This is just the beginning

In 1948, the nations of the world came together and produced a revolutionary document which is about to celebrate it’s 60th anniversary, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Three years prior to this document being formed, the United Nations charter had been written in the city of San Francisco. My favorite part of every major festival in San Francisco is getting off of the muni, coming up the escalator and seeing UN plaza in all it’s glory. Although the UN was founded long before my birth, the fact that it was founded in my state was a great source of pride.

But this week California did something I never truly expected would happen here, we legislated discrimination. I say we despite the fact that I did not vote for this measure, because I could have fought harder. I went to phone banks over the summer, I told my friends my reasons, I protested till I lost my voice, I put a sign in my window, I gave what I thought was needed and I learned this week it was not enough. I should have left my bubble - I should have extended my efforts outside the Bay Area bubble and gone off campus. I should have done more, and you should have too.

By passing Proposition 8, we have legislated discrimination. We have removed rights from a portion of the population. And yet some have the gall to claim a vote on yes doesn’t mean they’re bigoted, it doesn’t mean they don’t tolerate queers, and some even go so far as to claim they accept the queer community and respect individuals within it while they vote yes on 8!

Californians - look towards this document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ask yourself if you’re living up to it. Americans, ask yourself if you really want your states to violate this document and if you think that equal rights should be considered a states rights issue when rights are clearly being violated.

I’m not going to post the entire thing as it would make this note over 5 pages long, but I’m posting most of the relevant pieces regarding this issue.

“The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

“Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
(I see no spirit of brotherhood in prop 8)

“Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
(I don’t care if you think homosexuality is a choice or not - if it is a choice then the opinion must be respected, and if you think it’s determined by genetic factors than it’s protected under birth or other status. )

“Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
(No on 8 supporters - we should remember this as other rights are clearly violated and perhaps this needs to be escalated to a national tribunal to remedy this)

“Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
(Do you remember the yes on 8 threatening to run a smear campaign on those donating to the No on 8 campaign? Does passing a law that says some cannot marry seem like an interference within family and home to you? Because I certainly see a problem here)

“Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
(I think this is pretty self explanatory. The first portion does not say men and women may only marry and found a family with a member of the opposite sex, only that they have a RIGHT to marry. I think this also shows why it is important to ask for marriage because a civil union is not the same as marriage, it is a civil contract, but marriage is the foundation of a family, recognized and protected by society and the State)

“Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
(When gay partnerships are not recognized and the state seizes property rather than leaving it to the spouse - that is arbitrarily depriving someone of his property.)

“Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
(The article before this is about the ability to believe and practice worship... And this one is basically the same in regards to opinions. The basic notion of those two articles combined is that the ideals we hold dear we should be able to express without interference. As I see it, when a couple would like to express their affection and others opinions interfere with the ability to have that recognize is violating the idea behind this Article. Also regarding gays in the military, Don’t ask don’t tell violates this principle.)

“Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
(Being queer is part of one’s identity and expressing this freely is a right. Marriage is a cultural right with social privilege and economic implications and being denied rights is not respecting an individual’s dignity.)

“Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”
(I think marriage is part of the cultural life of the community. Have you been to a wedding? In all those I’ve attended the majority of the ceremony is directed towards the community and its role recognizing the vows of the individuals.)

“Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
(As I see it this basically means everyone has a role in society and that rights will only be abridged in order to protect rights of others. And using a right to violate the rights set out in this charter is not acceptable. So given the amount of places where the right to marry is protected - your right to express your religion does not justify the abridging of another’s right to marriage, interference within their home, limiting their self expression, and discouraging their participation in the community etc... )

“Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
(Nowhere here do we say you may destroy rights and freedoms, and we want to make sure you understand that.)

I could say more. I can and probably will later, because this is more than just a violation of rights this is an issue which affects individuals. And until everyone sees and acknowledges both the conceptual problems with the policy and the way it affects individuals in their private lives, I don’t think we’ll see any major changes. And until we rectify these problems, I have reason to keep speaking out.