Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!

A nationwide event is being organized to protest the passage of California Proposition 8 on November 15th. I'll be attending in Seattle, and there are protests planned across the nation. You should go too!

California's Own Jim Crow History

In the wake of Prop 8, it's interesting to look back at California's proud, bigoted history, which apparently went over just fine with Californians at the time.

From Wikipedia

In California, concern about Asian immigration produced more legislation against Chinese immigrants than against African Americans. From 1879 to 1926, California's constitution stated that "no native of China" shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector in the state." Similar provisions appeared in the constitutions of Oregon and Idaho.

1870: Education [Statute] African and Indian children must attend separate schools. A separate school would be established upon the written request by the parents of ten such children. "A less number may be provided for in separate schools in any other manner."

1872: Alcohol sales [Statute] Prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians. The act remained legal until its repeal in 1920.

1879: Voter rights [Constitution] "No native of China" would ever have the right to vote in the state of California. Repealed in 1926.

1879: Employment [Constitution] Prohibited public bodies from employing Chinese and called upon the legislature to protect "the state…from the burdens and evils arising from" their presence. A statewide anti-Chinese referendum was passed by 99.4 percent of voters in 1879.

1880: Miscegenation [Statute] Made it illegal for white persons to marry a "Negro, mulatto, or Mongolian."

1890: Residential [City Ordinance] The city of San Francisco ordered all Chinese inhabitants to move into a certain area of the city within six months or face imprisonment. The Bingham Ordinance was later found to be unconstitutional by a federal court.

1891: Residential [Statute] Required all Chinese to carry with them at all times a "certificate of residence." Without it, a Chinese immigrant could be arrested and jailed.

1894: Voter rights [Constitution] Any person who could not read the Constitution in English or write his name would be disfranchised. An advisory referendum indicated that nearly 80 percent of voters supported an educational requirement.

1901: Miscegenation [Statute] The 1850 law prohibiting marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes was amended, adding "Mongolian."

1909: Miscegenation [Statute] Persons of Japanese descent were added to the list of undesirable marriage partners of white Californians as noted in the earlier 1880 statute.

1913: Property [Statute] Known as the "Alien Land Laws," Asian immigrants were prohibited from owning or leasing property. The California Supreme Court struck down the Alien Land Laws in 1952.

1931: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited marriages between persons of the Caucasian and Asian races.

1933: Miscegenation [Statute] Broadened earlier miscegenation statute to also prohibit marriages between whites and Malays.

1945: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited marriage between whites and "Negroes, mulattos, Mongolians and Malays."

1947: Miscegenation [Statute] Subjected U.S. servicemen and Japanese women who wanted to marry to rigorous background checks. Barred the marriage of Japanese women to white servicemen if they were employed in undesirable occupations.

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list, but gives you an idea of how backwards things like Prop 8 will be viewed in the future.

Something to Ponder...

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

No on Proposition 8

The Los Angeles Times editorial board today wrote about their opinion on Proposition 8, which would take away the existing right of same-sex couples to marry.

The latest polls show support for Prop 8 increasing in California, going from an 8 point lead in August for opponents of the amendment to, most recently, a 4 point lead in favor of the amendment. Sadly, the the greatest shift was among younger voters. Obviously I am disturbed and disheartened by these numbers, not only because I am living outside of California and feel like there is little I can personally do, but also because I am feeling more and more like my native state and my peers are turning their backs to equality in favor of ignoring the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and, in that same document, creating a distinct second-class citizenry. Please take a few minutes to read this note while I therapeutically vent about the situation.

First off, I think it might be helpful to view this issue keeping in mind the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling that recognized the right of interracial couples to marry, which occurred just before many of our parents were born. The parallels are striking. In Perez v. Sharp, the court ruled that "...marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The court held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws" (source: wikipedia). At the time, Californians complained about activist judges who ignored the will of the people. They said that interracial marriage was immoral, that it was against God's will. These SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS were flung from the right after the California Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of gay marriage in its decision, In re Marriage Cases, earlier this year. Back in 1948, opinion polls showed 95% of Californians opposed to interracial marriages. To me, that seems disgusting. How were those who were not in an interracial marriage even remotely affected by this? It simply affirmed the right of people who had been the victims of prejudice to live in an equal state of marriage to others. This was nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court made the same ruling as California, in favor of interracial marriage.

Fast forward to 2008, where we have a chance to make a statement that we are not a state ruled by ignorance and religious dogma. It disturbs me that so many people want to put a purely religious issue--a discriminatory one, at that--into law. When religious authorities, like the Church, control lives through the state, you have a theocracy, just like in countries such as Iran. Proposition 8 is something I'd expect approved in Iran, not California. The fact of the matter is that marriage, in the sense that it is dealt with in Proposition 8, IS NOT a religious issue, but a legal issue. Long ago, when the government decided that it would treat married couples differently from the unmarried, marriage became not a religious contract, but a LEGAL CONTRACT. The legalization of gay marriage had NOTHING to do with the Church. The pro-Prop 8 crowd is trying to argue that churches will lose their tax exempt status if they oppose or do not recognize same-sex marriages. When was that last time that the Catholic Church was sued because it wouldn't recognize a Jewish marriage, or Atheists sued because their marriage wasn't recognized by the LDS Church? THE ARGUMENT HOLDS NO WATER! Since the state is not controlled by the church and vice versa, neither should have a say in the other's affairs!

Radical Ideas to Combat Climate Change

Artificial clouds to reflect away sunlight, creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae and the global use of synthetic carbon-neutral transport fuels are just three of the climate transforming technologies in need of urgent investigation, according to leading scientists. These scientist argue that with governments failing to grasp the need for new methods to combat climate change, radical – and possibly dangerous – solutions must now be seriously considered.

This is some chilling news, especially considering how little is currently being done. It's hard to imagine that, rather than adopt smart policies like a cap-and-trade program for carbon, we might have to institute more drastic programs.

Same-Sex Couples Offer Insight Into Gender and Marriage

Same-sex couples may be the target of ridicule from some conservative activists who claim that they are not worthy of marriage or raising children. But according to the New York Times, a growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

California Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!!!

Well, despite having a state supreme court made up of 6 republicans and 1 democrat, the California State Supreme Court today ruled 4-3 in favor of overturning California's gay marriage ban, effectively legalizing gay marriage in the state.

This is an amazing day for all Californians, and the day we've all been waiting for. Who would have thought that such a conservative court would legalize same-sex marriage in California? But as stated in the majority ruling, we must protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.