(no subject)
Yesterday i got a bit carried away on a message board discusssing/arguing about the MD court decision on gay marriage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1
I agree completely that there should be two ceremonies, one civil/legal and one (optional) religious, for any couple who wants to get married. This is one area where the church is not at all separate from the state, and it needs to be.
Civil marriage would be open to absolutely anyone of legal age, and grant equal rights and protections without prejudice. Couples could decide for themselves whether they wanted to have a spiritual or religious ceremony as well, and those in their faith community would have to figure out whether they want to stand on the side of love and acceptance or ignorance and fear.
It took a long time for interracial marriage to become legal in this country, and a surprisingly large percentage of Americans (20% in general, more in Alabama, where 40% of residents voted to keep the interracial marriage ban in 2000) still oppose it. Yet in the forty years since Loving v. Virginia, the majority of people have come to see that the arguments used against interracial marriage were absurd, bigoted, and embarrassing.
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate," a Georgia judge declared in 1869, forbidding a white Frenchman and a black woman to marry.
"Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good," he added.
Taking racism even further, a Missouri judge handed down an 1883 ruling based on the preposterous notion that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring: "It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
Such lectures didn't end with the 19th century, though. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia's law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," Bazile declared. "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."
It was pointed out many times by the courts that anyone was free to marry another person of the same race, so therefore there was no discrimination, as long as they didn't go against God's law and choose to love someone of another race.
Change a few words, and every single argument that was used then is now being used against same-sex marriage. Let us hope that it will take less than forty years for these opinions against same-sex marriage to become laughable and unthinkable as well.
To see quotes and ideas in context, as well as many more correlative arguments, see vtfreetomarry.org, buddybuddy.com, and a host of other informative sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2
In reading some of these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of some opponents of equal civil marriage... I want to assure you that, when gay marriage is made legal, (as it already is in MA, Canada, The Netherlands, and several other places) it doesn't mean YOU have to get gay-married! Really! There will still be the exact same number of straights, the same number of gays, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to bear or adopt children, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to remain childless.
The only thing that will change is that there will be greater protections and responsibilities for all those who want to enter into a legal marriage contract, and perhaps there will be more tolerance towards others as less institutionalized discrimination leads to greater understanding over the generations.
Playground bullies will always find ways to ostracize those they perceive as different and therefore threatening, but they will have one less piece of ammunition if their taunts are not backed up by the law of the land. For now, if you are concerned that the children of GLBT people will be picked on at school, perhaps the best course of action would be to teach your children not to pick on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#3
Just clearing up a couple of misconceptions:
1) Being gay is not in itself a high-risk behavior that leads to HIV/AIDS, any more than being a poor woman of color is. High-risk behavior for contracting HIV includes unprotected sex between people of any gender, especially with multiple partners, and IV drug use with shared needles. It is a matter of mucus membranes and specific bodily fluids, not the chromosomes of those involved.
Comprehensive, realistic sexual education, improved access to condoms & health care, needle exchange programs, and addiction treatment centers will bring down HIV infection rates and related insurance premiums, banning or legalizing gay marriage will have no effect.
2) Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone who happens to be gay (or a woman, or a person of color, or any other generally oppressed group) is NOT a hate crime. Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone solely BECAUSE they are gay (or a woman, or a person of color, etc.) IS a hate crime.
It is not some "special protection" that makes the punishment harsher for anyone who commits a crime against someone who falls into one of the specified categories. Hate crimes legislation is a way for us to stand up as a society and say that targeting someone because of who they are is wrong above and beyond the violent act itself- this is from the ADL:
"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."
3) I am extremely happy that I don't live under Sharia law. It's fantastic that I live in a country where I have at least some say in what goes on, and where our most treasured document, when not being shredded by our current administration, can be changed to reflect our evolving consciousness. I am not, however, willing to settle for less than full, first-class citizenship. I will do my patriotic duty & work to make this country even greater than it is by ensuring equality and justice for all who call this place home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and here is my favorite exchange:
Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work. - some dumbass
As far as I can tell, I contain carbon and am therefore "organic". So does my partner. Our naughty bits do not repel each other with a force inversely related to distance, either, so I'm not sure what magnets have to do with it. Do you have sex with any woman that is close enough that the pull of your opposite "poles" (heehee) is enough to overcome inertia? (Wait, don't answer that.) - some smart person, who is also a UU.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1
I agree completely that there should be two ceremonies, one civil/legal and one (optional) religious, for any couple who wants to get married. This is one area where the church is not at all separate from the state, and it needs to be.
Civil marriage would be open to absolutely anyone of legal age, and grant equal rights and protections without prejudice. Couples could decide for themselves whether they wanted to have a spiritual or religious ceremony as well, and those in their faith community would have to figure out whether they want to stand on the side of love and acceptance or ignorance and fear.
It took a long time for interracial marriage to become legal in this country, and a surprisingly large percentage of Americans (20% in general, more in Alabama, where 40% of residents voted to keep the interracial marriage ban in 2000) still oppose it. Yet in the forty years since Loving v. Virginia, the majority of people have come to see that the arguments used against interracial marriage were absurd, bigoted, and embarrassing.
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate," a Georgia judge declared in 1869, forbidding a white Frenchman and a black woman to marry.
"Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good," he added.
Taking racism even further, a Missouri judge handed down an 1883 ruling based on the preposterous notion that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring: "It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
Such lectures didn't end with the 19th century, though. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia's law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," Bazile declared. "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."
It was pointed out many times by the courts that anyone was free to marry another person of the same race, so therefore there was no discrimination, as long as they didn't go against God's law and choose to love someone of another race.
Change a few words, and every single argument that was used then is now being used against same-sex marriage. Let us hope that it will take less than forty years for these opinions against same-sex marriage to become laughable and unthinkable as well.
To see quotes and ideas in context, as well as many more correlative arguments, see vtfreetomarry.org, buddybuddy.com, and a host of other informative sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2
In reading some of these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of some opponents of equal civil marriage... I want to assure you that, when gay marriage is made legal, (as it already is in MA, Canada, The Netherlands, and several other places) it doesn't mean YOU have to get gay-married! Really! There will still be the exact same number of straights, the same number of gays, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to bear or adopt children, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to remain childless.
The only thing that will change is that there will be greater protections and responsibilities for all those who want to enter into a legal marriage contract, and perhaps there will be more tolerance towards others as less institutionalized discrimination leads to greater understanding over the generations.
Playground bullies will always find ways to ostracize those they perceive as different and therefore threatening, but they will have one less piece of ammunition if their taunts are not backed up by the law of the land. For now, if you are concerned that the children of GLBT people will be picked on at school, perhaps the best course of action would be to teach your children not to pick on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#3
Just clearing up a couple of misconceptions:
1) Being gay is not in itself a high-risk behavior that leads to HIV/AIDS, any more than being a poor woman of color is. High-risk behavior for contracting HIV includes unprotected sex between people of any gender, especially with multiple partners, and IV drug use with shared needles. It is a matter of mucus membranes and specific bodily fluids, not the chromosomes of those involved.
Comprehensive, realistic sexual education, improved access to condoms & health care, needle exchange programs, and addiction treatment centers will bring down HIV infection rates and related insurance premiums, banning or legalizing gay marriage will have no effect.
2) Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone who happens to be gay (or a woman, or a person of color, or any other generally oppressed group) is NOT a hate crime. Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone solely BECAUSE they are gay (or a woman, or a person of color, etc.) IS a hate crime.
It is not some "special protection" that makes the punishment harsher for anyone who commits a crime against someone who falls into one of the specified categories. Hate crimes legislation is a way for us to stand up as a society and say that targeting someone because of who they are is wrong above and beyond the violent act itself- this is from the ADL:
"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."
3) I am extremely happy that I don't live under Sharia law. It's fantastic that I live in a country where I have at least some say in what goes on, and where our most treasured document, when not being shredded by our current administration, can be changed to reflect our evolving consciousness. I am not, however, willing to settle for less than full, first-class citizenship. I will do my patriotic duty & work to make this country even greater than it is by ensuring equality and justice for all who call this place home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and here is my favorite exchange:
Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work. - some dumbass
As far as I can tell, I contain carbon and am therefore "organic". So does my partner. Our naughty bits do not repel each other with a force inversely related to distance, either, so I'm not sure what magnets have to do with it. Do you have sex with any woman that is close enough that the pull of your opposite "poles" (heehee) is enough to overcome inertia? (Wait, don't answer that.) - some smart person, who is also a UU.