Your Days Are None the Better For What You Have Done

I woke up this morning at about 6:30 AM and I rubbed my eyes. They hurt. Everything near them hurt as well. They would continue to hurt until coffee was brewed.

There was a noisy queue for our house's single toilet and I joined it at the end. Everyone in front of me was wearing footed pajamas. Two-thirds of them asked to have their butts wiped. Two-thirds of them were disappointed. No one flushed. The water in the bowl was impossibly yellow by the time it was my turn. I told myself not flushing was better for the environment, then I made the water even more yellow. The sight of it would have surely burned my eyes had not closed them against the pain.

Three pairs of pajamas were exchanged for three sets of school clothes. Some people thought this was a better idea than others. Protests were made and ignored. I poured three bowls of cereal: Two bowls Frosted Mini-Wheats, one bowl Cheerios.

Later, school lunches and backpacks were passed out and shoes were wrestled on. I handed the car keys to Lila. It was her turn to hide them. Each morning, one child gets to run out first, unlock the car, and hide the keys somewhere inside. That's my way of ensuring at least one of my children goes to the car voluntarily. I can sling the other two over my shoulders if I need to. Even the eight-year-old. Lila always hides the keys in the glove box. I always know this, and she always knows I'll check at least five other places before I find them. This morning, when I opened the glove box, she screamed with joy at her own cleverness.

Nothing that happened this morning was affected by California passing Proposition 8. Had voters rejected it instead, my morning would have been identical. Proposition 8 has not touched me. Making gay marriage illegal in California has left me unaffected. My days haven't changed.

But listen, 52% of California: Back when gay marriage was legal, your days didn't change, either. When there was marriage equality in your state, your mornings transpired exactly the way they had before. Your head probably hurt before your morning coffee. Your kids probably protested getting dressed. It's even possible that your daughter also hid your keys in your glove box, and when gay marriage was legal, she still squealed with joy when you found them.

You didn't need to vote away a people's right. Your days are none the better for it. Your days are none the better for what you have done.

Comments

[Erin]

One thing I learned from law school is that the legal definitions of words can carry a lot of power in our system. My day absolutely has not changed because of Prop 8. I do the dishes, I change diapers, I cook dinner, stay up late reading blogs, and go to bed. However, I think we are surely headed for a long road of judicial interpretation that will have lasting effect on our legal system. Who should decide what "marriage" means? The populace? The judiciary? The state legislatures? Marriage law has traditionally been within the realm of the states. What happens when the definition of "marriage" varies from state to state? Are you still married when you go on vacation? When you move to a temporary location for 6 months? If you own land outside the state, will it go to your partner when you die? If you are hospitalized while traveling cross-country, will your partner have visitation rights? These are fundamental issues that the country will face and be forced to resolve. Depending on what courts/judges are involved, the answers to these questions may hinge on the definition of a word. And the precedent that is set on the word "marriage" will affect how we determine other issues as well. Maybe one day I will find that my day is different...I don't know. We need to take a look at our system and figure out how to answer these questions. But please let us consider that there are legal issues at play here that might influence voters (and Churches) who truly do not have hate in their hearts.

[Kathy]

You know what, Brian? You are really wrong here. It is true that my days didn't change when gay people could get married, but they ABSOLUTELY changed when Prop 8 passed.

You see, our family got MAD.

We believe that it is unacceptable to quietly continue with our lives when we see injustice in our community. We worked against Prop 8, but didn't really expect it to pass anyway...

So when we woke up and realized that 52% of our friends and neighbors voted to discriminate against families who love each other, we were shocked out of our complacency. If all the readers of your blog and all the readers of their blogs decided to ACT as well as comment, then I doubt CA's constitution will be amended for long.

Are you reading this? Do you believe Prop 8 discriminates? Please, POST ABOUT IT ON YOUR OWN BLOG! Live in California? Contact your legislator and pay close attention to how the supreme court justices rule in upcoming court cases (because ya' know we vote every 12 years to continue their terms!) Go to a rally against Prop 8. No rally near you? Organize a family march for civil rights in your neighborhood!

Oh! And keep up the good work, The Dad! We love to laugh and cry with you.

[Kathy]

Erin, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution sort of got chucked out the window with Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act. As it stands currently, you MAY NOT be considered married if you are, say married to a same-sex partner in Massachusetts and vacationing in California.

Traditionally, the populace, the legislature, and the judiciary _all_ have a role in definitions of issues that affect our daily lives. And when the populace and legislature choose to discriminate, it is up to our courts to uphold equal protection under the law. The constitution trumps all.

I am a fan of states' rights. (Heck I was raised in Texas where we learned in history class that we retained the right to succeed when we joined the union!) But I believe strongly that the civil rights issues here outweigh the states' rights to decide what marriage is to them. This was the case in Loving V Virgina in 1967. I would assert that it is the case now.

You are absolutely right that these issues raise a lot of complicated questions. However, those questions should not prevent us from doing what we believe is right.

In peace and respect,

[dawnmski]

This is a beautiful post. So well written and so true.

[Victoria]

Well said!

[elisava]

i don't understand comparing the election of barack obama as compared to the human rights of same sex marriage. yes, obama has been elected as president, and yes, that is a done deal, as it would be if he was white, or a woman, or a green-skinned orion. he is the best man for the job. that is beside the point, part of our elecotral process, and not pending on a discourse about gay marriage.
ths discusion of whom can marry whom is a bigger problem of how we recognize citizenship it the rights these folks have as tax-paying, full citizens of the united states. it was not so long ago that a black/white couple could not obtain a marriage license, or that a woman could vote. seems a litle arcaic?

american, you seem angry. is that because you cannot back up your position except for to say that, "it has always been this way" or "the bible defines marriage as between a man and woman"? do you seriously think there will be rioting in the streets if a gay couple is alowed full marriage rights? that our "momral compass" will spin? or that our (your) previously hetro chidren will say, "wow, i never realized i could marry my same-sex friend! let's do that!" come on.

when the weak are confronted with facts, they piss offand run. do you have other facts that we are missing?

oh, and ps, i know i can't spell worth a damn, plus i'm usually got one of your all american hetro babes on my lap while i write. although i'm sure i should be baking bread or doing some other womanly thing instead of posting (btw... my hubby is retired air force, and also btw, i have a college degree) on my lap, screwing up my post.

how do you say it? oh yeah.

peace.

[Mauigirl52]

This was a very well said post - echoing everyone else who already said this.

I hope the lawsuits that have already been filed to reverse it are successful.

[Kimberly Chapman]

Exactly.

Let's hope it can be overturned.

Thank you for posting this.

[JO]

Well said, The Dad.

[Sky Bluesky]

Brilliant and eloquent. It's my first time here, but I will definitely be back. Thanks for putting into words what so many of us were feeling on election day.

[heidi]

I wholeheartedly agree. I posted about this a few days ago. Having worked in Malibu for 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion that too many days in the hot tub has depleted enough brain cells to heighten the difficulty in reading the double negative ballot of : VOTE YES FOR NO!

[Amy]

Someone who forgot to sign--I think from context that it was Kate--wrote:

And if another group alters the definition of something that I hold sacred, then yes, I am absolutely affected.

I totally know the feeling, because 52% of the voters of my state just said that my marriage is not sacred.

You know what? I don't give a rat's patootie if they think it's sacred. To be with people who share my idea of the sacred, I go to church. There, we more or less agree, and one of the things we agree on is that my marriage is as sacred as any other loving commitment between people. At other churches, people have very bizarre (to me) ideas of what is sacred. For example, some of them think that the statement "the earth is sacred" is Satanic. !! Well, whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't keep me from saying it, they're entitled to their opinion. And they can't keep me from saying it, thanks to a handy dandy thing called the First Amendment.

So, I'm sorry that your marriage is so easily threatened by what other people think. But, you know, I think you'll be fine. I mean, I'm sure you know people who think it's appropriate to beat their spouses black and blue, and that doesn't make your marriage less sacred, does it? And I'm sure you know people who think marriage is a really bad idea, but that doesn't affect your marriage, does it?

Your line of argument is manufactured in order to make the only case by which the state can withhold a fundamental right: by showing that others will be harmed by its exercise. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, and therefore the state has a compelling interest in protecting your nose, it may limit my right to swing my fist. But before you call in the police powers of the state to back you up, you need to do more than just say "ouch"; you need to show that your marriage is harmed, or children are hurt, or any one of those so-called arguments that keeps being made. In fact, the Supreme Court spent 120 pages arguing that there is not a compelling interest requiring the state to make same-sex couples an exception to its guarantee of equal protection.

If you are concerned about "redefinition," I strongly recommend a book called What is Marriage For? It is an excellent, readable history of all the purposes marriage has had through the centuries. However, I warn you that if you're not prepared to hear that marriage has been redefined many times--including being redefined from a simple matter of property law into the loving bond that you now consider sacred--you should avoid this book.

What makes me laugh is the people who say "I believe in the Bible and the Bible says marriage is only for one man and one woman." The Bible, in fact, tells us that God commands people (um, I mean men--women, in the time the Bible was recorded, were clearly more property than people) to be polygamous and, if that wasn't working to produce enough offspring, to rape their servants to produce some more. In other cases, there is no command from God but the polygamy and rape are carried out by God's hand-picked chosen holy men. (See Genesis 16:1-4 and 30:1-24 for a couple of examples.) So we don't even agree on what the Bible says. Which is yet another reason that we don't look to some people's interpretations of the Bible in order to define civil marriage.

Kate, hold sacred what you hold sacred. That's very important. Just stop worrying about what other people hold sacred. And if you can't stop worrying about it, at least stop passing laws against it. You and your church can decide what is sacred for you and my family and our church will decide what is sacred for us, and when either one of us wants to get a civil marriage, we'll leave our churches out of it and go to the town clerk's office.

[Ella]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

post this in your blog LD, more people should see it. for me his words describe my feelings on this.

[CJ]

I agree with ShredderFeeder. Tolerance implies some defect in the other person. How about if we respect each other instead?

Amy - Great response to Kate. I love the swinging your fist at her nose analogy. Perhaps Prop 8 should be extended to exclude people with certain shapes of noses from that protection.

I read all the comments, but I have yet to see an anti-gay rights argument that I respect. I guess I'll try to tolerate them instead.

[Phil]

Standing at the end of the line to yellow your comments box with apparently superfluous praise. Very nicely written.

[Desirai]

This is so beautiful :(

It is so sickening what people do and say these days..

[alex]

Nice article. As Bill Maher said, it's ironic that 70 percent of the people who voted to ban gay marriage were black. I guess they forgot what it was like to live without certain civil rights.

[Amy]

In my long rant, I not only forgot a few commas, I forgot to say, YOU ROCK, LOOKY, DADDY! This was so eloquent, and included smart parenting advice too! (*files away car key idea for when the munchkin is a couple years older*)

LOL to CJ on the tolerance.

A slight correction, Alex. It's not that 70% of Yes on 8 voters were black. 70% of black voters voted Yes on 8. (African Americans are a pretty small sliver of the CA population, compared with Asian, Latino and White voters. If none of them had voted at all, the outcome of the proposition would have been the same.)

I take your point, but let's not pick on black voters. We could say the same thing about Mormons and Catholics, both of whom have been subject to persecution within recent memory.

[Rich]

that was very well put.. and clever! Well said!

[Susan]

This was the first time I've read your blog and the first time I've ever left a comment on a stranger's blog. Thank you.

[R]

Just wanted to add my "Yes. Thank you. Well done" to the chorus.

[SingleParentDad]

Brilliant post, and quality find, both you and your keys, and me and your blog!

As a Brit I've struggled to understand how, a supposedly progressive country could pass such a vote, and in such a big state.

It has yet to get much coverage here, USA has stopped to watch Obama's every move it would seem from here.

[saint]

You may change your mind when your kids get the compulsory sex ed "preparing for anal sex, enema or no?"

Or when husband runs off with boyfriend or wife runs of with girlfriend, sues for custody, gets it and then the state amends you kid's birth certificate to wipe the other parent off the map.

Or maybe someone else's boy child grows up and runs off with boyfriend and then gets your daughter to be egg factory and incubator of a kid for which you won't be grandparent.

Hey but if your boychild wants to bonk your girlchild that's OK, they love each other unconditionally right?

The colour of one's skin does not make a marriage, but it does take a man and a woman.

Rational restrictions on marriage are just that: rational restrictions not indiscriminate discrimination.

But heyas long as you are OK, and it never happens to you (like you know it never will, right?) the world which you build for your kids and their kids can get stuffed.

Enjoy and treasure your children while you can. They may not be thanking you in the future.

[Slim]

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love . . .

[Jen]

"You may change your mind when your kids get the compulsory sex ed "preparing for anal sex, enema or no?"

Um.... You're aware that it's not just gay men that have anal sex right? And even if they were, why would allowing gay marriage cause anal sex etiquette to be taught in schools? I'm pretty sure that anal sex is happening right this very moment between gay (and straight) couples and yet for some reason no one is bursting into my son's classroom "teaching" anal sex. Go figure.

And for what it's worth, I would rather have 100 children who are gay than one who would vote yes on Prop 8.