You can vote to strip me of my right to marry the one I love, but: I am a man.
You can vote to strip me of any of my rights, but: I am a man.
You can vote to strip me of all of my rights, but: I am a man.
You can vote to leave me with none of my rights, but: I am a man.
And when will you stop, my fellow citizens? When will you, my fellow citizens, decide that my manhood trumps your right to deprive me? Where will you draw the line? What rights are yours to allocate, and what rights are granted to me as they are to you, by Something greater than us both?
What rights are not yours to take away, as you have today taken from me the right to marry? Are there any rights I may feel safe holding, today, as you’ve decided that rights can be taken from me by a vote of you?
Owning property? Owning a business? Adopting children? Walking on the same side of the street as you? Casting a vote? Using the same water fountain as you do? Sharing a seat on a public bus? Renting an apartment? Sending my children to the same schools as yours?
Are all of these rights yours to grant to me because of who I love? Are all of these rights yours to take from me because of who I love? Are none of these rights mine because I, like you, am endowed with them and live in a nation whose founding documents recognize the granting of these rights not by the state, and not by fellow citizens, but by a Larger Entity?
Really, what’s the line you’ve drawn in your mind, Californians? What rights will you take? These rights, but no more? These rights, but not those other rights? Which rights are safe for me to keep, and which would you like to put on the ballot next year? In which state will you next bring your awesome financial resources to bear, and against which group? Which rights would you strip from me in order to serve The God you worship, whose Book commands you? Whom will you choose to strip rights from next? What Revelation will guide you next?
The right to marry you will take from me, but not to the right to vote? Oh, why not — if it’s possible to spend six dollars a vote to strip my right to marry, why stop there? Why not ask citizens to strip me of my right to vote? Or adopt? Or live where I choose? Or shop where I like? Or work for who will hire me? Or live freely among society? Or live at all?
Why stop in California, or Arizona, or Arkansas? Surely yesterday’s success has emboldened you. What else bothers you, exactly, and where you would you like it to stop? Pick a state. Pick some despised people. Spend lots of money. Lie to voters. It’s a proven formula. You’ve shown it works. Why stop now?
If rights can be revoked at the ballot box anywhere, what rights of mine are free? Are any?
And which of yours are?
After all, taking away rights is now apparently okay. It’s been proven, in California, where yesterday I could have married the man I love, but today I may not. Because voters judge that right a right too far.
Why? Because voters decided allocating rights was up to them, in a nation whose founding documents proclaim all are created equal. And they have chosen to take my right to marry away.
But, citizens! You may choose to contort the rights granted by our Creator in order to make the State reflect your Faith — but that shall never stand.
Because I am a man. And my rights are as yours.
I am a man.



65 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Very sorry about your great loss in yesterday’s election, Teddy.
Love you, Teddy. Hugs to you and P.
Digg
Bravo, Teddy!
It isn’t over yet.
This was everyone’s loss.
This is so wrong.
This needs to be shot down in flames by the Supreme Court. Oh, wait…
Excellent post Teddy.
Good evening firepups.
It’s a pisser alright. Where DO we go from here?
I am so sorry Teddy. Really sorry for you and P, but also sad for California.
I don’t get the people who voted this down. Are they braindead & scared of their own shadows? Could be.
You are a strong man, Teddy Partridge. You speak truth.
Hello all.
This wonderful community has buoyed my spirits today. I have read your kind words, which mean a lot.
I don’t know that Americans have recognized yet what a horrific step California took yesterday.
It’s very scary, and being its object is terrifying.
I read *somewhere* today that California law mandates that changes to the state constitution must follow this path:
First, the legislature must pass the amendment.
Second, the amendment must be put to the voters, who must ratify by a 2/3 majority.
If this information is correct, there is now way that this law passes state constitutional muster, and I find myself wondering how this piece of garbage ever got on the ballot to begin with.
((((Teddy))))
The bigots will lose in the long run, I am so sorry it wasn’t yesterday.
This is not over, not by a long shot.
To paraphrase Victor Hugo, nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
dugg.
Thanks Teddy.
none of us are truly free unless all of us are.
where ever the line is, teddy – i want to be on your side of it.
Powerful writing. Rights must be for all or sooner or later they will be for none.
Thanks, neuro.
Teddy, as one who is trained in the law, I am appalled at the precedent of a state changing its constitution to DIMINISH its citizens’ rights…I thought we were supposed to be moving in the other direction, here in the 21st Century…
Thank you!
I hope that living-in-sin will retain its magic now that we no longer have the option to marry. The past five months without the benefit of legal sanction, when such was available, have added a spring to our eight-year-old relationship’s step.
I hope that doesn’t fade as we are now, again, just co-habitors.
Does anyone here have the links posted earlier in the day regarding what’s being done right now to fight the passage?
DiFi, ACLU ???
Teddy – I weep for you and your love and for all people who love but who are kept apart by fear. But the other part of me is truly in a rage that the LDS and Catholic Churches were the venues and instruments for this. Are there any plans for a suit? How does one get an institution such as these quasi-governmental religious entities hauled in front of the IRS, to get their Not for Profit Status removed…surgically if necessary? These groups only know the use of money as a weapon – and I am thinking that shining a light on their political activities and tearing away the veil of their socalled charitable status is one of the weapons that we have.
WPITW certainly gave me a lift!
Kristol, Limbaugh, Orally — you don’t matter any more!
Teddy, are all of the absentee ballots counted? I don’t think so.
What about the boycott of Marriot that John Arivosis is thinking about?
Teddy we love you both!
Here is the ACLU, et al, suit
Good evening, Ms Betsy
These preachy moralistic people need to mind their own business and live and let live. Take care of your own house not meddle in others. Jeez Louise…. this is way past the age of enlightenment. Why are there so many slow learners?
From B.O’s acceptance speech last night:
He was talking about the challenges that our country faces. The task of overcoming those challenges is not complete until all people have equal treatment under the law.
As Jim Valvano said, “Don’t ever give up!”
This was a setback, but people of goodwill will not stand idly by and allow the rights of others to be taken away. We mourn your loss with you but stand ready to return to the struggle.
Teddy do know that here in my family you ARE a man and you have our love and respect as a man. You and your significant other are welcomed in our home! I/we am deeply saddened by the passage of prop 8 not only because it takes away rights from our gay and lesbian fellow citizens and friends but because it injects hate into the Constitution of California. Hate does not belong in a document that speaks of innate rights and freedoms. Where is the freedom if some of us cannot live our lives with equal rights to marriage , inheritance and other rights that all married couples enjoy?
We will do what we can to help to overturn this awful proposition! I look forward to the day when this odious proposition is utterly destroyed! And Any couple can join in loving marriage between two people no matter what!
Neuro but of course I Dugg this post for Teddy and all others who’s rights have been sullied by this prop 8 passage and the hateful people behind it.
Thanks.
US Senate – Oregon
Merkley:
691,501 47%
Smith:
691,119 47%
81% of estimated votes counted
Updated @ 5:27 p.m., November 5
Merkley just passed Smith in the vote count for the first time !
Looking good for another Senate pick up.
.
I was thinking of you when I saw the Prop Hate vote totals last night.
I’ll Rise
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise.
Well, there are some next steps.
Apparently it’s not correct to revise the Constitution without a 2/3 vote of the legislature and a 2/3 vote of the populace. Amend, yes — but not revise. And the new suit alleges that depriving a minority of already-extant rights is so large a change as to be a revision and not merely an amendment.
This suit was pursued prior to the vote, when the referendum first qualified for the ballot, but the CA Supremes said, “No one harmed yet, come back if it passes, please.” Now the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and EQCA, along with six couples who have not yet married but would like to, have filed this suit.
So we wait.
Love for you, Teddy. We shall overcome.
Maybe with a proposition striping them of their right to a tax free haven. We the people speak and they need to lose thier tax advantage as they HAVE Entered into Politics and should be dis qualified from their tax status… Is there on Tax lawyer in the Lake tonight?? That could be a way to play payback… Those scorned have fury in their hearts and demand justice for their actions!!!
My grandmother used to say to us grandchildren, when we were bothering one another (and her): Tend your own affairs!
Thank you for your kind words and support
Spencer is suggesting a marriage boycott.
Does anyone know the tax law on this? I checked the IRS website and found this:
So the key seems to be supporting or opposing a candidate, and a proposition is not a candidate. Anyone know how this applies?
Inerestingly, the wingnuts behind 8 are now threatening to take their own victorious constitutional amendment to court, ’cause the AG has threatened to interpret the amendment as prospective and not retrospective. I have to wonder if what they have in mind is a statute nullifying those marriages that have already occured and then prosecuting or otherwise harassing those legally married. This is just getting perverse.
My view is that we need to assume that the amendment will be uphold and therefore CA needs to get working on another constitutional amendment to reverse 8. Meanwhile, I think we need to pass a law barring or drastically curtailing out of state campaign and PAC contributions. Without $20 million or so in foreign (Utahan, etc) blood money, 8 would never have passed.
I don’t care. I’m still free. You can’t take the sky from me.
Um, while I sympathize with Teddy’s overall theme, oh Teddy, dahling, women have been f*cked over and over and over again, so forgive me if I don’t get all weepy over the “I am a man” speech. Sojourner Truth is spinning in her grave.
Teddy, this may sound hollow, but it’s from the heart. I hope that you can be grateful that you have a loving relationship, even if your fellow Californians refuse to recognize it as a marriage. Love doesn’t give you rights, but it does count for a lot.
Teddy, this is the most touching thing I’ve read in a very long time. I found myself ranging from great sympathy for you and yours to great rage toward the knuckledraggers of this country who manage to share their vile slime for all to see. Please give your partner an extra hug, from me, this evening.
some churches here in MA participated in a marriage boycott until marriage rights were extended to gay couples. the church i attended at that time participated – the pastor, with support of the congregation, refused to marry couples (there was still a ceremony – just no marriage license).
The have are filing suit in the next few days and because of the way it written the courts will throw it out. Yes 8 will be history soon.
jo6pac
They do not have the right to take away that which they had no right to give. It’s not even a question that needed to be asked or answered. We are all equal – and nobody has the right to say otherwise.
And, via email, I’d like to point out that Los Angeles has, today, ended marriages other than those between a man and a woman:
Some better news up top.
Nothing like feeding the patrimony that keeps us all down, sister
Teddy
I’m deeply sorry and deeply ashamed of my native State. At least my new home state of WA has consistently refused to legislate such inequality.
I’m dumbfounded that a State Constitution can be amended so easily. That’s just crazy. There should be a full-blown investigation and re-evaluation of the LDS church’s tax-exempt status, imo.
Truly heartbreaking.
XXOO
FunnyDiva
Wow. The Sec of State has already certified the election results? Every absentee and provisional ballot accounted for? [rachel maddow] Really? [/rachel]
FunnyD
So what happens to the legal status of those who are already married?
AND – how do the Catholic church and the LDS manage to keep their non-profit status after this?
patriarchy is the enemy – not men.
Sweetie, there are some of us women who have a stake in the gay marriage issue as well.
James Baldwin had it pretty bad… gay, black and a jew. What a brilliant man he was.
good question
Here’s what astonishes me:
According to SFgov, SF only had a 49% turnout. That seems extremely low given the importance of proposition 8 to SanFran.
If SF had an 80% turnout like LA, that would have been another 144,277 votes cast. If we assume that the ratio of yes/no votes was consistent (76y/23n) with the current votes cast in SF, then that would be another 109,651 votes for NO, 34,625 for YES.
I’m sorry I’m late to the party, Teddy.
You’re married if you believe you are. It’s kind of pitiful that so many people out there are insecure enough about that to need to define their marriage against marriages they think are less real.
It’s even more pitiful that statistics show that those people have a higher divorce rate.
I’d be proud to dance at your wedding. i hope to get the chance.
Teddy,
Marriage is matter of the community recognizing and sanctioning the existence of a relationship between two of its members.
In my experience, the change in the nature of the relationship is first recognized by the couple. If you think you’re married and Pac thinks you’re married, and your friends think you’re married, well … you’re married.
If the sheeple of the State of California don’t want to recognize your relationship, I’m sorry for them. Remember that going on 48% of the electorate recognized this horror for what it is. They’ve made it more difficult for you to get some of the rights you and Pac deserve to have, and impossible to get others (like filing joint tax returns.) This too shall pass.
Also remember that the horror is legally suspect — that’s what happens when amateurs try to write legislation. They f*** it up. Don’t be surprised if they f***ed this up too.
Keep the faith, my friend. The tide of history is on your side.
WTF? Only 49% turnout?
What ever happened to the vaunted Gay GOTV machine? With that horror show on the menu they could only get 49% turnout?
Teddy, though EPU’d, I truly hope you “jump the broom” there in short order.
I am really sorry that this happened to you, Teddy. It’s a shocking and distressing thing that on the same day that America managed to elect a black president, some parts of it felt it necessary to enshrine bigotry in their constitutions. And yes, bro, you are right. If they could, they’d take a whole lot more from you.
Great post Teddy, and what a great example you set during the last couple weeks on this. Thank you for who you are and what you do.