Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Life in a bubble...

OK. Please excuse this post...I just have to get this off my chest.

First off...I am so thrilled about the election last night. Obama gave an inspiring acceptance speech of hope and inclusiveness and the future. I was truly moved and so proud to be an American. I am certain that I will not agree with 100% of Obama's decisions, but I am excited to finally see a leader try to lift up the country.

Of course, the evening was not without disappointment. By a slim margin, Californians saw fit to single out same-sex couples and codify discrimination into our state constitution. (It is shocking to me that in California, you can amend the state constitution with a simple majority vote...that would seem to open up our constitution to the whims of populism.)

I know a young gay couple who live in LA. They rushed to get married last week...swept up in the same euphoria of hope that propelled to Obama to wide victory in California. Today, they woke up with their newly-inked marriage in limbo, because...well...what would we tell our children about THAT kind of relationship.

Yesterday, more than SIXTY PERCENT of Californians voted to protect the rights of farm animals. Only 48% thought the rights of same sex couples were worth defending.

Nevertheless, I will not let this setback tarnish my sheer joy of Obama's election. He demonstrates first hand that civil rights are worth fighting for. The gay community will get its day as well, as long as we keep treasuring our steps forward and learning from the inevitable steps back.

The world looks a little different under a bright blue San Francisco sky. We live in a bubble of hope.

5 comments:

wtfree3 said...

John - you may (or may not) be pleased to know that a columnist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch "feels" your pain, noting the exact same weird set of concern that the Californian voters seem to have applied to their votes. It's an interesting read. It's also interesting to see his note that the ban really doesn't change much in terms of legal protections (via civil unions) that are still in place. Is that true? You never saw it put in such terms when the issue was discussed.

BullBunky said...

Well, ya know, I do find that comforting. Its a very well written editorial. I certainly don't know all of the "legal" protections, but yes, California has very strong civil union laws. Although, I have never seen it put this way. Still, I think the overall point remains that the government certifies and recognizes the CIVIL portion of marriage, and should apply its definition of unions to all. I fully support the RELIGIOUS marriage definition to be (of course) defined by each religious institution. The gray area is due to the fact there are two types of marriage...one is protected by the State. And so, the argument moves along.

wtfree3 said...

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the business of certifying marriages and just define civil unions/divorces or whatever you want to call it. To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess, but still, if folks are going to be sensitive about who can marry, then perhaps government should be defining it. That way, each religion can do as they see fit.

I don't know all of the ramifications of such a change, but it seems like the sane thing to do.

BullBunky said...

Well, I happen to agree with you 100% there.

tarot readers said...

any way, obama has win ...hope he can do what he promised