I will not allow Prop 8 to get me down. Now is a time to regroup and reevaluate.

[Meldread]

I'm not interested in beating myself up about the outcome of Proposition 8. In all reality, I am shocked that it was even a close vote and that alone gives me encouragement. If we learned one thing from last night it is that time and history is on our side. We may have lost this battle, but in the end we will win the war.

While I am discouraged, I am not disheartened or defeated. I am not even distraught. Look at how far we've come. It wasn't long ago that being gay was considered a mental illness, that the thought of living openly was an insane idea. Now we exist in public. We are on TV, living openly. We've won the right of marriage in other nations and in two states here at home. Time is on our side. These individuals who stand against us are losing the war, and what we might mistake for zealotry is really fear. They know they are losing and that is why they fight so hard.

But right now, rather than getting angry or falling into despair, I think it's important to reevaluate what we want. Do we want marriage for the sake of the institution - the word - or do we want the rights behind it?

Because I see a different path to victory that I don't believe is seriously being explored. One that could guarantee more immediate results, and have a larger impact on our rivals.

The Constitutional Amendment will read as follows:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I am a secularist. When it comes to marriage it is one of those uncomfortable moments where the government join hands with religion. If I had it my way the government would be completely divorced from religion entirely, and faith would be something that is private for people - that they do in their homes, among friends and in churches. It would not even come up in politics because it would be irrelevant. I am not naive enough to believe that such a day will come so long as people believe, but we can begin to build stronger walls of separation between church and state.

Here are my thoughts. Give them their word. That is not why they fight, but that is where they draw their power and support.

I would like to see a new Constitutional Amendment that reads as follows:
"Marriage belongs within the domain of religion, and therefore the State of California shall only issue Civil Unions, which shall provide all rights and privileges formally linked to marriage to any two consenting adults."

If you conduct a poll you find that civil unions are more acceptable to the majority, and will even find that a majority of American's when asked believe that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights to straights. Let the bigots do battle on our ground rather than fighting them on theirs, they want to use a religiously charged debate because they know it's a battle they can more easily win. I say give them the word, give me the rights, and in the process cut one more link they have to government. Then, if I want to get married in a Church I can find a pastor willing to conduct the ceremony, which is not legally binding, and then sign the papers to have a civil union - along with straight Americans.

We can even frame the debate in a way where we are "protecting" marriage from government interference. What is important to remember is that these people do not fight us over a word, that is what they use to motivate individuals to side with them. They fight us because they know if our relationships are legally recognized that it begins to legitimatize us in the eyes of ordinary American's that are currently under their spell. They know that once people encounter gay individuals, and learn that we are just like them, that they will befriend us and turn against them. They know that once we are legitimized in the eyes of the majority their bigotry will be exposed for what it is and it will have to change or they will find themselves on the outside looking in.

I am not interested in a word. I am interested in the rights provided by that word, and having my relationship and my life equal and just as valuable in every way to heterosexuals. When we are legitimized that is what will happen.

It doesn't really matter if we go this route or continue traveling on our current path, we will win in the end. It is inevitable and they know this, and that is what keeps them awake at night. If you are discouraged, don't be - look for the positive in what we've learned and experienced. Look how far we've come, and while it's obvious we have further to go, it is clearer than ever that we'll win.

[bluedawg12]

1. History is progressive and over time human rights issues prevail

it's just that this was such a sneaky attack--while everyone was united working for Obama they mounterd this well financed campaign and on the eve of change and a call to unity and respect for human dignity, we were dragged through gay bashing ads, ops from other forums and people, and it was like a baaaad flash back.

>>I am not interested in a word. I am interested in the rights provided by that word, and having my relationship and my life equal and just as valuable in every way to heterosexuals. When we are legitimized that is what will happen. <<

Well said.

[xchrom]

2. under the law -- marriage is not -- i repeat NOT a religious

institution.

people marry both within a church's walls and without.

the laws surrounding marriage -- issuing licenses are all secular.

[Meldread]

6. I know.

My sister was married by a Justice of the Peace.

However, there are a lot of people who don't understand that, and more importantly I see it as an opportunity to cut one of the church's main ties to the government.

[NorthernSpy]

7. but much of the population hears the word "marriage" and thinks "sacrament"...

... which instantly closes their minds against anything that sounds like "tampering" with a sacred institution.

That's just the reality that has to be acknowledged before it can be changed.

[FLyellowdog]

3. Extremely well said and thoughtfully inspired.

For those who are fighting this battle, don't lose hope just because this issue has suffered a setback. It will succeed, maybe not now...maybe not soon, but it will succeed. This will now be our next new cause for justice and equality. We will continue keep the faith and continue to work for the rights of all Americans. There are many of us who stand with you.

[AntiFascist]

4. This is probably the way it should be...

but I doubt that it happens within our lifetime.

Part of the recent Supreme Court decision stressed that creating a class of people separate from "marriage" relegated that class to a lower or lesser class of individuals. This is an important point to consider. It's kind of like African-Americans accepting the fact that they had to use separate water fountains, as long as they could still get water.

[Meldread]

5. That's not what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting that the word marriage be completely divorced from government all together, and from that day forward marriage would be officially known as civil unions for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, if you want to get "married" to someone you're getting a "civil union" in the eyes of the government. The whole "marriage" stuff is just a religious ceremony that has no influence on the rights and benefits granted by the state.

In effect, there would only be two changes made.

1. "Marriage Licenses" would simply be renamed "Civil Union Licenses" and have to be reprinted.
2. Two consenting adults, regardless of gender, will be allowed to engage in the rights and benefits offered.

To argue why we'd do this, from our side: "To protect the institution of marriage from the influence of the government."

It pretty much kills the religious rights main argument. The only thing they'd have left would be to blatantly demand that gays and lesbians deserve less rights than straight American's, and as we already know a majority of American's support the idea of civil unions and giving equal rights to gays and lesbians. However, for some strange reason, they get hung up on the word marriage. Fine, from my prospective I don't really care what it's called, so long as it is not segregated and that all the same rights and benefits apply to both sides. That means I would not accept a separate but equal scenario.

The major benefit I see going the route I suggest would be to cut another tie the church has to the government. To create one more layer of abstraction, to put another brick on the wall of separation of church and state, and that alone would be a slap to the faces of those who continue to oppose equal rights.

[AntiFascist]

8. I understand...

and I agree that there should be separation of church and state. I'm just pointing out that this isn't likely to happen anytime soon because people, in general, want the state to recognize marriages and there would be great resistance to changing their legal status to that of "Civil Union".

The CA Supreme Court has pointed out that the only other alternative to the Equal Protection clause issue is to remove marriage rights for everyone, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.