Thursday, November 5, 2009

A Sad Historical Parallel

This is my 100th post, which is a milestone. I have been blogging on politics for a year now, more or less. So I thought that this post ought to be important.

On May 6th, 2009, Maine was the first state in the Union to Legalize same-sex marriage through legislation instead of judicially. The rest of New England followed suit soon thereafter.

But on November 3rd, 2009, it was repealed legislatially.

In 1780, the Massuchusetts Constitution outlawed slavery. The rest of New England followed suit soon thereafter.

The Southern States kept slavery legal until the 13th Amendment was passed, and many of them worked around it through Jim Crow Laws and then later, the "Separate but Equal" nonsense.

In 2009, many people who campaign against same-sex marriage salve their consciences by saying they are not depriving anyone of a civil right, but they are letting homosexuals have "civil ceremonies" which are "equal" but separate by their very nature.

In 1845, the Northern Religious Entities fought for freedom for the slaves, declaring it a sin to own slaves. The same year, the Southern Religious group denied slaves their freedom, using the Bible to justify their sin.

In 2009, conservative Christians use the Bible to deprive those of the constitutional and amended rights to equality for all citizens. Other groups use their religious background to fight for freedoms.

In 2009, we regard those who defended slavery at best silly, and at worst monstrous.
In the future, future generations will regard those who defended denying marriage rights to gays as silly at best, and at worst monstrous.

10 comments:

Shaw Kenawe said...

Good post, James.

I said just about the same thing in my comments.

Equal protection for our gay brothers and sisters is coming. We'll fall back here and there [Calif. and Maine], but acceptance of our gay citizens as equals is gaining.

This is a momentary set back. History is on the side of equal rights.

rockync said...

Nothing to add to this rational and intelligent post but happy 100th!

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: As usual, a very intelligent post. You are so good at reposting "history" in terms that are very easy to understand and that "hit" home.

I believe that gays should have the same rights as heteros, too. This is my "liberal" side showing. As I've said in the past, I do have some liberal views. But isn't it sad that one has to be "viewed" as "Liberal" to believe gays deserve the same rights? Hopefully one day that will change.

Happy 100th Post!

Anonymous said...

For those who really did not learn the lesson of New York 23, Owens campaigned (just as Obama campaigned) as a MODERATE. His very first vote on the health bill violated FOUR campaign promises. Next year, when memories are vague, moderates in the Democrat Paty will take many of the seats that should be Republican. Even if we get a majority, it will be too slim to reverse this disaster as long as Communist in Chief Obama is President and wields the veto pen. With poeple like Krauthammer, Noonan, Goldberg, et. al., stabbing Palin in the back and assuring no REAL CONSERVATIVE-LIBERTARIAN can ever get elected (since the Alinsky slime machine will go into overdrive the minute one shows up... with elite intellectual conservatives falling into line just as they did with Palin... ) the future is indeed bleak for years to come. Who thinks that Republicans will not spend their time destroying fellow Republicans and calling them RINOs instead of defending America? Good luck.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I still fail to understand this whole issue.

"Marriage", as I understand it, is both a religious and a legal institution.

Now, no one can or will ever try legally to force a church to perform gay marriages, and that's fine and all right.

So if a church won't perform a marriage, where do you go? To a justice of the peace. Now, technically, this is a civil union whether you're straight or gay, because (as far as I can see it) 'marriage' is a religious thing (I was raised Catholic, so take it from there). You get 'legally married' by a JOP. So that's a civil union.

So the only way I can see this thing coming to a closure is to make ALL people have to have a 'legal marriage' (ie, civil union from a JOP) in order to be considered 'married'. If you want a church service on top of it, find a church that will marry you. But the church wedding is not what makes you 'married'.

Taking the religious context out of this situation is for me the only way we can make it the same for everyone, and I think part of it is the semantics-'marriages' happen in church, and 'civil unions' happen in courthouses, regardless of who's getting married.

James' Muse said...

Saty:
If you do that, tho, the religious rights' fears come true.

No one would force churches to marry gays even under current gay marriage laws. They don't, and shouldn't have to, marry someone they don't believe in marrying if it conflicts with their faith.

But a Justice of the Peace should be able to grant any two consenting adults the legal title and all priviledges contained therein of marriage. Regardless of gender or sexual preference.

According to most religions, it's the marriage performed before their God that counts anyway. So why are they up in arms about what the secular state wants to do?

Susannah said...

Wrong, my friend. Wrong. We've been here before, but you seem to have upped the ante w/ the whole Gay-marriage = slavery bit. I almost thought this was a joke. Sorry, but your parallel is ridiculous & manipulative.

(I could pull a ShawK & say, "shame on you!" for trying to equate defenders of traditional/true marriage with the pro-slavery antebellum Americans...but that's not my style.)

Let ridiculous & manipulative suffice.

Happy 100th post nonetheless.

James' Muse said...

Susannah, it is not ridiculous.

You cannot call heterosexual marriage traditional/true marriage unless you mean within the confines of the judeo-christian tradition. But even within that, polygamy was practiced widely throughout.

I'm not talking about the religious institution of marriage. That will always be up to the individual faith, and within ours will be between a man and a woman.

I'm talking about the legal and secular contract of marriage. Denying that in a secular state (as the founders DID found us) would be wrong and unconstitutional, being that all basis for denying them marriage rights stems from a religious belief. There is no other reason other than that the bible says so. And since laws were meant to be separate from any "establishment of religion" I think that denying a secular right in a secular state would be wrong.

But if they forced private religious institutions to marry gays, I would be one of the first to be upset. Private institutions, including religious ones, can do what they like (within reason). Otherwise we wouldn't have the KKK still around.

Susannah said...

"History is on the side of equal rights."

"But isn't it sad that one has to be "viewed" as "Liberal" to believe gays deserve the same rights?"

"Taking the religious context out of this situation is for me the only way we can make it the same for everyone,"

"unless you mean within the confines of the judeo-christian tradition"
Of course. And we are a society whose legal structure is based on such.

"all basis for denying them marriage rights stems from a religious belief."
NO ONE is being denied ANYTHING. Marriage = one man + one woman. If a lebian wants to get married, she can go find herself a generous fella (who'll let her girlfriend live w/ them) and get married.

Again: No one is being denied ANYTHING. Marriage = one man + one woman.

"There is no other reason other than that the bible says so"
And so have our laws since the founding of our nation.

"if they forced private religious institutions to marry gays,I would be one of the first to be upset"
You & I both know that's not in the plan, James. "They" will twist social logic, manipulate (as you've done here) minds until the 'basis' of our society is so obscured, that nobody can tell their proverbial a$$ from a hole in the ground. Nice try.

It's not about 'rights,' James. As so many dewy-eyed ingenues wish it was. It's about $$. It's always about $$: property 'rights,' wills, tax advantages, bequeathments, etc. (Am I wrong here?)

It's not about 'gay marriage.' It's about social control, & extricating all references to God from our society, thereby making way for Statism. This way, wealth redistribution has an easier path.

James' Muse said...

Susannah, merely repeating your definition of marriage doesn't make it so.

Even within Judeo-Christianity, traditions have included polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry.

But you are mistaken in saying that our laws are based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. They are actually based in English law, which is based in common law, which comes from the Norman Conquest's common law mixed with Roman law. In fact, Norman Law was actually based partially on Islamic law. Roman law had some Christian law thrown in it, but most definitely predated it.

Our system is based upon law history. which predates Christianity.

Your "slippery slope" argument does fail here, Susannah. Religious institutions do not have to follow non-discriminatory laws as long as they don't receive public funds.

Again, otherwise we would've barred the KKK from existing long ago.