Following President Obama's announcement that he supports same-sex marriage, the typical response from those who see themselves as defenders of so-called "traditional" marriage, but who are in fact defenders of discrimination, is that same-sex marriage has been put on the ballot in some 30+ states and has been defeated in every one. (Not surprisingly our old friend at the Chronicle has parroted this right-wing talking point. Also not surprisingly, she refuses to post my response.)
Let's take a look at the same issue, marriage discrimination, from another point in our history. Here's a map of states which at one time had laws prohibiting interracial marriage:
As you can see, there are only nine states and the District of Columbia which never has an anti-miscegenation statute.This is why we have a judicial branch, to see to it that the rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny of the majority. It's an essential part of our system of checks and balances.
.
Another defense is that same-sex marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage itself. Here's a quote from Rep. Sean Roddenberry of Georgia from 1912 when he proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit interracial marriage:
Sounds familiar, huh?
Last, but by no means least, is what has been the defense put forth by bigots throughout not only American history but world history--'God is on our side.' The Georgia Supreme Court in 1869:
From 1965, the Virginia judge who upheld that state's anti-miscegenation law in the Loving case:
The fate of laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, such as the one passed in North Carolina last week, will inevitably meet the same fate as the laws against interracial marriage. The Loving decision by the Supreme Court striking down anti-miscegenation laws was in 1967, 45 years ago. Although I most likely won't be around 45 years from now, I suspect Americans at that time will look back at the current uproar over same-sex marriage and ask the same question we ask when we look back at the uproar over allowing interracial marriage 45 years ago. 'What was the big deal?'
Let's take a look at the same issue, marriage discrimination, from another point in our history. Here's a map of states which at one time had laws prohibiting interracial marriage:
As you can see, there are only nine states and the District of Columbia which never has an anti-miscegenation statute.This is why we have a judicial branch, to see to it that the rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny of the majority. It's an essential part of our system of checks and balances.
.
Another defense is that same-sex marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage itself. Here's a quote from Rep. Sean Roddenberry of Georgia from 1912 when he proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit interracial marriage:
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately...will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."
Sounds familiar, huh?
Last, but by no means least, is what has been the defense put forth by bigots throughout not only American history but world history--'God is on our side.' The Georgia Supreme Court in 1869:
"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity."
From 1965, the Virginia judge who upheld that state's anti-miscegenation law in the Loving case:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
The fate of laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, such as the one passed in North Carolina last week, will inevitably meet the same fate as the laws against interracial marriage. The Loving decision by the Supreme Court striking down anti-miscegenation laws was in 1967, 45 years ago. Although I most likely won't be around 45 years from now, I suspect Americans at that time will look back at the current uproar over same-sex marriage and ask the same question we ask when we look back at the uproar over allowing interracial marriage 45 years ago. 'What was the big deal?'
Thank you RHM
For some reason I was not surprised to see Texas lead the the Tea Bag parade.
Here are a couple more maps. First, one of states with either statutes or Constitutions that ban same-sex marriages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
Now one of states with Republican-controlled legislatures.
http://www.statescape.com/resources/maps/partysplitsmap.aspx
Gee, what a coincidence.
You might find this, while a little out-dated, interesting: http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/08/tea-party-revealed-as-southern-extremists/
None of these *conservatives* are ever able to express why two men (or two women) who love each other, shouldn't be able to get married. They say really stupid shit like "it destroys the sanctity of marriage", but, when pressed, they cannot explain how it even affects any other person's "traditional" marriage much less how it destroys the sanctity of marriage. If you keep digging, eventually, they will invoke The Bible. In the US, if you can’t frame your argument without invoking your religion, you don’t actually have an argument, you’re just being an asshole.
If a bunch of religious nuts can vote away your fundamental civil rights, then your rights are not self-evident, your rights are not inalienable, nor are your rights endowed by God. (Quod erat demonstrandum a/k/a "so there, nyer nyer nyer")
As a very early blogger, Steve Gilliard said, "The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man's path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America?"
t is amazing. The map of states that had anti-miscegenation laws also are the the same states with anti-same sex marriage laws.
I am just guessing here, but does anyone think that the majority of supporters of the Tea Party live in those same states? Couldn't be they are supposed to be the party of small government and individual freedoms. am sure they are protesting this government denial of freedoms right now.
I thought that was the Republican stronghold map. There should only be three rules on marriage
1) most be of age
2) no polygamy
3) both people of sound mind
Other than that I don't care what two people want to get together.
"...and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
I wholeheartedly agree Des. If it weren't for you White illegal immigrants 500 years ago, we wouldn't have had those dang racial problems and now the gay "problem"! ;-)
Wow, talk about extreme cognitive dissonance to justify your hate.
You really nailed it Des. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.