February 16th, 2004

protestgwen

Proposition 22, revisited.

I was in California for the sad passing of this act. I remember the ads, "A marriage is for the children it produces, so homosexual marriages have no need for recognition." Yes, this was the argument I heard time and time again. Forgetting for a moment that many do have children (a friend of the family and her partner just adopted a second child), my response was always one of screaming at the radio, "THEN WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK I SHOULD GET MARRIED???"

So, anyway, now that the issue is brought back into the light by the rewording of the San Francisco marriage documents (wow, sly trick there, I admire), there's been the outcry of, "People voted overwhelmingly against this! It violates Proposition 22!"

Ok, so, I have a couple of points here.

1) Proposition 22 was written in response to Vermont's Civil Unions, and was meant to invalidate out of state same-sex unions or marriages. Now, I thought that it perhaps was worded to show this specifically, but unfortunately the wording was clever enough to encompass in-state marriage as well, as can be seen here:

This measure provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

So, the battle for this one will be strong and mighty.

HOWEVER, 2) The overwhelming majority was because of the south. In San Francisco, the overwhelming majority was 68.1% against, 31.9% for. I'm not going to tally the results in this pdf county by county right now, but IIRC, the Bay Area was something like 60% against. So, in fact, the city's populace is likely applauding Newcom's decision. Reading through some of the articles favoring the conservative groups find those groups surprised that they don't have more local support. Well, duh. But don't worry, you're getting cries of support from Southern California.

And people wonder why I advocate splitting that damn state up.
  • Current Mood
    cynical cynical