strike two... or is it three?
when californians voted to include the banning of gay marriage in the state constitution,, i was shocked and dismayed. strike one.
when californians decided to un-enthusiastically vote down a proposition that could help me keep my job, but instead i face a system-wide $275 million budget cut, i consider that strike two.
and when the california supreme court has to uphold strike one in saying that it was legally handled correctly, i have to wonder... is that strike 3?
while i do enjoy a challenging debate every once in a while, there are 2 subjects i rarely venture in to, based solely on my lack of knowledge in the subjects: religion and politics, those topics that spark controversy and war the world over. i've always felt unarmed when people start debating religion with the "but the bible says..." tactic, because it seems once that's uttered, you've forked the issue completely. being one who hasn't read the bible, and doesn't want to, and doesn't use it to dictate my life or decisions, i can't argue a point with someone who bases their perspective on the document. so i choose not to get into it at all. the same kinda goes for politics, though it's more through my personal apathy than religious choices that i choose not to get too involved in either side of issues, as i am not strongly for or against any one party or idea, and generally like to think that people will do the right thing, the golden rule will apply, and we will all live amongst love and rainbows.
however, we know that's not always the case, and when some issue comes along that does pique my interest, my involvement goes up... slightly. i have yet to find an issue that i am passionate enough about to the point that i protest or rally or otherwise voice (other than by the ballot), though i certainly admire my friends who have taken up their causes. in particular, this ban against gay marriage passed in california last november is one that has hit close to my life, though not directly in it. and while i absolutely believe that the people of california who could not look past their own discrimination, fear, and (i hate to say it) bible have turned back the hands of progress to slavery-times, taking away the civil liberties of their fellow man because they don't like a trait about them, i can't say that i'm particularly upset about today's decision. because, they way i understand it, the california state supreme court did not rule on whether the proposition, and now law, was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional, but had to decide whether the proposition was put on the ballot in a legal way. and their decision was yes, it was done correctly, without ruling on the constitutionality of its discriminatory overtones.
(if i'm misinterpreting this or am misinformed, please let me know.)
and so now i'm torn. while hate continues to be the law here in california (shame on you, again, those who voted yes to ban gay marriage. for shame.), i can't say that i have an opinion on the ruling today other than to say "that's too bad." because at least if prop 8 had not had all it's i's dotted and t's crossed, there would be an easier fight for my LGBT friends. and, in addition to the beyond F'd up economy we've got going here in california (again, thanks for voting me out of a job, fellow californians), we have also exposed the sheer stupidity of having a simple majority of voters who show up deciding our state's constitution. even in college, when important measures were on the ballot, we had to hit at least a certain percentage of votes being turned in regardless of the percentage of yes's and no's. your neighbor's vote shouldn't count for your own as well. and that's the part that i consider strike 3... not so much the decision or the ban or the overturning or not, but the fact that if only 3 people had shown up that day, and 2 of them voted for it, it STILL would have passed since our state does not require quorum of any kind. totally rad, california. totally rad.
current mood: ashamed