebecca
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 04:12 pm (UTC)