Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

California Was the Cutting Edge for Gay Rights -- Not Any More

By Sandip Roy, New America Media. Posted May 28, 2009.


What the California Supreme Court's verdict on Proposition 8 means for the the nation's historical gay rights leader.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena HincapiƩ

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Sandip Roy

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When I first moved to San Francisco from India, my aunt said, “Be careful, it’s full of homosexuals. And it has earthquakes.”

I didn’t tell her that I wanted to feel the earth move. I had watched The Times of Harvey Milk on video and knew that this was where you came to be gay, from places where you didn’t dare to say its name.

California drew not just the lonely teenagers from Idaho and Missouri on Greyhound buses. It also drew immigrants like me from all over the world seeking to put an ocean or two between them and their parents and clans trying to arrange their marriages. This was where software companies gave us domestic partner rights and the mayor marched in Pride Parades and Hollywood sold the world its glamour. This was where the world looked to see if change had come to America. And where we came for sanctuary.

But now the center of gravity is shifting. In the wake of the court decision on the legality of Proposition 8 (as opposed to its righteousness) there will protests and candlelight marches and angry rhetoric. Already I am getting the faxes and emails. But perhaps it could also be a time for those of us who have been used to the world looking at us, to look out at the world instead.

In India, Bollywood actor and model Celina Jaitley has a blog on the Times of India Web site calling for equal rights for gays. In Durban, South Africa, Joe Singh and his partner Wesley Nolan got married. A Hindu priest officiated. Nolan put a Lord Ganesha pendant around Singh’s neck to remove obstacles and ward off evils.

In a few years some young activist in South Asia might be mystified why the world’s first group for LGBT South Asians was born all the way out in California. “Don’t move to Kathmandu,” his aunt will say. “It’s has Maoists and gays.”

It’s true. A small conservative country like Nepal is considering same-sex marriage. A few years ago the Maoists had dismissed the notion of homosexuality as a bourgeois affectation, irrelevant in the revolution. In 2008 the Maoist prime minister sent Sunil Pant, founder of Nepal’s only gay rights group and its first openly gay member of parliament, to New York to sign the UN resolution calling for a worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. (The United States declined to vote on that resolution at the time.)

How did that happen? Pant said that when the fight for the movement for democracy took to the streets, his group was right there in the trenches. “In 2006, democracy was more important than fighting for LGBTQ rights. We don’t have to hide ourselves in some kind of shadow,” he said. “But we needed to show how our movement would benefit overall democracy.”

In California the economy might be more important than LGBT rights right now. Gay activists would do well to read Pant’s handbook. There are a lot of bruising fights shaping up over budget cuts that will affect health care, education, social services – all issues that will hit communities of color the hardest. These are the same communities that the gay rights marriage campaign in California was accused of ignoring in the lead-up to Prop 8. This could be a chance for a gay movement to become more inclusive, to turn a protest rally into a real movement.

When I was in Kathmandu earlier this month, the Maoist-led government had collapsed (though not over gay marriage). Red flag-waving Maoist supporters were parading down the streets of Kathmandu, chanting slogans. South Asia’s newest democracy was in turmoil, struggling to find direction. I don’t know whether gay rights and same-sex marriage will get lost in the chaos. But even if they suffer a setback, the lessons of Nepal are quite clear.

“We needed to show how our movement would benefit overall democracy,” said Pant.

It’s a good lesson for California’s gay activists to heed. Otherwise California will no longer represent the future. It will be the place tourists come to gawk at the most exclusive club of all – the 18,000 same-sex couples whose marriages the court didn’t overturn – as if they are rare animals in a sanctuary. And then they will shake their heads at the quaintness of it all and go back to their happily married gay lives in places like Iowa, Connecticut, and Maine, or even farflung Nepal.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gay rights, california, same sex marriage

Sandip Roy (sandip@pacificnews.org) is host of "Upfront," the Pacific News Service weekly radio program on KALW-FM, San Francisco.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Red Sea Scrolls
Posted by: Cybershaman on May 28, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live on a liberal 'island'. A blue cork floating in a midwest sea of red(necks). I moved here to escape the daily in your face experience of being treated with the utmost contempt for daring to think liberally.

Because I refused to victimize the required people I, too, became a target. THAT is the way it is done. So, I migrated back to that college town where I found a refreshingly bohemian attitude. There was a thriving arts culture, cooperative groceries, bicycle friendly streets, and a general atmosphere of friendly acceptance at the wonderful diversity of the human population. Then came the backlash...

Because of all the positive aspects that had been built into the community, it was labeled a 'retirement haven'. Just like California and Florida there was soon a flood of aging midwesterners looking for things to do to relieve them of the boredom that comes from a life devoted soley to work and the accumulation of 'stuff'.

For awhile they enjoyed the fruits of liberal community development but soon they became aware of things they didn't approve of. Like a visible gay community, a thriving activist culture that questioned the status quo, and a tax base that would support such a culture. Being retirees they had plenty of free time to take over the political sphere.

First, it was the real estate developers. They were the ones who profitted the most from building the retirement 'villages' in the area, and they used that money to manipulate elections in order to 'elect' speculator friendly politicians. They opened the floodgates to the corporate franchises that drove the locally owned businesses into bankruptcy. Soon there were no more interesting shops to explore, but a pervasive 'strip mall' mentality dominated everything.

The 'smaller government/lower taxes' mantra was repeated ad nauseam until the general population forgot where all the things that drew them into the community came from. Then those things began to disappear, to be replaced by an oppressive, omnipresent, and well funded, police state. And here we are today! A society that has no sense of humor and is incapable of having fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Red Sea Scrolls Posted by: LeaderofMen
Change is coming
Posted by: missmoon on May 28, 2009 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Change is coming. Slowly, in fits and starts, but it is coming, we need to be constant and educate that gay marriage is a civil and human right. Religious beliefs have no place in the laws of the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in New England/New York
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 28, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we love our gays, they create great indy book stores and coffee shops. I'm thinking about moving to the "gayborhood" in Buffalo just because it is walkable even if I'm clutching the latest of Ann Colture while reading Town Hall via the WiFi as I sip on my fair trade latte. I hope we can get passed this soon with North Korea acting a fool and the economy falling to shit (the Privilege Coast w/o California will be OK however in Flyover Country as the next factory closes it doors who cares because we will have horseshit "green" jobs). Either way, I can't look my gay friend in the face and say "you can't marry" if you are in love. Just don't dare bully me into anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Correct me if I'm wrong
Posted by: willymack on May 28, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't a lot of outside influence and money play a large role in the California disgrace? If so, doesn't it follow that that same money and influence was behind the "supreme" court decision there as well?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» this is todays politics Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
CA may be the first to pass a voter initiative legalizing same-sex marriage.
Posted by: aouie01 on May 28, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would that qualify as cutting-edge? I can't think of any other successful voter intiative that achieved that.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Resistor
Posted by: L5 on May 28, 2009 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hold on here and put your money on the table... don't be so quick to claim that what happened in California has somehow submerged our state below the basis of being a future element in the outcome of this issue.

The decision that occurred here has left the door wide open to advance the case to the U.S. Supreme court based on the fact that those 18,000+ marriages that were left untouched by this decision are the basis to bring a much more strengthened and clearly viable discrimination challenge before the national supreme court, based on the fact that one group of gay people retains the right to their marriage status while the remainder of that group that has been denied the same status.

In this instance, the discrimination that has occurred as a result of the initiative process can't be more clearly and obviously defined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More liberal homosexual agenda ...
Posted by: rjs on May 30, 2009 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The second poster mentions...

"Religious beliefs have no place in the laws of the USA."

--

Take a good look in some of the oldest temples in the United States. Start in St. Augustine FL if you like.

Take a good look at how the Constitution and other laws have been written. Indeed, our laws were in part based from, not necessarily "religion", but principles of the scripture. There is no escaping this reality, and no way of changing this history. My direct ancestors came to the U.S to preserve the rights to keep the sabbath and the commandments. And our laws are a direct reflection of this truth.

Another point of view might suggest that if "Religious, or Religion" should not play a part in our society and laws, then the tradition of "marriage" which indeed was not created by any government, but thousands of years of various world wide scripture from various cultures should not end up in the courts in any form. It was the homosexual agenda taking their actions to law since they came out of their hiding places some years ago.

Fact of the matter is, the United States of America's main principles and concepts were always based on freedom of religious expression since it's originating foundation was placed in order.

What gives homosexuals the right to make claim to that which no government had created, but yet was indeed created for a bond between a man and a woman via many thousands of years and many different forms of belief systems?

The United States did not create any interpretation of marriage. They followed the scripture and passages of many past belief systems documents for centuries.

You want the same benefits you claim, yet you throw out what "marriage" and it's meanings are altogether creating and defining your own interpretation.

It doesn't work that way.

If you want your freedom of expression in your relationships, then stop taking the issues to the court system. They cannot redefine which they had not created, and any allowance on the part of the court system and governmental law creation will not change what is known as "marriage".

Why not create another term instead of "marriage" to take to the Supreme Courts? Like how about S&G Certifed? Short for sodom and gomorrah certified? Or if you don't want any "belief system" behind the vows you say to your homosexual partner, then why not seek other remedies to what you consider an issue?

Why do you have to resort to considering your ceremony or reference to your sexual partner any type at all? What's wrong with just having the union if you feel no issue with it?

Marriage in it's true form was that the man be to the messiah, or the son, as the son was of his father. A bride to the groom with the most high giving his care towards the relationship of himself down through the spiritual family. And that spirit giving care towards it's chain of existence.

If you truly feel that "Religion" or spiritual beliefs should play no part in the court systems, or the law, then take your case to that which created your interpretation of what marriage is defined to be. For the government of no nation has created what defines matrimony/marriage.

Those that believe in what the spiritual and physical union of matrimony derives from certainly do not want any government of any land interfering with what they have no power over to change according to our scriptures and beliefs.

--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More liberal homosexual agenda ... Posted by: adlibphotographer
Clarifications to my above post...
Posted by: rjs on May 30, 2009 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Marriage in it's true form was that the man be to the messiah, or the son, as the son was of his father. A bride to the groom with the most high giving his care towards the relationship of himself down through the spiritual family. And that spirit giving care towards it's chain of existence."

This was called "Holy Matrimony" or "Separated Matrimony", "Marriage".

Thus the woman was to the man as the man was to the creator through the son. The bride!

This showed headship of the creator in the ceremony whom provided the compassion to not leave man alone, but yet create for man his own in accordance to the scripture.

In no way can a homosexual use the terms "marriage", "holy (sanctified) matrimony", or "separated matrimony. A man cannot be a husband to another man and have the relationship with the creator through the son as to be the "bride" when such transliterations throughout the generations have deemed homosexuality to be an abomination unto that which gave to man his order of authority and recognition to the spiritual family being more than the natural being, but both the spiritual and natural that makes up the being. It's out of order.

Remove any spiritual belief from this basic concept and the laws of this bond throughout history, and you will too have to remove the entitlements of using the terms "marriage, sanctified matrimony, or separated matrimony."


----

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement