I Protest Protesting
While I was on my blog break, the California Federal Appeals court struck down Prop 8, making same sex marriage legal (more on that later). I’ll save me thoughts on Prop 8 for a later discussion. Until then I have to point out an observation that I had as I watched through the coverage of this story: No matter what stance you take (I’m pro marriage equality, for the record), you can’t deny that gay protesters are WAY better at making signs than Christian protesters.
Here’s the proof:
Standard issue Christian protest signs…
Anti-Prop 8 and gay equality protest signs…
And my personal favorite…
If Christians were truly worried about “the sanctity of marriage” they would be taking to the streets demanding that adultery and divorce be outlawed.
We should at least pay as much attention to those issues.
You're right. Those signs are totally better. Pro marriage equality is an excellent saying as well. Definitely stealing that.
Agreed, we don't protest divorce or infidelity nearly enough.
I'm wondering how “homo sex” is a threat to national security. That one had me intrigued. I'm almost positive “hetero sex” has been much more of a threat to national security, but no one protests against that, either.
First off, I am a supporter of civil unions. But not gay marriage.
Proposition 8 is tricky. While I agree with the over-arching ends of what the people voted for, I am not a big supporter of ballot initiatives. Why do we have a legislature and Governor? They're supposed to handle such things.
As for the ruling and thoughts on gay marriage in general, I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote elsewhere:
The real problem here is not one of faith or religion. The real problem is one of the constitution and how this judge essentially said that the “right” to marry is protected under the 14th amendment because to prohibit it would deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
This is so wrong in so many ways. People (as well as judges) cite Loving vs. Virginia in an attempt to equate anti-miscegenation laws with homosexual marriage and that comparison is absurd. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the “same” particularly with regard to marriage and procreation. It also dismisses the plain truth that the constitution and common law define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and such treatment is extended to all men and women equally. Anti-miscegenation laws put into a place a racial classification on that right. As such black and white men and women were treated differently under the law and that was a clear violation of the 14th amendment.
To say that homosexuals are treated differently under the law is just wrong. Homosexual men or women are not prohibited by Prop 8 from getting married. To say that prohibiting men from marrying other men is “sex” discrimination completely defies all logic.
If a state legislature and Governor get together and through the legislative process, legalize gay marriage (like they did in Vermont), so be it. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least it would have taken place through that process.
As for protests, they have unfortunately become magnets for idiots, whether they are Christians, anti-war protestors, etc. People write outrageous things because they know people want to read and see outrageous things. Compare this to the peaceful protests of the Civil Rights era.
I'm Pro-Love and I'll stop there, but those signs are classics! If only people would read them and think of the truth on them instead of reading and laughing.
I'm definitely all about marriage equality here.
Ultimately, I just look at the Christians protesting and feel very, very certain that in 40 years, my grand-children are going to look back at those signs and shudder with horror at the vitriol and anger put forward toward a small subset of people. And with Christianity already in decline among young people, that is very worrisome to me.
Have you read the decision in question? It sounds, from this comment, that you haven't. That might be a good place to start: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf
Here's what David Link had to say about the decision:
“Here’s the only really striking thing about Judge Vaughan Walker’s opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Its 136 page length includes 108 pages of facts — 108 pages of dry, straightforward, meticulous, and ordered citations to the evidence in the trial.
It might be easy for a layperson to misunderstand that. This is not a sexy opinion. There are no rhetorical fireworks, no forging of new and creative legal theories, no soundbite-worthy quotes, and not a trace of grandstanding. This is a very competent and workmanlike opinion from a trial court judge who was doing his job.
That job is to (1) allow both sides ample and fair opportunities to present the facts in the dispute; (2) determine which are the most credible and relevant facts, given the existing law on the subject; and (3) apply those facts to that law in order to reach a decision about which side should prevail.”
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/32213.html
Actually, I have read it so the link was not necessary, thanks.
While it is long on facts, it is short on legal precedent. Walker did not even cite Baker v. Nelson which has standing precedent in case such as this. He didn't disagree with it or challenge it. He simply ignored it.
Judge Walker already addressed Baker v. Nelson in response to a motion for summary judgement. Therefore, he does not need to address it again in this ruling.
If you're interested, the transcript is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23170804/Perry-v-Schw... The portion concerned with Baker v. Nelson begins on page 75
My apologies, you are correct. Still, the legal issue of that can be presented to the 9th Circuit. In addition, I find Walker's citation of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas overriding any precedent set by Baker to be rather specious. While those cases did deal directly with 14th amendment protections related to gay people, neither had anything to do with marriage.
Seems to me there is a good case to make that Baker v Nelson is binding precedent in this case.
We'll find out soon enough.
Morality cannot be legislated. People try and try to establish “right behavior”, yet people seem to find their way into offending others and ruining their lives quite easily with or without laws. I wish the church could simply allow love and grace to speak louder than their crummy signs… sheesh, they can't even love one another very well.
I agree 100% on the inability to legislate morality.
I recently heard a stat about the number of youth that find the church irrelevant due to this issue. It was astounding. If I find it again I'll post it.
Pro-love is good :)
Just curious, why civil unions and not marriage?
I wondered the same thing about national security.
I didn't coin the marriage equality phrase but you're welcome to credit me for it :)
To be honest, I would rather the state get out of the marriage business altogether. I actually found it quite repugnant that I had to show my Pastor a marriage license from the state before he would (or could) agree to do the ceremony.
That being said, as long as the state still is invested in this, I think it has an obligation to adhere to the tradition of marriage that has basically existed throughout the history (another issue where Judge Walker was in error) of mankind. Marriage is the enjoining of a man and a woman. The state has restricted marriage in many cases that have withstood constitutional scrutiny – age, relationship, the number of marriages, etc. Such decisions show that marriage is not in fact, a constitutional right as some have declared.
Again, it's the reason I would wholeheartedly support states removing themselves from the business of “marriage” and have civil unions for everybody. Let the marriage part of the relationship be handled by churches and God.
oh my goodness – this made me laugh out loud.
I showed my dad – then we giggled together at the signs. Then he visited the XXX church site… then he went to Andrew Marin’s site.
((I’m smiling big inside)) Thanks Nicole… u rock :)
…also says Tony Campolo. That is the position he typically argues for too.
Thanks Nicole for posting all those wonderful protest signs. I’m celebrating my 35th anniversary with my partner in a couple of weeks. So we’ve been active for a very long time in the idea that lesbians and gays have truly loving and valid marriages. In fact, we just didn’t wait for anyone to validate this, we took it to the highest court in the world — God! That said, someone mentioned that black civil rights protests were not violent. I guess you don’t remember Selma, Alabama.
The thing that is unique about gays and lesbians is our incredible sense of humor, even as we are dealing with hellishly hateful people — always Christian fundamentalists it seems. The Christian fundamentalists never have humorous signs, they have come at us with their hate signs at just about every gay and lesbian freedom day parade I’ve been in going back to the 1980s.
Long story short, thanks for posting this. I found it deeply moving, and the Davey and Goliathe sign, well it made me cry… I loved that cartoon when I was a kid, and that sign got to me the most.
Jenny, this comment made me day :) You dad will love Andrew. He should check out the Gay Christian Network too.
Oh my goodness, 35 years! Congratulations!!! I’m so glad you came by and commented on this post :)
I love the Christians who go to the rallies to apologize for the other Christians. I think if we spent more time loving our neighbor and less time trying to legislate his/her behavior, this country and our world would be so much better, and we would actually be building God’s kingdom instead of an earthly one.