Shook Ones

(This is copied and pasted from the Shook Ones blog on myspace. Read this, download a great song and help.)

What else is there to say? Proposition 8 has officially become state sanctioned and defended discrimination with the California supreme court’s 6-1 decision to uphold it. 
In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively cemented the notion of “separate but equal” as an acceptable practice for the state. It was the majority’s opinion that reserving the term “marriage” only for opposite-sex couples did not present a substantive negative effect on same sex couples who would not have access to “marriage”, just like only being allowed to ride in the back of the bus doesn’t have a negative effect on ones ability to arrive at their final destination, right? 

The 6-1 margin of victory is depressing. Only one judge in California’s supreme court saw this issue through the lens of minority rights, and their subsequent erosion in this decision. "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities." Wrote Justice Carlos R. Moreno. We can easily draw comparisons between the same sex marriage ban and the ban on interracial marriage that existed in many states until the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. These are both issues of basic civil rights. Basic civil rights that in no way infringe on or inhibit any other citizen’s rights. These rights concern only the two people involved. So if the state can’t stop me from having breakfast for dinner tonight, why can they stop two people from being “married” because of their birth-given sexual orientation?

(Furthermore, what I find troubling in this ruling is the blatant disregard for the separation of church and state. While I understand that the Supreme Court’s role was to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the notion that they are trying to make a ruling on something that is so clearly an issue of individual’s belief in god is absurd. This is a war we may never win though, so we will not digress on this topic. Sorry for my unfocused approach. )

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, how do we proceed? There are some who believe that the challenge to Proposition 8 needs to be taken to the federal level, and are doing just that. On the flip side there are those who think this fight is won by a building block approach, winning a series of smaller battles and working to the final victory. Either of these schools of thought could shower me with a wealth of good points and impassioned resolve, and who am I to judge which is the more valid approach? 
I do have some thoughts though. 

The federal lawsuits that have recently been filed by two couples from California are ambitious and obviously good intentioned. But I think they may be underestimating the temperature of the water they are wading into. This country has a long way to go on civil rights for all minorities of race or sexual orientation. I think you would have to be living under a rock to disagree. With this in mind, we are left with two couples who lost their battle in a pretty progressive state like California, and who want to take the fight to a Supreme Court that made up of seven Republican appointees to two Democratic ones in a federal system that has 30 states with bans on same sex marriage. There is something particularly scary about the precedent that could be set if the plaintiffs lose their case at the federal Supreme Court level. 
The other school of thought on how to proceed sees the next battle at the ballot box. This is where a slim majority was able to strip the rights of a section of the population, and this is where they can be returned. I am inclined to see more promise in this approach. 
If you were to research the passing of Proposition 8 you would find fairly sordid accounts of how its wording on the ballot left many confused about what a “yes” or “no” vote actually translated to. Additionally you would find that in the lead up to the vote, many opponents to Prop 8 saw the mounting support for Obama in their state and took that as a sign that Prop 8 had little chance of passing. The supporters of Prop 8 had not made that assumption, and their well-organized nationwide effort to push the proposition through paid off, catching many by surprise. This is why groups like Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California see the ballot box as the next battle. 

I think the overturning of Proposition 8 needs to take place at a state level, and the advancement of same sex rights in general must work through state levels before it makes a run at the federal level. It is at the state level where opponents to these civil rights are making their fight. One example in my home state that is still very quiet but stands to be quite damaging is Referendum 71. It is the Washington Values Alliance’s preemptive strike to make sure the term “marriage” can never be applied to same sex couples. The sponsors of this referendum have until the 25th of July to collect the required signatures to get on the November 3rd ballot. I can only hope that residents of Washington pay attention to this referendum so that we don’t have a repeat of proposition 8 here.

So here’s the deal: all of us in Shook Ones and at Paper and Plastick believe one thing- gay marriage should exist. The discussion of same sex marriage rights is not the brainchild of some “gay agenda,” in fact it is an issue that exists independent of the context in which it finds itself. The issue is civil rights and putting an end to the “separate but equal” ideas that should have died with the civil rights advances of the 60’s. 
It has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian, but unfortunately groups who look to some higher power for how to live have made it about being gay, lesbian or transgender. 
It’s a farce. I don’t believe in god, but the supporters of prop 8 aren’t trying to stop me from getting married. But if I wanted to marry a man, they would have a whole lot to say about it then. Unacceptable.
So here’s what we are doing- we are making an exclusive song available for digital download right now. The song is called “Breakfast for Dinner”, the cost is $1 and all of the proceeds (all of them) are going to be donated to the groups who are fighting on behalf of same sex couples in California (Lambda legal, ACLU of California, and Equality California) 
The song is a sort of follow up to “order form” and deals with the passage of proposition 8. More specifically it deals with how many minority groups in California voted in much higher percentages to support the proposition, and how I was completely disappointed that these minorities who supported it were failing to draw comparisons between this bill and the struggles of minorities in this country. 
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in California we wanted to make the song available as soon as possible, thus the digital download. But wait, there is more!!!
As soon as humanly possible “Breakfast for Dinner” will appear by itself on a one sided, limited edition 5” vinyl. It will have etching on the B side and will have a hand screened jacket that will be filled to the brim with literature from all the groups who are involved in making proposition 8 and other bills like it a thing of the past. These should be ready in about a month and a half and all the proceeds from this will also be donated to the groups mentioned before with the addition of the ACLU of Washington who will be fighting referendum 71. 

Visit www.paperandplastick.com for the exclusive track. Also, if you just feel like donating to these groups in addition or in lieu of buying the track, awesome! Here are the links:

Equality California 
EQCA 


Lambda Legal
Lambdalegal.org


ACLU of Northern California
http://www.aclunc.org/


ACLU of Washington
http://www.aclu-wa.org/

Lyrics to "Breakfast For Dinner"
All under one roof, but the servants entrance for you
and we’ll lock that deadbolt.
On Tuesday night, 
that’s what 70% of all those who should know better said. 
Talk me through how verbs of connotation escaped you. 
I need to understand how you can draw this distinction 
Without reciting from your old book. 
You know as I do that this is no place 
To make believe the issue, or cite majority volition
It’s about principle, of which you all have none. 
I dare you to make me understand how you think. 
I believe there’s no way to reach you.
There’s no way to reach you. 
Cause I don’t think there is any hope. 
There’s no way to reach you. 
Man on top: you will know and you’ll see
That forgiveness is a two way street. 
So whoever you are, you’re gonna be out of luck
Talk me through how verbs of connotation escaped you. 
I need to understand how you can draw this distinction
(it’s about principle of which you all have none)
Talk me through how verbs of connotation escaped you. 
I dare you to make me understand.
Is there no way to reach you?