So the deed is done! seems that chickens got more civil rights out of the last California election than gays. But gays are not chicken-- they will fight on! Not only does the California Constitution now prevent an entire minority from enjoying a civil right of the rest of the populace, but due to the election we have Plessy v. Ferguson reincarnate.
Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), of course, being the 1896 US Supreme Court case upholding the "separate, but equal" doctrine regarding separate facilities for whites and blacks. Well this is exactly what we have here in California: Marriage for heterosexuals, civil unions for homosexuals. Those who support civil unions for gays as opposed to marriage would say that civil unions offer the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage under the law, so why complain? Those who oppose civil unions in favor of marriage for gays say that all rights, privileges and responsibilities are not quite the same. I've not studied these claims personally, but I need not in order to be opposed to this separate, but equal mentality of the state.
First, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) stopped nearly sixty years of de jure discrimination by overturning Plessy. This case was decided, in part by psychological evidence that determined that separate facilities for blacks and whites, made black children feel inferior to whites, as, in most cases, black facilities were inferior to white ones. An experiment determined that black segregated schoolchildren preferred to play with and attributed more positive characteristics to white dolls than black dolls. (Kenneth and Mammie Clark doll experiments)* [see footnote below] Aside from that, the fact that the government of the people as a whole, can make separate laws and/or provide separate facilities for said people based solely on race being inherently discriminatory also led to this landmark overturning of codified segregation. Substitute 'Gay' for 'Black' and the vehicle of discrimination from schools to marriage and here we prove the old adage that history repeats itself.
As I have said before, governments should unite and protect the people, not discriminate and separate its people. Yet, this is what is happening now. Instead of race, it is sexual orientation. Gays can no more change their sexual orientation, than blacks can change the color of their skin. Government should not punish, denigrate and/or discriminate against people in their natural state. Blacks or Gays are unlike, say, drug users or murders, in that the latter may be treated through psychology and/or medical science and become productive members of society. The former are born as such and are natural occurrences. The latter are social deviants and products of their environment, rather than their being being determined by genes or chromosomes. Skin bleaching or so-called sexual orientation conversion centers, do not truly change the person inside. One's skin may be lighter or one may be brainwashed to no longer outwardly manifest homosexual behavior, yet they remain black or homosexual inside. The former are how God or nature made them. They cannot change and though one need not embrace them, one must accept them for who they are and let them live and enjoy the same rights of the population at large. ** [see footnote below]
Segregation is wrong. Separate is not equal. Discrimination is evil.
Secondly, with concern to the amending of the state constitution, I think it is a travesty to let such an important document be altered by a simple majority of the people. The constitution should be the most revered document of the people. The constitution is not to be taken lightly. It should not be changed on a whim. It is the ultimate law of the land. It should stand for generations to come. A constitution is written for its people, place and time and it is true that some constitutions of the states of the world may contain discriminatory passages, these will be amended once society realizes the wrongs of its past. The law of the land, the law of the people, should not discriminate against any of its natural-born people. It is the ultimate authority over people and law. It is written and decided upon a vast majority of people or else it would not be much of a mandate for law and governance. Simple majorities mean a society is too divided on an issue. For a document to be the final word in a society, it should be accepted by the vast majority of people. Although 51% of the population are in support of something, that leaves 49% unhappy. This is too great a discrepancy for a stable democracy. Further debate, compromise or investigation is needed. To change the ultimate law of the land, a super majority should be required. Sixty-six percent would be better, but may I suggest 80%? Unanimity would be ideal, but in an un-ideal world, and on such a large scale, unanimity is unreasonable.
One cannot please all of the people all of the time. But if the vast majority approves of something, then that gives the remaining minority something to think about. Maybe then the minority is wrong, or maybe they know in their hearts they are right and need to migrate to another land that accepts their beliefs (because everyone deserves the right to live and think free, even their opponents). Or perhaps, they feel they are so in the right that they rebel against their oppressors for the greater good of the human race. Thomas Jefferson said that a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.
The recent amending of the California constitution was the result of a simple majority. This leaves too many people (based on percentage of registered voters who cast ballots) unhappy and risks civil unrest. My position is clear. This is discrimination 100%. Though I don't advocate immediate civil unrest, I support and have and will continue to protest. If the discrimination is not overturned in the next 4-6 years, and definitely if it grows, I deem it time for major civil disobedience. Yes, if 80% percent of the people passed the amendment, I'd not have such a strong will to protest as I would the urge to move to a different state or country. Yet I might still protest given my still uninhibited right of protest and my belief that I am morally right. But as it stands, a simple majority is too simple a solution for a complicated debate. A super- or ultra super-majority should be used to vote on a proposal to amend the constitution. Much like Massachusetts, I believe that there should be a waiting period of at least one election to have a second confirmatory vote. Also, I would have the state legislature confirm the vote as well--maybe even a review after 10 years or so time.
Keep government honest and healthy: protest or revolt!!!
*critics of the doll experiments note, that children of integrated schools, as well as children of intregrated schools who originally came from segregated schools also preferred white dolls to black dolls.
**there is research showing that birth order may determine a gay man's sexual orientation. The research shows that the more males to which a mother gives birth, the higher the chance of the male being homosexual. The thinking is, a male entity is a foreign one to a female body and therefore, the female host bombards the male entity with female hormones or chemicals, much like the human body bombards foreign viruses with antibodies to purge then from the host. The more males a mother has, the more the female body recognizes it and thus, sends an increasing amount of hormones or chemicals to the fetus as it develops, increasing the chances of it becoming homosexual or sexually confused. (as described in "For the Bible Tells Me So," documentary directed by Karslake, Daniel G.) Likewise, drug addicted mothers who are using during pregnancy will likely pass an addiction on to their babies. These are a couple of ways, in contrast to my argument, in which being gay or a drug addict may be a product of environment rather than being innate or natural.
