the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2010, 06:13 AM   #381
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
It’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.
.
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 08:11 AM   #382
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The nature of the U.S. Senate means that a bunch of small states effectively hold the states with higher population hostage on a regular basis.

Nobody seems to wonder if that's right, but it happens. The nature of the judiciary, likewise, is to uphold the law without regard to populist appeal.
I don't want to get off-topic, but I wouldn't have as much problem with the disproportionate representation in the Senate if the House wasn't so disproportionate.
The arbitrary cap of 435 Representatives means that Montana has 1 Representative for almost 1 million people whereas their neighbor Wyoming has 1 Rep. for just over 500,000. This is one disparity.
The other problem is that it is in the Constitution that there shall be 1 Rep. per 30,000 people--we currently are at approx. 1 Rep. per 650,000 people.
Hopefully, this may change with the 2010 Census and a lawsuit.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyway, it probably warrants its own thread.
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 09:02 AM   #383
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM


I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here. No complaining that the "will of the people" is more important than the application of the California Constitution to all our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Where is the outrage?!1?
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 10:06 AM   #384
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post


I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here. No complaining that the "will of the people" is more important than the application of the California Constitution to all our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Where is the outrage?!1?


the problem with the courts, though, is that you have to actually set out and defend a position, you can't rely on fear, emotionalism, etc.

and it turns out that the anti-gay folks couldn't defend their position.

there really isn't any rational reason to prevent gay people from legally marrying one another. we might not like it, but that's not how laws work.

outrage is hard when you realize that you've been soundly intellectually defeated. the only remaining position intellectually coherent position that isn't motivated by animus -- Olsen/Boies did a brilliant job in demonstrating that Prop 8 was motivated by animus, not to mention eviscerating the Prop 8 "expert" "witnesses" -- is the whole "do we get to vote on rights or not." and this is why we have the courts. just because the majority might want things to be one way -- for women not to be able to vote, for profound nostalgia for a Jim Crow south, or whatever -- that does not mean that their "will" makes law, or reality.

the ruling is so thorough, and so soundly reasoned, that it seems likely that Anthony Kennedy may be unable to disagree.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-05-2010, 10:59 AM   #385
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the problem with the courts, though, is that you have to actually set out and defend a position, you can't rely on fear, emotionalism, etc.

and it turns out that the anti-gay folks couldn't defend their position.

there really isn't any rational reason to prevent gay people from legally marrying one another. we might not like it, but that's not how laws work.

outrage is hard when you realize that you've been soundly intellectually defeated. the only remaining position intellectually coherent position that isn't motivated by animus -- Olsen/Boies did a brilliant job in demonstrating that Prop 8 was motivated by animus, not to mention eviscerating the Prop 8 "expert" "witnesses" -- is the whole "do we get to vote on rights or not." and this is why we have the courts. just because the majority might want things to be one way -- for women not to be able to vote, for profound nostalgia for a Jim Crow south, or whatever -- that does not mean that their "will" makes law, or reality.

the ruling is so thorough, and so soundly reasoned, that it seems likely that Anthony Kennedy may be unable to disagree.
But what about the lost revenue from so many people no longer having to file taxes as single?
And the cost to business to cover all of the new "spouses?"
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?

Do you like deficits? Are you anti-business?



Sorry, I could barely stop from drowning in snark.

I think those are the final arguments that anyone could have against marriage equality. (Which is to say there are none.)
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:28 PM   #386
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
But what about the lost revenue from so many people no longer having to file taxes as single?
And the cost to business to cover all of the new "spouses?"
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?

Do you like deficits? Are you anti-business?

Nice.
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:35 PM   #387
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here.
What's "goutrage"? Is it when you realize you have a case of the gout, and you're real mad about it?

A sharply divided judicial decision came down, with which some people agree, and with which other people don't. Shocker. It would be more convenient (for some) if those who disagreed were brandishing pitchforks, wouldn't it? But they aren't.

Two brief thoughts. I disagree with Justice George's statement: "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage", which of course has been hotly debated here in FYM. (I didn't know the judiciary had the power to decide that, but there you go.) The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.

Outraged enough for you?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:43 PM   #388
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:36 AM
thinkprogress.org

Conservatives Blame Loss In Prop 8 Case On Judge’s Homosexuality

Last night, after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, supporters of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But some conservative activists lashed out against Walker, using his sexual orientation to dismiss the decision altogether:

American Families Association: “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.”

POWERLINE:“Conservatives have long said that the day would come when liberal judges declare the Constitution unconstitutional. That happened today, when a gay federal judge in San Francisco, relying on the opinions of mostly-gay ‘expert’ witnesses, ruled that an amendment to the California constitution, which was adopted in perfectly proper fashion by a substantial majority of voters, is ‘unconstitutional.’

Bishop Harry Jackson, chair of “Stand for Marriage DC”: “The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of black voters in California, have just had their core civil right — the right to vote — stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people…this is a travesty of justice.”

Pat Buchanan: It is unnatural….an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it.



Ironically, Walker was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and re-nominated and confirmed under President George H. W. Bush. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “opposed his nomination because of his alleged ‘insensitivity’ to gays and the poor.” The Democrats objected to Walker’s role in representing the U.S. Olympic Committee “in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games” and for “putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS.”
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 12:58 PM   #389
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
A sharply divided judicial decision came down, with which some people agree, and with which other people don't. Shocker. It would be more convenient (for some) if those who disagreed were brandishing pitchforks, wouldn't it? But they aren't.

here's some pitchforks for you:

Quote:
Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. -- Newt Gingrich
Quote:
“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.” "Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.
Quote:
“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.
Quote:
“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad. “During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008. “Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word." -- Focus on the Family
Quote:
“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately. “Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement. “Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree. “CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.” -- Concerned Women for America

but, i, for one, never expected pitchforks from you. our pitchfork wielders in here have left the room.




Quote:
Two brief thoughts. I disagree with Justice George's statement: "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage", which of course has been hotly debated here in FYM.
what are the wifely duties that only a woman can do, and what are the husbandly duties that only men can do?

i'm sure that gender matters a great deal to you, as it does to me, but this does not mean that the institution cannot function without a difference in gender.

here's what Walker said:

Quote:
"[s]ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 48).
this is really what is so upsetting to some about same-sex marriage, and this is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. you aren't better than we are. we are as good as you. we are as worthy as you. and even if the majority of the population despises that 5%, it doesn't matter because we are still people, you know, endowed with certain inalienable rights by our creator and such.



Quote:
(I didn't know the judiciary had the power to decide that, but there you go.
)

actually, it's what Olsen/Boies proved, at least to the satisfaction of the judge in question.


Quote:
The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.

but laws must pass a rational review test when they are challenged -- the absolute lowest possible form of legal scrutiny -- and Prop 8 couldn't even do that. the Prop 8 supporters couldn't even express a coherent, rational explanation for the existence of the law.

most laws can do this. Prop 8 could not.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:20 PM   #390
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
What's "goutrage"? Is it when you realize you have a case of the gout, and you're real mad about it?
Nope. It's this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.
The anti-homo side's willingness to rely on the "will of the people" rather than rely on the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Or rather, their willingness to rely on said will when it suits their own prejudices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Outraged enough for you?
Yep.
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:25 PM   #391
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Oh and Nathan, care to comment yet on this example of the "will of the people" and "representative democracy" yet?

California Proposition 14 (1963) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I ask, and you demur, so carefully. Another case of the "will of the people" getting turned over by those damn activist judges.
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:29 PM   #392
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Nice.
We bought our house from a Lesbian couple that were breaking up and had to get the house converted to full "Homesteaded" to get the sale to go through.

I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:37 PM   #393
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
We bought our house from a Lesbian couple that were breaking up and had to get the house converted to full "Homesteaded" to get the sale to go through.

I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.
Oh my God.
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:41 PM   #394
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
I never would have known about that legal crap if not for our house--institutionalized discrimination--the only way they got their mortgage to work was to have one of the partners be a renter.



(stuff i need to catch up on)
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:42 PM   #395
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Oh and Nathan, care to comment yet on this example of the "will of the people" and "representative democracy" yet?

California Proposition 14 (1963) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I ask, and you demur, so carefully. Another case of the "will of the people" getting turned over by those damn activist judges.

I was 8 years old and remember that fairly well.

There were 'reasonable' non-racist* arguments for Prop 14.

They went like this,

The Government has no business telling me who I can sell my house to.

If two people want to buy my house and if one of them is a long time friend and I sell to him, I can be charged with a crime if the other person happens to be colored.

A man's home is his castle, he should be free to sell it to whoever he chooses.
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:45 PM   #396
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
thinkprogress.org

Conservatives Blame Loss In Prop 8 Case On Judge’s Homosexuality

Last night, after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, supporters of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But some conservative activists lashed out against Walker, using his sexual orientation to dismiss the decision altogether:

American Families Association: “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.”

POWERLINE:“Conservatives have long said that the day would come when liberal judges declare the Constitution unconstitutional. That happened today, when a gay federal judge in San Francisco, relying on the opinions of mostly-gay ‘expert’ witnesses, ruled that an amendment to the California constitution, which was adopted in perfectly proper fashion by a substantial majority of voters, is ‘unconstitutional.’

Bishop Harry Jackson, chair of “Stand for Marriage DC”: “The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of black voters in California, have just had their core civil right — the right to vote — stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people…this is a travesty of justice.”

Pat Buchanan: It is unnatural….an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it.
As I predicted.

These FUCKERS wouldn't dare say that (out loud) about a black judge on a civil rights case.


Or would they in today's "post-racial" climate? After all, the election of a black president is proof that the US is beyond race now, right?
martha is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:58 PM   #397
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.


other things our so-called Founding Fathers would be shocked by:

1. that women are supposed to have equal rights with men.
2. that there are nine planets in our solar system
3. that blacks are free and can legally marry white people
4. that when you get a cold or the flu doctors don't bleed you to get the bad blood out.
5. that the American Government allows people to be held and not charged for an indefinite time.
6. that corporations have attained 'person' status rights.
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:59 PM   #398
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:36 AM
speaking of blacks 'n gays, here's an almost breathtaking post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on the whole subject:



Quote:
Race And Gay Marriage In Perspective

Aug 3 2010, 7:28 AM ET | Comment

I woke up at two this morning, thinking about the the thread below, which got a little heated after a commenter argued that the fallen ban against interracial marriage made for a bad comparison with gay marriage. I've argued in the past that it was actually a very good comparison, but as I thought about it this morning, I found the analogy less convincing.

Let us, first, stipulate that the very endeavor of comparing "gays" and "blacks" is inherently problematic, incomplete and exclusionary. Still, I think some general truths can be teased out here. First, gays are presently waging an imminently just fight for the right to marry within their own community. In 1965, when Loving v Virginia passed, blacks already enjoyed the right to marry within their own community. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that many of blacks, at that time, either preferred it that way or were rather agnostic on the issue.

In 1960, virtually every black person in America, either was directly--and immediately--affected by housing segregation or directly knew someone who was. To the extent that this was true of interracial marriage, it wasn't just true of black people, but white people too. In other words, whatever the justness of the fight for interracial marriage, it was never "a black issue" in the way that, say, voting rights in the South were.

A comparison between gay marriage and the Civil Rights movement may put-off some--some--African-Americans because it misstates the context of Loving vs. Virginia. My sense is that most blacks supported the movement not because they wanted the right to marry white people, but because they wanted the right to compete with them. Indeed, for almost a century blacks actively resisted the notion that civil right equaled interracial marriage, because racists had repeatedly clubbed the movement with charges of miscegenation. Note that in all the protests you see during the Civil Rights movement, very little of it is organized around interracial marriage.

Much worse, the comparison with interracial marriage actually understates the evil of reserving marriage rights for certain classes of people. Banning interracial marriage meant that most black people could not marry outside of their race. This was morally indefensible, but very different than a total exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage. Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. Unlike heterosexual blacks in 1960, the ban gays suffer under is unconditional and total and effectively offers one word for an entire sector of Americans--Die. For evading that ban means virtual--if not literal--suicide.

A more compelling analogy would be a law barring blacks, not from marrying other whites, but effectively from marrying anyone at all. In fact we have just such an analogy. In the antebellum South, the marriages of the vast majority of African-Americans, much like gays today, held no legal standing. Slavery is obviously, itself, a problem--but abolitionists often, and accurately, noted that among its most heinous features was its utter disrespect for the families of the enslaved. Likewise, systemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians. Of course African-Americans, gay and straight, in 1810 lacked many other rights that gays, of all colors, today enjoy. Thus, to state the obvious, being born gay is not the same as being born a slave. But the fact is that in 1810, the vast majority of African-Americans--much like the vast majority of gays in 2010--lacked the ability to legally marry.

My sense is that this is an argument that will sway very few bigots in the black community. But frankly, as black person, I've always considered the logic of my humanity to be my own selfish interest, as opposed to a tool for washing racists. Given that gays are often born into straight families, perhaps my viewpoint is a marker of privilege. Still, I think it's worth considering the limits of reasoning with homophobes. The Civil Rights movement's strategy of appealing to white humanity--which was incredibly effective--has never been my way.

Nationalism is, for good or ill, at my core. Thus I see the fight for marriage rights not as a fight for a squishy, gauzy "tolerance," but as a fight for gay self-determination. The family is not just a building block of civilizations, but a defense against civilizations which, so often, prove themselves unworthy of the name. Thus gay marriage is, to me, not about relieving homophobes of their burdensome ignorance but about the right of gays to defend themselves against that ignorance.

In 1860, alchemists sought to build a country upon (among other things) their right to deprive blacks of their greatest defense--the family. So ardent were they in this hare-brained scheming, that America lost more than half a million of its bravest young men, two percent of its entire population, and arguably its greatest president. Countless, nameless deaths have come in the aftershocks. One hundred and fifty years later, having learned nothing, the alchemists have returned, insistent on their right to perpetrate the exact same folly upon gays.

They must be stopped.


Race And Gay Marriage In Perspective - National - The Atlantic
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-05-2010, 03:33 PM   #399
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
As I predicted.

These FUCKERS wouldn't dare say that (out loud) about a black judge on a civil rights case.


Or would they in today's "post-racial" climate? After all, the election of a black president is proof that the US is beyond race now, right?

Mark this date on your calendar...we agree.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 03:34 PM   #400
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
other things our so-called Founding Fathers would be shocked by:

1. that women are supposed to have equal rights with men.
2. that there are nine planets in our solar system
3. that blacks are free and can legally marry white people
4. that when you get a cold or the flu doctors don't bleed you to get the bad blood out.
5. that the American Government allows people to be held and not charged for an indefinite time.
6. that corporations have attained 'person' status rights.
Hey there old man...there are 8 planets...Pluto lost its right to be called planet.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 01:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 02:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-13-2008 11:07 PM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 07:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×