Marilyn and all,
There are many institutions in the U.S. that are not worthy of feminist
respect--the military, the catholic church, even academe.  So I'm
wondering what feminists want to say about the desire of some folks to
join these institutions.
I, for one, am not basking.  I am angry that, as the NY TImes reported,
"70% of black voters [in California] backed the ban."  And I'm not happy
with the 53 percenters either.  Among other things, we need to get the
religious wing-nuts out of our lives.  Anybody got any ideas about how to
do that?  The Mormons certainly have their nerve given their participation
in child-marriage.  It's just unbelievable to think that some states (and
religions) would rather let a child go homeless than be raised by gays and
lesbians.  Talk about the "care ethic" going down the drain.
I am heartened by North Carolina.  We have a female governor--Bev Perdue--
who is committed to equal rights.   And, I believe, we are the only state
in the southeast that doesn't have one of those nasty constitutional
amendments.
Chris

> Rosan,
>
> Well, I didn't realize they had that clause in there,
>
>   but that is only one state...in other states various kinds of civil
> unions are still progressing toward appropriate establishment, and
> after a while that Florida thing will be looking more and more
> backward, backwater, so to speak.  As I see it, a cultural change is
> going on, and such local set-backs, even a lot of them, are to be
> expected.  What % of Florida voters voted AGAINST this hyperbolic
> amendment?  Whatever it is, it is a LOT of people.  Than number will
> grow, only assuming the Floridian gay/lesbians and their allies just
> keep on keeping on, and the changing times keep on a-changing. There
> is no law or constitution that cannot be reversed or changed.
>
> I have no idea where this awash-in-optimism came from...  but it seems
> like a good thing, for now.
>
> Marilyn
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Rose A. Larizza wrote:
>
>> I so agree with you. But.
>> Ah Marilyn, the drafters of Florida’s Anti-same-sex marriage
>> amendment have already thought of what you write about toward the
>> end of your email (see highlighted lines in your text).
>> The ballot language says, "This amendment protects marriage as the
>> legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and
>> provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or
>> the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or
>> recognized."  (emphasis added)
>>
>> That language is vague, and could (and has in other jurisdictions)
>> allow for legal challenges to the granting of any rights or
>> privileges under any type of legal union other than marriage.
>>
>> Rosan Larizza
>> Writing Specialist
>> Florida Costal School of Law
>> Phone: 904-680-7791
>> Fax: 904-680-7679
>>
>> From: Feminist ethics and social theory
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> ] On Behalf Of Marilyn Frye
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Election results on gay equality
>>
>> On these anti-gay votes...
>>
>> Apart from the fact that I have considerable political reservations
>> about the movement for gay marriage [the usual things: marriage is
>> not an institution worthy of feminist respect (I think) though
>> socially respected fairly stable and erotically involved unions of
>> two or more people forming something like households may be a good
>> thing in a society and worthy of state support; civil rights,
>> entitlements, and access to health care should have nothing to do
>> with whatever couple-ish things people form up, nor with employment;
>> lobbying to be included in marriage feels to me like just lobbying
>> to get privileges that no one should have....oh, and on and on.]
>> Anyway...
>>
>> When my state (Michigan) passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional
>> amendment in the last election, I had this thought:  Hmm.  So 40-45%
>> of my fellow citizens voted FOR something they thought of as a
>> benefit to and approval of gays and lesbians coupleing to form
>> domestic something-or-others.  That is amazing!  Had they had the
>> chance to vote for something that had that meaning for them, say 30
>> years ago, I’ll bet about 10-12% would have voted for it, if that
>> many.  We’ve really made progress.
>>
>> So...for those who want the institution of the status of marriage
>> for gay or lesbian pairs, and the rest of us who at least can see
>> “gay marriage” as some sort of indicator of admission of lesbians/
>> gays to civil and social okay-ness, I think we just have to keep at
>> it.  We’ll see-saw on, and move by inches to a world that is not
>> systematically hostile to same-sex lovers.
>>
>> Another thought: These gay marriage prohibitions may contribute
>> psychologically and politically toward making marriage irrelevant to
>> the rights and entitlements that people try to get by marrying. As
>> various alternatives like civil unions become available, more non-
>> gay/lesbian people will go for them, and more of the good stuff that
>> has been attached to marriage will be available in more ways. It may
>> work in favor of taking marriage out of its privileged place in the
>> social/political map. That might be good for all of us, whatever our
>> sexual inclinations. It might be good, by the way, in general, for
>> women.
>>
>> Don’t despair!
>>
>> Marilyn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/08 11:09 AM, "Rebecca Kukla" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> And Florida, despite finally turning blue and bringing it home for
>> Obama, also seems to have passed one of the most monstrous of the
>> anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments around, by a narrow
>> margin.
>>
>>
>> Rebecca
>>
>> On 11/5/08, Callahan, Joan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> This is a GREAT day for the U.S.
>>
>>  But please don't forget that Americans continue to ensure that
>> certain inequalities will be written into law --
>>
>>
>>
>>  Yahoo News, November 5, 2008
>>
>>
>>  LOS ANGELES - California's proposed constitutional amendment
>> banning same-sex marriage - and with it the personal lives of
>> thousands of gay couples - hinged on about 3 million absentee and
>> provisional ballots early Wednesday.
>>
>>  Sponsors of the ban - widely seen as the most momentous of the
>> nation's 153 ballot measures - declared victory, but the measure's
>> opponents said too many votes remained uncounted for the race to be
>> called.
>>
>>  The amendment would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the
>> first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions
>> are legal.
>>
>>  Even without the wait, gay rights activists had a rough day
>> Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and
>> Florida, and gay rights forces suffered a loss in Arkansas, where
>> voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as
>> adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and
>> lesbians were their main target. . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Professor of Philosophy
NC State University
Box 8103
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103