Discrimination or Not?

The passage of Proposition 8, which held that marriage was between a man and a woman and would not be valid for homosexual partners, has become- through no fault of its own- a contentious issue for one of the most vocal minorities in the US. Those who voted for the measure were largely racial minorities. Those believing that with the election of Obama, "change" would dramatically sweep the land and make everything better were rudely surprised by the nastiness of a minority that couldn't take failure as a reality. Now, there is some extremist and unfounded mutterings that racial minorities will suffer because of this.

Doubtful.

From the article:

It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve
restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with
the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others
say.

"We are past that as a realistic matter. We just elected an
African-American president, for Christ's sake," said University of California,
Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper, who also filed on behalf of gay advocates
in the original gay marriage case.

Even proponents doubt this. That kind of thinking is scare-mongering.

To backtrack a bit:

Why would the election of a partially black president whose soft-serve approach to tyranny, hard-core socialism and dubious associations with unrepentant terrorists magically fix everything? Is that a realistic or romantic expectation?

There is no state-sanctioned racism but there are instances of bigotry everyday. It is irrational and wrong to judge a person solely on their skin colour. Why disappointed protesters would refer to black voters as "n---ers" is beyond me. Perhaps the new closet to emerge from is the misanthrope one. As long as one tows the party line, you will be safe from slurs and attacks. If you do or say something contrary to that, then watch out!

As for the subject of marriage itself, should there be redefinition? To re-define something would eliminate its uniqueness and subject it to generality. It would no longer be for one purpose or sacred or special. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It was consecrated by whatever beliefs were held in the community and bound by law and custom. Marriage was a binding factor in society and even (don't laugh) the ecosystem. Imagine the carbon footprint from several households as opposed to one. Imagine the gene pool with several related spouses! Marriage stabilised families, beliefs, language groups and ultimately countries. Two intelligent adults- a man and a woman- with separate yet equally important roles- passed on values and other qualities for a new generation to carry on, even transport to another area. To put it colloquially, it was a gift that kept on giving.

Even if lawmakers could re-define marriage, would that make it less in the minds of the average citizen? There are still people alive to remember the "nuclear family". I doubt that would change no matter how decrepit public mores become.

If marriage is for like-minded adults, should it be permitted for trend-followers? Homosexuals are a minority- albeit a vocal one- in any country. There is no credible evidence to suggest their behaviour is inherent (unlike skin colour) or you wouldn't have former homosexuals. Not everyone in the gay community wants marriage. This would suggest that the pull for marriage is an attempt to curry favour or acceptance from the majority that has felt one way or another it no longer needs the binding commitment or sacrament (what have you) of marriage. "Let them be miserable!" some say. That is hardly a resounding opinion of a union that serves a community. "Love" is also a meaningless word thrown around in this debate. How many abusive boyfriends or neglectful mothers declare they love their girlfriends or children? That word doesn't help them much. Marriage is also not a right. Not everyone can- or should- marry. Let's not forget that homosexuals could marry, just not each other. It's a hairline difference, yes, but still valid in terms of semantics.

In the broader picture, Proposition 8 passed because a bulk of people weren't swayed by the con side. They saw something others did not see. Whether the "cons" like it or not, democracy worked. Brow-beating and bullying, even desperate legal pleas, can only go so far.


Post-Script: if you want to reply to this, please do, but nothing like: "go (expletive to the power of ten)" or "You're racist because you have the audacity to question a president whose approach to would-be Israel destroyers is weak!" Such replies will only appear in the "That Was the Year It Was" gag reel.