milk

gus van sant's epic biopic about openly gay san francisco city supervisor harvey milk opens tomorrow amidst a backdrop of serious tensions between the lgbt, (lesbian, gay, bi, trans,) and family values communities. you say you are anachronistic for the '60s, that you missed out on the civil rights struggle, didn't get to march to selma? you are interested in social justice?

enter the fray if you will but know that there is a real and valid correlation between the civil rights movement of dr. martin luther king jr. and the civil rights movement of harvey bernard milk. the gay community has not suffered the indignity of slavery or jim crowe laws but they have suffered indignity, most notably a lack of civil rights.

back in 1978 harvey milk worked to oppose proposition 6, (the briggs initiative.) the prop called for any openly gay teachers or public school employees to be fired, based on the idea that the word gay was a synonym for pedophile. milk vigorously opposed this legislation even citing the overwhelming numbers which showed most pedophiles are heterosexual.

30 years ago suddenly seems like 30 days in the context of this conflict between those who who seek equal rights and protections under the law regardless of sexual preference and those who would limit the rights of a fraction of society based on just that; sexual preference.

in 1978 it was prop 6 that represented the battle ground and rallied the troops on both sides. in 2008, prop 8 passed eliminating the legal right to same sex marriage and sparking a fierce struggle between gay rights advocates and those who are sometimes referred to as the family values group but who are perhaps more accurately defined by their fervent religious affiliation, which crosses over between various sects and denominations.

since prop 8's passage three weeks ago, the two sides have been at each other's throats. protests have been widespread and will continue. this struggle both mirrors that struggle and is a continuation of it. one side seeks the liberty of equality. the other side seeks to keep a secular society from legitimizing a symbolic union between two people of the same sex because it is considered sinful and anti-christ.

perhaps you are not interested in participating in the civil rights struggle of your day; today. that is certainly your prerogative. still, i recommend you gain a solid education on what is at stake as well as some of the history of the movement and the struggle. furthermore, since gus van sant, a great director even if his work has shown a certain hit or miss quality, commanded a large budget and directed the film, thereby setting an expectation for a high quality film, (film being the art form of our age,) and sean penn, another great director/actor/artist, portrayed the fallen leader, this is an important film if ever there were one.

early reviews suggest you will be highly entertained even as you are educated.

discrimination by any other name...

still discrimination.

this prop 8 thing here in california is bugging the hell out of me. i object to those who favor it on moral grounds. that's right, on moral grounds.

this kind of discrimination is acting like a sort of super x-ray vision light for me, illuminating the bigots and hypocritically religious among us. is your church in favor of prop 8? i know there are plenty of church's opposed to the proposition including mega-church pastor rick warren. (perhaps his purpose-driven life is similar to ted haggard's in its mission to stamp out homosexuality.)

the united church of christ in berkeley and the davis united methodist church as well as all saints episcopalian church here in pasadena, among others, are all opposed to prop 8. and good for, (and on,) them. it seems to me churches should be about love, not hate, inclusion, not exclusion, tolerance, not intolerance, harmony, not strife. by favoring prop 8, religious communities err, plain and simple.

when one thinks about slavery, to include its acceptance here in the united states for nearly 100 years, it is valuable to think about those who accepted it. many of the pilgrims and those who populated the u.s. in the early part of its existence were of a pious nature. surely in those days those people rationalized enslaving people just as ours rationalize legislatively discriminating against gay couples who wish to marry. that is a fair and apt comparison.

nowadays i guess the mormon church and pastor warren and those others who favor prop 8 would freely admit that slavery was immoral. (this is not to say only the religious were in favor of slavery or are in favor of prop 8. it is simply those i am taking exception to at the moment and surely the religious groups are leading the charge to pass prop 8 today.)

the idea that gay people should not be allowed to enter into a legal union of two consenting adults seems to be rooted in religion. in response i refer to thomas jefferson and this sentence from his famous letter to the danbury baptists of connecticut:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. -thomas jefferson

the wall of separation jefferson conjured protects the various faiths as much as it suggests they should keep their beliefs away from the public sphere. (one would think the mormon church would be especially sensitive and considerate of this point in light of the persecution they have endured.)

one other point i want to make on this subject regards the commercials in favor of passing the proposition. they have highlighted a couple from massachusetts talking about how their child was subjected to teaching about gay marriage in school. laws in california differ from those in massachusetts and because state law requires schools to inform parents before sex or other sensitive issues are discussed, and parents have an opt-out clause which allows them to pull their child from any classroom in which a subject or curriculum they do not want their child exposed to is taught before the subject in question comes up, this idea that children will be taught about gay marriage should in fact be a non-issue.

lastly, regardless of how you may vote next week, please do get out there and exercise your right to vote.

proposition 8

Proposition 8 - Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment.

prop 8 if passed will overturn the california supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (in fact, the state supreme court's decision on may 15, 2008, merely made 2000's prop 22 unconstitutional on the basis it violated the equal protection clause of the california constitution.) $40 million is being spent to influence the 16.2 million registered voters of california on this issue.

those who support the amendment, which would in effect put a stop to gay marriages, are suggesting that the insititution of marriage is being threatened and that if the proposition is not passed, churches could lose their tax exempt status, public schools might start teaching gay marriage and/or people could be sued over their personal beliefs. "it's no longer about tolerance," according to supporters of the initiative.

those opposed to prop 8 contend that the proposition does not mention education and would not force churches to do anything. "california's laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

the kinsey report may have intimated that 10% of all male humans tend to be homosexual and 5% of females, but more conservative estimates suggest the numbers are more likely about 4% and 2% respecticvely, world-wide and across all times. so again, by conservative estimate, perhaps one of every 33 people in the state of california is homosexual and would thereby be discriminated against by this initiative to ban gay marriage.

this initiative, along with the obama versus mccain race for the white house, is going to energize the vote in california on november 4th. i have driven past churches with huge signs unfurled from second story balconies urging voters to support prop 8. today i saw a homemade sign in the window of a trailer park that said something to the effect of: marriage should be about love, not gender. vote no on prop 8.

howard f ahmanson jr has put $900,000 of his own money into supporting prop 8. (it is not the first time ahmanson has put his money where his values are in fighting for conservative values.) money is prominently involved in our political struggles because it works, which of course infuriates some people and leads to discussions about campaign finance reform and the like. it is difficult to tell someone how they cannot spend their money and while i am not opposed to that fight, i see it as for another day. what is important now is not to be swayed by the money. every voter in california should vote their conscience on proposition 8.

that said, one should be sure they have uncovered their real conscience before proceeding based on their initial thought. i have read recently of mormons who are defying the mormon church in protest of its stance on this amendment. (the church is officially in favor of prop 8.) i have also read of at least one catholic priest who has risked his job in order to stand up against prop 8. aside from the episcopalians, it seems most churches are officially in favor of the ban. you do not have to be.

jesus was known to hang out with, or minister, to the sinners in his time and place. so if god does indeed hate fags, or to put it a bit more mildly, if homosexuality is in fact a sin, it would seem a couple of christian values are contending with one another. by ministering to harlots and the other downtrodden the pharisees took exception to, jesus as much as preached tolerance by example.

prop 8 is about discriminating against a segment of society, perhaps two of 66. the other 64, or 32 couples, may marry, while this one couple, (who is gay,) is denied the benefits of marriage under the law. is that loving your neighbor? is that fair? is that doing unto the least of your brethren as you would have done unto you?

the benefits under the law may be health care through an employer to one's spouse, or the right to make a decision about that person if they are severely disabled to do so for themself. these are important things.

some may prefer civil unions to marriages for gay people, which does deal with the nuts and bolts of the issue by affording equal rights under the law. in california's case, however, prohibiting gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional as it violated equal protection clauses. it is prop 8 which would add language to the state constitution defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

again, is that fair? if three of 100 are gay, is it reasonable to say to them, "you are not entitled to your own version of the same institution so many of the rest of us have?" it's not like those who would marry are out to commit crimes.

tolerance is about allowing for differences. for example, i make a point of never discriminating in any way against those who would eat spinach. i would never do something so gross and disgusting but for those who would and do, (like my wife,) as foreign as i may consider them on some level, i tolerate their love of the leafy green.

perhaps a better comparison would be to conjure those who would discriminate in this way, by banning gay marriage. i am not in favor of discriminating against them in any way, even though the behavior may be in my book, much like a sin is in the christian's book. i am not worried though that they will take over my world and force me to go to church or hate gay people or anything of the sort. i believe in the united states constitution and the separation of church and state and therefore, i am comfortable with the idea that i can practice tolerance ad nauseum without any real repercussion to me. since tolerance makes me feel good, since tolerance makes me feel like i love others and respect differences, it is simply a plus plus for me to stand in favor of tolerance, and squarely against prop 8.

i will vote no on prop 8 and i encourage all californians to do the same.