What Yes to Proposition 8 Means to Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi

Oh California.  Really?  You had to vote Yes to Proposition 8?  You had to invalidate gay marriage in California?  But Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are adorable.  And non threatening.  And your marriage is totally valid even if gay people are married.  Really.

Everybody look at the date.  I know, its November 6th and that means MamaPop has to be done talking about politics.  Right?  Right? 

Maybe not.

Looks like Ellen and Portia and Star Trek's George Takei and Brad Altman won't be married for much longer.  Attorney Mathew D. Staver, who has argued before the California Supreme Court against same-sex marriage, said he's confident that the state's 18,000-plus gay marriages will be annulled. He intends to argue that "constitutional amendments are retroactive."

But Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is taking this to court.  "It would be almost unthinkable to retroactively take away somebody's marriage status – it would be completely unprecedented and it almost defies description."

It's now up to the California Supreme Court which will hear the case.  They previously voted 4-3 in favor of gay marriage.  Shannon says he will argue that Proposition 8 be set aside altogether, on the grounds that state voters don't have the power to make such a sweeping change to their constitution – especially one that calls for discrimination against a minority group.  This case is a question of first impression, which means that there is no legal precedent to predict how it will turn out.  But I hope he is right.

I'm not barred in California, but if I was, I would be flying out to California to argue this with him.  For free.  That is how strongly I feel about this issue.  Or maybe some of the many celebrities supporting defeat of Proposition 8 could pay my way.  I think Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have the money. 

source

Comments

[Diane]

Amendment 2 (gay marriage ban) passed with over 60% here in FL. It's just upsetting on so many levels. This just goes to show you it's not entirely the religious right that is voting this nonsense through. This bigotry exists everywhere, including within my own family. It has been a point of contention several times. My parents seem to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's just how it is. No religious reasons, have several gay friends, honestly truly believe they have no ounce of discrimination in them ... just "how it is." (Of course, my mother also told me that *my* generation doesn't take marriage seriously like *hers*. Which, um ... Mom? I don't have a single friend my age with married parents. I'm 27 and don't have a ton of friends who are even married yet. I don't think it's MY generation ruining marriage, mmmkay?)

[Barbara]

This may expose my ignorance, but hey, I'm good at that.

What I don't understand is why the government is sanctioning marriage anyway. What I mean is that I think civil unions should be the extent of the government's say, and it should not be based at all on a sexual relationship. For example, my brother is a widower. If my husband died and we decided to move in together so that the kids could have someone at home while the other worked, why couldn't we have some kind of domestic union in order that our kids and the non-working partner be covered by insurance, inheritance, etc? Obviously the union could be as easily dissolved as a marriage if need be.

As far as I can understand, the point of civil marriage is for the legal protection of your partnership with another. The sacramental part is between those people involved and God. So I guess what I'm saying, is let people choose who they want to make a life with and stay out of their sex life. Any takers?

[jennifer]

i'm a taker. well said barbara!
thanks for breaking down what's going on in CA jodifur. we've made strides on some fronts this election day, but took some steps back on others, unfortunately.

[veronica]

Barbara I totally agree. I think we need to seperate Church and State in a big way here and I think that's part of what muddies the water for people.

[sweetney]

all of this stinks.

however, a glimmer of hope: just like to point out Obama's victory speech was a very unifying one that included mention of how all people, including "gay and straight" people, are united in this country (i'm weakly paraphrasing). i really think/hope that Obama is going to come through for the gay community and not let BS like this stand.

[Linda]

My uncle was gay and lived in Hollywood. I was so excited when gay marriage was first allowed in CA and was sad that he couldn't had lived to see it (he died from HIV complications). But now? I am so angry I'm shaking. My uncle deserved happiness with his partner as much as I do with my husband. If people are right and our purpose in our lives is, in fact, to pursue life and all its benefits, we are denying a great deal of our community their own pursuits.

[AmandaG]

Reading the information supplied by the people for Prop 8 makes you wonder how people can think this way. From ProtectMarriage.com:
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."
These are people with hearts and love who want to express it. Why should they be denied because it's to another person with the same body parts?

[Robyn G]

Barbara - you're so right. I had already believed believed that gay couples should be able to have the same civil unions (call it unions, or marriage, or civil eggplants, whatever you want, and leaving the church completely out of it, of course) that hetero couples do. I had not considered the type of practical union you propose, but it makes perfect sense, and should be allowed.

Diane - you're right. It's not just the Religious Right. What is going ON??

[Peeved Michelle]

The CA state attorney general has said that in order for something to apply retroactively in this state that there must be specific language to that fact. Prop 8 had no language that would apply it retroactively. He has said he will defend the rights of gay couples who are already married. Additionally, he will also defend the validity of Prop 8 against lawsuits, as is his duty to do so as attorney general.

[Suzy Q]

I'm in Forida too, where Amendment 2 passed. Same thing as Prop 8. I wish to hell the government would stay out of marriage.

[ND]

What's hilarious is that the huge push on Prop H8 came from Mormons. Talk about fucked up marriage, look at their past. Bunch of bloody hypocrited, and Barbara, you couldn't have said it better. Whether or not a couple can be married by a particular faith should be up to that faith or to individual churches, and not goddam state or federal governments. I have hope that since this was passed on a simple majority and not at least 60%, it will be considered only a revision and overturned by the courts. Take that bigots!

[ndc]

I'm one Californian that voted NO on Prop 8; and I'm saddened that it went the way it did. The proponents of 8 put up a hell of a fight... one morning on a 35 mile commute to work I counted nearly 50 "Yes on 8" signs. everyone of them pissed me off. I understand that in a democratic society, the people should have the right to help dictate the laws they want, but this is just stupid; the government has no right to declare who can and can't be happy. What ever happened to the pursuit of happiness?

[Rickey R]

Ok, I think the passing of this bill just goes to show that all is not picture perfect in America, baby steps I suppose, A half black president today,god, who knows, maybe someday a gay,single mother,jewish,president.
It is disappointing, please all of you in California, come up to BC Canada, we will gladly accept you with open loving arms!

[Scout's Honor]

Funny I'm watching Ellen as we speak and have been in a bit of a flame war where Republicans were blamed for prop 8 passing. So to beta a dead horse...Paraphrasing a a post on my blog today:

Prop 8 passing made me want to vomit. I just had a couple friends get married there and now I guess their marriages never were?

My almost entire farking family voted for it. They're Mormon and the top of the church told them they needed to have 30 people from each ward work on the election 4 hours weekly. Imagine that manpower harnessed. I had my non-political older sister who had my Dad fill out her ballot book until she was 25 (now her husband) try to challenge me on prop. 8. I shut her down mainly because, honey, I live in Washington, not California. She didn't seem sure it wasn't a national vote.

Gah!

Then there's my mother who brought it up. My one brother-in-law who was canvassing neighborhoods putting yes prop 8 door hangers on the door with his 15 year old son. There there was another brother-in-law who tricked out his Facebook with prop. 8 avatars and pics. My baby sister who's status on Facebook said she joined the yes on prop 8 coalition.

At it's most elemental, they believe their rights are being attacked. They believed if they didn't resist, they would have law suits forcing them to marry homosexuals in their temples or face discrimination law suits and loss of their non-profit status.

Yes, yes, this sounds like fear mongering. No way it would happen right? Make a US bishop marry two lesbians in his cathedral? Have two gay men marry in their temple? Then it spreading to classrooms...

Honestly, I told them they were full of shit and then I read this NPR:

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

NPR is pretty reputable. I see their point. They kinda were right. They can be sued and forced to go against their religious beliefs. Gay rights shouldn't trump any religious rights (no matter how you or I view those repugnant freedoms). Can't they coexist?

Then, I said wait a minute. If it's about not getting sued and their rights, why didn't they delineate their religious rights and protect their rights in prop 8 instead of trying to take away someone else's rights in the form of outright banning gay marriage?

Then, still thinking, really, much less then half of the American populace is even religious, but they get quite a tax benefit for church contributions. Maybe churches and church members, who arguably get a benefit from their donations, should not get a tax benefit as well. Besides, we all know churches are industries with their large corporate offices, huge real estate holdings, etc.

Think of those billions of tax dollars for our economy. No think of all those churches no longer being forced to bend to discrimination laws. Then think of all those gay couples being allowed to marry and pursue happiness like us all.

Win. win. Win.

Okay, now that I've written a post on your comments, I think I'll post this at my blog too. If you haven't heard from me in a few days, come see if I've been stabbed in the heart with a cross, eh?

oh, and one more thing, I think it's stinky fingers are being pointed at Republicans.

Have you seen the exit polls? Look at the percentage of black Californians that voted yes. The people who have arguably been most discriminated against in a year where we voted in a black president, voted to discriminate against gays.

SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL :

"While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8."

And Catholics?

"59 percent of Catholics backed Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, they turned around and voted for Prop. 8 by 64 percent."

A CNN poll I found also said 51% of Latin men voted yes as well.

See Democrats can and are bigots too. There aren't that many Republicans, much less black or Catholic or Latin Republicans in California. I should know. I used to be one of the few Republicans period in California.

So, let's call a bigot a bigot and not blame a political party or an element of a political party.

Oh, and Obama? While he was against prop 8 (although he said little during the campaign), check out this quote from Lesbian Life:

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Just saying...

Okay, my friends, seriously, if you haven't heard from me in a while, please check for my cold, stiff body. I'm sure to rile some zealots with this post. Heh!

I am all for the religious right getting the fuck out of my party and I've blogged about it too many times to count. That said, this issue can not just be put on Republicans.

I know Democrats hate to do some belly-button gazing, but Obama, as the president elect and arguably the head of the Democratic party, is AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. Hmmm...

How about the Democratic SENATE MAJORITY leader Harry Reid who is vocal is his opposition to gay marriage and did vote FOR the Defense of MArriage Act.

DEM-O-CRATs can and ARE bigots too. Again, this bigotry graces both sides of the aisle.

....For argument's sake let's say I WILL CONCEDE that the Republican religious right elites made anti-gay marriage positions as "their masthead" and let's say I ALSO AGREE TO YOUR PREMISE that we ignore the "petty, pandering, expedient kind the Democrats have" such as PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK OBAMA and SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, then who is to blame?

A small bunch of elitist, religious members of the Republican party or Mormon who have little voice in California politics or the millions and millions of DEMOCRATS that actually voted for Prop. 8?

So we discount the hatred in those wee Democratic hearts? Sigh.

All I am trying to say is the blame goes both ways.

What's worse? The "institutionalized bigotry?" Or the silent bigotry in the hearts of many so-called liberals that voted in those booths to take away a human being's fundamental right? Bradley effect much?

The in-your-face bigotry or the silent-insidious-hypocritical bigotry? I would rather know my enemy than not realize who they really are? I would rather know that a friend/champion like Obama will bring change and hope in one breath and have that very same bigotry that "a marriage is between one man and one woman" is his heart.

It's semantics. Whether he supports a constitutional ban, the bigotry is in Obama's heart as well as millions of American's heart nonetheless. I really hope he has a change of heart. I may not have voted for him, but I hope he does amazing things for our country and I'm willing to give him a chance.

BTW, Samuel L. Jackson just said on Ellen, "People are people. We can have a black person for president so we can have a gay one too."

Cool. A black man that has known discrimination from the south that is aginst Prop. 8. Samuel L. Jackson for president 2012!

[ali]

Barbara, it's interesting: France has a law very much like the one you suggest. I forget what it's called (it may just be "union civile"), but the principle behind it is that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a civil contract concerning estates, hospital visitation rights, custody of children, etc. So, for instance, a brother and sister can enter into a civil union to care for each others' kids at the legal level of a parent or guardian, as you stated.

Seems to work pretty well over there... I think you may be onto something.

[Renee]

ND, not all Mormons voted Yes. If you're going to be all about equality and acceptance, it'd be cool if you didn't go around lumping everyone together and saying hateful things about large groups.

Just saying.

[palinode]

How grotesque it would be to undo a marriage. It's bad enough to rescind an existing right, but to abolish existing marriages is putrid. It points to something utterly rotten and shrivelled in the souls of Prop. 8's supporters.

There are three things of note that happen to human beings: we're born, we die, and in between we glom on to other human beings. Birth and death are involuntary and belong to the continuum of existence. Loving another person and making a life with him or her is our choice, and it belongs to us. What malformed rejects of Heaven's stamp want to take that from the lot of us and hoard it for themselves? Gay marriage harms no one, but denying it degrades and reduces us all.

[ND]

Renee,

My apologies, not all Mormons voted Yes, you are correct, and there are some progressive Mormons, but please, what I said wasn't hateful, gimme a break.

[Renee]

ND,

Consider your break given.

My point was that when we defend one group by attacking another, the real issue gets lost. I suppose my point was lost when I pointed my finger at you and called your words "bloody hypocrite" and "bigot" hateful, when they weren't meant to be.

[JChevais]

In France, the civil union is called "pacs" (Pacte civil de solidarité - Civil Solidarity Pact).

However, brothers and sisters are not eligible for this kind of union (to each other).

The weird thing is that the pacs can be for not only two people (that aren't already related in some way up to the third degree) but it can also include a third person.

I just found this out. I imagine that, if a gay couple decided to have a baby, it would include someone of the other sex who would help with pulling a pregnancy off.

Wow.

[fm]

I'm afraid to post this for getting flamed.. but I'm 100% with Barbara regarding the inalieable rights of human beings to love, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think this would all go away if they just fought for rights of a Civil Union. The religious right couldn't say a thing.

So here's the part that people may disagree with me on.. it's just semantics.

Why call it marriage.. it's stupid and inaccurate. The etymology of the word marriage refers to man AND woman.

Just call it a civil union across the board (for m4m, w4w, m4wm, w4wm, w4ww, m4wwww,) then it doesn't matter.

Everyone has the right to be happy. Legalizing someone's union - just enforces those rights, and creates a nice niche industry for divorce lawyers if things get ugly and adversarial. (There are always people looking to make money off of other people's misery).

The wedding industry could still be booming - the union, and celebration is still a wedding..

Okay .. have at me.

[FM]

So - just to be clear - I'm all for a legal civil union..

Just think using the word Marriage is as inaccurate as a male menstrual cycle.

[Sonia]

There's so much muddy water on this topic. I am so, horribly disappointed in the outcome of Prop. 8.

This is what I believe.....

Don't agree with gay marriage/civil union? Then don't marry someone of your same sex.

SERIOUSLY. Why is it more difficult than that? It's so frustrating.

[Karina in T.O]

Who am I to tell my gay buddies that they don't have just as much right to be in a miserable marriage as anyone else? LOL

Seriously, this is what I don't understand about the GOP. Who are you to push your value systems on other people? If they're not hurting everyone and want to commit to the person they love in life, why is it your business??? Will there be some deluge of gay celebs getting married over and over, Elizabeth Tayler style, or bless her wee heart J.Lo's marriages of the month??

And can they possibly do any worse than straight folks, who get divorced, like 53% of the time anyway???

[Jen]

As a gay woman of color raised Catholic in California, the passage of Prop 8 is nothing short of absolutely heartbreaking. Talk about buzzkill after Obama's glorious win. It pains me to think that my Democrat, Catholic, immigrant mother quite possibly voted to support such a despicable piece of legalized discrimination. Given history, it's not a subject that can be broached without much angst in my family, so I've consciously avoided any sort of verification of how she ultimately swung her vote. But I digress.

Clearly, the posts on this thread address the issue thoughtfully. The issue is certainly not an easy one for a lot of people -- regardless of religious, racial/ethnic/cultural, or political affiliation. Hell, there's even a divide within the gay community itself about whether it simply boils down to an issue of semantics -- whether it's 'marriage' or 'civil unions' that we want.

I feel inordinately compelled to expand on that distinction, especially after reading some of the posts here. Why I, personally, don't accept the concept of 'civil unions' is that there is no guarantee that any sanctioned civil union/domestic partnership arrangement confers all of the same rights that legalized marriage does. There are more than 1,138 federal rights that come from civil marriage, and that doesn't even count the hundreds of additional rights that are granted at the individual state level. Earlier this year, my (now) home state of Washington passed legislation that conferred domestic partnership rights to those same-sex couples who registered as 'domestic partners', but that breakthrough still only granted 171 rights of legal marriage -- a mere 15% of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, and rights that aren't even recognized outside of the state (with few exceptions). Even still, Washington itself still has a legal ban on same-sex marriage via a Defense of Marriage Act signed into state law in 1998.

So for those who support granting us gays 'civil unions' (or some form thereof) as opposed to 'marriage' (inclusive of our dear President-elect Obama), I urge them to think about whether granting a separate set of civil rights to one group versus another is truly equality. I know comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement strike bad chords with some people, but at the risk of that, I'll reference one of the key (paraphrased) arguments that helped to overturn legalized discrimination at that time -- separate is most certainly *not* equal. Don't give me a 'civil union' instead of a 'marriage'. Don't distinguish me from any other tax-paying American citizen by giving me a separately-named set of the 'same' rights for the same reason we no longer separate our children into separate schools or delegate our neighbors to certain parts of the bus or restaurant counter.

My personal stance is this: true legal equality cannot be achieved unless (and until) people conceptually and emotionally accept the prospect of equality. While I do firmly believe that Church and State should absolutely remain separate, I truly don't believe that 'marriage' as a word/concept/right should be reserved for the religious. It is too tied to too many things that have nothing to do with religion -- legal or not. The concept of marriage carries with it respect, validation, and privilege that happens even outside of courtrooms, tax forms, hospitals, adoption agencies, and even funeral parlors. It's probably impossible and impractical to re-name or redefine the legal bind that the word 'marriage' represents in this country in order to adopt a seemingly religious-free convention like France's. My hope is that the hearts and minds of the Americans who supported all the anti-gay state laws that passed last week will somehow, over time, change to accept that a loving commitment between two people -- regardless of who they are -- is deserving of the term 'marriage', and all its associated rights and privileges. It may seem improbable now, but after all, our new President-elect was born of two parents who didn't even have the right to marry because one was Black and one was White. Hard to imagine now, but inter-racial marriage was only legalized in this country in 1967 -- within our parents' lifetime, and perhaps even within the lifetime of some of us on this thread. I certainly hope that it's within mine that the people of this country think of gay marriage in the same way they now think of inter-racial marriage -- or, rather, in the same way they no longer think of inter-racial marriage.