?

Log in

 
 
05 November 2008 @ 02:05 am
Thoughts.  
Tonight has indeed been historic. I have always been passionate about politics and the state of our world, but never before have I been this invested, this emotionally and personally involved in a major election. I've donated, I've proselytized, I've slapped stickers on my car and signs in my apartment windows.

Four years ago I saw this man speak at the Democratic National Convention. I saw him win the senate seat in his state by a landslide and looked into this charming, compelling, astounding individual. I thought to myself, "This man should run for President. This is a man I could vote for, happily and gladly." I may not agree with him 100%, but that goes for any other person on this planet - regardless of how close our beliefs may be, we are none of us exactly the same. This is a President (elect) whom I truly believe understands that concept. I believe, with all of my being, that Barack Obama will be a breath of fresh air for this country.

I don't expect immediate change. I don't expect the mountains to move and the oceans to swell and the world to suddenly be shiny and new. But I do expect this country to move in a more positive, progressive, open, and profitable direction. I expect it to become once again respected on the world stage, and I expect it to grow like it has not done in nearly a decade.



While I'm disappointed in California for Proposition 8, I have confidence that it will not last long. Much like the prior bans on interracial marriage in many states, I believe that within the next decade we will see sweeping changes on these -- as well as on other similar restrictions on civil rights. Eventually the Federal Government must step in - as that is one of the few uncontested jobs of that Federal Government: the protection of the civil rights of its people. The future is still bright, despite a dark spot at this moment. Hope has not ended.

I'm not, however, disappointed in California for Propositions 4 and 2, as well as the "bullet" train here in Los Angeles.

Prop. 4 was especially concerning for me, not only as a woman who could have been in that situation, but as one who has known many others who have been. Whether or not I was fond of all those people is beside the point - girls I have loved and girls I have hated have been in a position where they have needed to terminate a pregnancy and were unable to confide in and trust their parents. They were literally fearful for their future because of those parental figures.

True: in an ideal world, all teenagers would be comfortable enough in their home-lives, with their families, with their parents, to bring forward such a dilemma and deal with it intelligently and calmly, with their parents behind them. However, it is an unfortunate fact that there are so many who are not able to do so. We cannot operate under the assumption that these girls' families would be supportive of their decision to terminate an unwanted or unable-to-be-supported pregnancy. The last thing a 16 year old or a 14 year old needs is to deal with a child - especially if she herself does not feel up to the task. Education can be given, birth control can be provided, but in the end of things kids are still stupid and/or mistakes can still happen - regardless of protection. These girls need to have the ability to confidentially make the responsible decision as to whether or not they wish to bring a innocent child into the world to another teenaged mother with an uncertain future.

So thank you, California, for understanding (in this case) that not every family works the same, and that not all young teenaged girls have the same background and same life.

We'll work on that marriage deal.

 
 
 
kevbo_kevbo_ on November 5th, 2008 10:48 am (UTC)
It is enormously satisfying to watch every button, bumper sticker and donation succeed. How awesome it is to have been a part of it.

This man knows knows not to legislate morality. He knows quick fixes are just that. He knows change and well-being requires work, time, and intelligence not rhetoric, profit-taking and fear-mongering.

Yes we can. Now we will.
----

The future is indeed bright for gay marriage. I don't think Prop. 8 will stand very long without successful challenge. Change is coming whether all the homophobes like it or not.
A world tree and the last of threeidunn on November 5th, 2008 02:00 pm (UTC)
Yeah. Way fewer states this time around even had a gay marriage ban on the ballot (I think last time it was something like 11 and now it was 3). So ... change is indeed coming whether they homophobies like it or not!
mesodermthesourie on November 5th, 2008 11:57 am (UTC)
ahh i'm so happy ttoo :D florida voted yes on amend.2 which is pretty much like proposition 8 in cali and i'm so disappointed. when will people understand, whether they agree with gay marriage or not, that the government should not be involved in matters such as marriage
oic: al rokerboomstick on November 5th, 2008 01:51 pm (UTC)
So...California voted yes on Prop 8?? I was curious how that would turn out last night but forgot about it in the excitement of the election...

*runs to Google*
A world tree and the last of threeidunn on November 5th, 2008 01:58 pm (UTC)
Re: Prop. 4, what some people seem to forget is that the family can itself be the cause of a girl's pregnancy through incest, which happened to one of my sister's best friends. Really, confiding in the family can not just be uncomfortable or painful but downright dangerous. I'm glad to hear that measure didn't pass ... though it's weird for me to see that reproductive rights did well on various state ballot measures but not gay marriage. I guess the latter's one of the final frontiers for the moment.
Kuhkuh on November 5th, 2008 02:30 pm (UTC)
Did Prop 8 pass? Last I heard it was headed for narrow defeat. Oh god I hope it didn't pass.
Shikgonadsandstrife on November 5th, 2008 05:41 pm (UTC)
Eventually the Federal Government must step in - as that is one of the few uncontested jobs of that Federal Government: the protection of the civil rights of its people.

No no nononononono NO.
Madame de Pompadourmmepompadour on November 5th, 2008 06:11 pm (UTC)
Yes. The Supreme Court is there to overturn laws in states that are unconstitutional. The Federal Government is there to protect civil rights and mandate foreign policy. That is ALL they are really there for. Everything else can be state level if they ever get up the guts to do so.

There comes a time when a law is discriminatory toward a group of individuals based on a factor they cannot control. One that is biological and born-in. As they did forty years ago, the government must take action on these laws.

Edited at 2008-11-05 06:12 pm (UTC)
Shik: Jubal Harshaw - Stranger In A Strange Lagonadsandstrife on November 5th, 2008 06:22 pm (UTC)
You talk of "the government" as if it is some institution set up by nebulous forces to oversee all. It's not. Everyone is "the government", & the fact that people expect "the government" to "right wrongs" & the like means that they expect to disavow responsibility for their own actions...which then means that there's no action to be taken. But when action IS taken, people complain of "the government" sticking their noses too far into their business--which i agree, it should not be doing. Legislating social issues & morality is never the answer; it only adds to the crunch.
Madame de Pompadourmmepompadour on November 5th, 2008 06:32 pm (UTC)
We, the people, have not always been able to responsibly take care of the civil rights of minority groups. The individuals in those governmental positions of power on the federal level are there to protect the constitution. They have been elected to those positions because we trust them to responsibly do so - beyond what we as a collection are able to do.

You speak of 'the government' as some big scary monster that is 'sticking its nose' into your business. There are certain instances where the Federal Government stepping in are necessary - this is one of them. This is a civil rights issue, which has ALWAYS been one of the situations where the federal level has been accepted as being allowed to step in.

In the 1960s, people used your same argument to try and keep segregation and discriminatory marriage laws between the races. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Not for long. The role of the Federal Government is to protect civil rights, regardless of state law. It is THE fundamental purpose of the federal government. These are United States under a Constitution. A constitution that proudly defends the civil rights of the people under its mandate. Unconstitutional laws cannot be born under this umbrella of USA.
Shik: Lazarus Long - Future History seriesgonadsandstrife on November 5th, 2008 06:44 pm (UTC)
To be fair, the only "rights" a person has are to breathe, shit, & die....& the first one is somewhat negotiable. The rest are all constructs of an artificial nature that are granted, not guaranteed. Personally, I think that gays should get married. I think people should marry their sheep or their cars if they so like. But I don't think compulsory governmental legislation is the way to go about allowing for that. As for unconstitutionality, one can interpret that document in many ways so as to successfully defend one's own position. I've said it before, I'll say it again: compulsory social & moral legislation does not work, one either end of the spectrum. Forget about legislation & use other means. In fact, forget about government altogether,
Madame de Pompadourmmepompadour on November 5th, 2008 06:52 pm (UTC)
'Does not work'? I'm sorry, but all evidence is to the contrary (including the racial makeup of our newest President-elect). Without the Federal Government's RESPONSIBILITY to civil rights, he would not be able to be president today. Nor would his mother have been allowed to marry his father.
Shik: Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez - Highlagonadsandstrife on November 5th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC)
How much of that resulted from legislation, & how much of that resulted from evolving social attitude? I'd put my money on the latter a lot more than the former. There's always a way around legislation: drinking in international waters, definition of genetic lineage for miscegenation laws, other nations. Social attitude, custom, & beleif is a much harder thing to do a runaround.

By the way, I'm very much enjoying this mini-debate we're having. It's been a long time since i was involved in such friendly back-&-forth.
Shikgonadsandstrife on November 5th, 2008 09:44 pm (UTC)
Oh, & regarding constitutionality of same-sex marriage: I suspect the difficulty lays in the fact that Article IV, Section I of the Constitution is still in effect, even though when it was written the US was a loose confederation of effectively sovereign states--a status that has not been real since 1868 & the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which for the first time explicitly created to idea of the "United States citizen" rather than being a citizen of one's home state.
gracethatsaves on November 7th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC)
You have a very defeatist mentality about the country that we live in. Yes, those rights (although crudely stated) are not always universal in other countries. That said- part of the reason that our country is viewed as 'The Land of Opportunity", is that things are possible in America that are not in other areas. The Constitution is not the only document that our Government was founded on. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no mention of exclusive in that statement. Now I know people argue that they used that sentence towards oppressing women during women’s suffrage but look at how far our country has come. Without assembly and without protest, the Civil rights movement would have never occurred. Without the government listening to its people, we would have never evolved.

Our steps in social progress have directly affected our legislative progress. When a ‘minority’ group was thrust into the spotlight for excelling it was a way to begin tolerance. These days; human sexuality being such a huge part of our pop culture that our Legislation should have no choice but to step in and guide us in a more accepting direction. Morality and social behavior can be unique to an individual- but there must be guidelines to abide by. There is no way to force a small minded person to see a bigger picture. Sometimes the government needs to be involved in order to regulate.
Bre: GitS: ^_^catwoman980 on November 5th, 2008 06:06 pm (UTC)
This is fabulous, Stephanie. I miss reading you talk about things. I recognize that you're busy, so this isn't pressure to devote more time to the internet and less to your family. This is just appreciation.
moonlitrhapsody on November 5th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
Well said. Very well said. I agree wholeheartedly. *cheers*
Jessbrdwystarlet on November 5th, 2008 09:02 pm (UTC)
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Jessbrdwystarlet on November 5th, 2008 09:05 pm (UTC)
..and while I am so very, very disappointed in the result of Prop 8..I think that we have to acknowledge the fact that back in 2000 when this same measure was on the ballot, that only something like 23% of the ppl were for same sex marriage. Look how far we have come! I was even able to convince my parents to vote "NO" and that is really saying something. While this is a sad day for California, it is only a matter of time until each and every human being is granted their civil rights. How sad though that this is not the case at the moment..
tinkerbell_pt: BladeRunnertinkerbell_pt on November 5th, 2008 09:33 pm (UTC)
People all over the world felt emotional with his speech. I think that says it all.
go then, there are other worlds than thesekita on November 6th, 2008 12:11 am (UTC)
Yeah, I have a feeling you're right about Prop 8 not lasting for long. The fight is not over by far in that battle.