I'm sure everyone in Spain has now read that California has "Banned Gay Marriage". Sounds pretty bad huh? Sounds like the backward and provincial Americans really haven't changed much - even with the election of Barack Obama.Some background for Spain. In California there are ballot measures that can make laws. The people vote on what they want - democracy remember? So, in 2000 there was a ballot initiative which stated that the definition of marriage was the "union of one man and one woman." This measure was passed by the voters to the great chagrin of the pro-gay rights people who proceeded to sue. Then in May of 2008, the California Supreme Court decided to overturn that voter made law. The judges said the definition of marriage is just the union of two people - no matter the sex - and no matter what the voters said.
This upset some Californians who asked themselves, "Didn't we just vote on this? Why are they changing our decision?" The only way to stop the judges from doing this again was to amend the California Constitution to define the word "marriage" again to the "union of one man and one woman."
Now, in California we still have a legal "Domestic Partnership". This provides, I believe, all of the same legal protections of marriage - without calling it "marriage".
So, I think two things upset the voters. The first was they did not like the judges changing the definition of "marriage" after it was voted on - essentially overruling the will of the people. The next is yes, I believe there are many Californians uncomfortable with the whole concept of same-sex "marriage", especially old-world newcomers. Remember, California is full of immigrants, traditional people from Mexico, Asia, well .... everywhere.
If the pro-gay rights people had just concentrated on making sure that "Civil Unions" meant that gay couples have all the same rights as traditional heterosexual married couples, then I don't think they would have had a problem. Then they could fight the "marriage" battle later. Remember, Barack Obama's own position is that he is against "Gay Marriage" but for "Civil Unions."
In Spain the people did not have a chance to vote on this matter. The parliament decided it for them. I wonder if they had voted on it, and they had a choice between "gay marriage" and "civil union" would it have been a similar result to California's? This article from El Pais says no. But people are pretty similar everywhere. Traditional views of very old institutions, like marriage, change slowly.
10 comments:
Good explanation of the history/situation in California.
El País needs to hire someone like you to be a consulting editor on all stories related to the U.S. Someone who can say "whoa...this totally lacks historical perspective" or "hey, that quote is so misleading...add a paragraph of context." Just a few tweaks here and there would elevate the level of discourse in El País but they're too frigging pompous and lazy to change.
There's some weird sh*t that I've seen/heard in the Spanish media about Obama and the election that I think I'm going to blog about next week.
Wow, an actual job in Madrid! Wouldn't that be something.
And yes, as predicted, it will not take long for the charm to wear off of Obama in Europe. They'll be pissed at him soon enough.
To me it will show very clearly, and unfortunately, that it is not the "American President" they disliked (in Bush), it's really that the president is American and there is not much we can do about that is there?
@bb - you're right about El País: it is pompous and lazy. Have you tried Publico for a change? It's much fresher and has a nicer design and typeface too.
@Carl - Well, it depends on how Obama does. If he pursues a 'liberal' agenda, makes real change and stops America's unilateral foreign policy position, he'll still be liked here. Bill Clinton still is, despite his many faults. It would be unfair to pre-empt all criticism of Obama by labelling it as anti-American now.
Thanks for coming Tom,
I'll try to not see Anti-Americanism around every corner - but it is hard for me ... to tell you the truth.
About Bill Clinton, I still say it is the packaging. Clinton had a lot of "Bush-like" policies ie, not liberal. He reformed welfare, essentially removing benefits from poor Americans, he intervened militarily in Bosnia, etc. If it were Bush doing those things he would be labeled a devil in Europe.
The problem with the Prop 8 debate is that there is a paper trail showing large funding for it to pass coming from the Mormon church in Utah! Something that is illegal, since states are not supposed to fund other states referendums. So in the end, yes the terms may be the only thing to change, but imagine if France funded a campaign to change a law here in Spain!
The Mormon Church is not a state and there are Mormons in California too.
It's not illegal for a religious group - or any group - to get involved in an issue, organize, get people to give money, etc. They did this with their "Protect Marriage" group. A group made up of all the big religions, not just Mormons.
What gets a little sticky is the churches' tax exempt status. Since they are religious organizations and supposedly not political, they don't pay federal taxes. To be honest, I don't know when "not being political" starts and ends. All churches get a little political.
It's not like the other side had no money either. It was a huge fight on both sides. There was money flying everywhere. The "No on 8" folks (pro gay-rights people) had big money to throw at this also.
Thanks, Carl for the clarification.
It's also worth mentioning that Catholics, Baptists, and many other denominations preached, volunteered, and donated to the Pro Prop 8 side.
Ironically, there are more people who go to Mormon churches in California every Sunday than in Utah.
As a Mormon, in my religious beliefs, I think that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, but I am also significantly Libertarian in my political beliefs, and I think that government should leave marriage to the religions, and only recognize contracts, civil unions, and legal entities.
Government doesn't give rights to people, and it shouldn't be involved in a lot of the schemes it's involved in.
Legal consent of all parties involved, just like any other contract, IMHO.
I think keeping Government out of the religion business sounds like a good way to go to me.
What about keeping Religion out of Government's business? That sounds like an even better idea to me.
While it is true that the people didn't have a specific vote here in Spain regarding same-sex marriages, they have since voted back in the party that brought about the measure. True, this may be tacit agreement to what they have done but really if you look at the polls, Spaniards sit above 60% in favour of said marriages. If the people didn't like it, they could have voted for the the Church, sorry, I mean PP, and then they would have revoked the same rights that these citizens now enjoy along with other Spaniards.
In regards to Obama, you are dead on. The disillusion that awaits the world is going to be immense.
Change in Israel?...nope, look at his secretary of state.
Change in Iraq? That's a good one, do people think they are just going to walk away?
Close Guantanamo?...and the floating prisons? Bringing people who brought it about to justice? Sorry...
The best part will be Zapatero's face when his new buddy asks him to put a significantly bigger amount of Spanish troops in harms way (out of the north) in Afghanistan. What are they going to say about Change then?
Tacit agreement on gay marriage - by voting for the party - is not the same as having the issue thrown in your face by both sides for six months then voting on it specifically. California is a very "Liberal" and blue state - we went Obama all the way. But on the gay marriage thing it did not turn out the way everyone thought. I'm just saying that the same thing could have been possible in Spain - given the same circumstances - and had they voted on it.
Post a Comment