Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html
Title: "Marriage in the March of Time"
Date: February 12, 2005
Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King considers the historical debate about marriage in the United States.
I can only urge people to read the full article.
The present is more shameful a statement regarding homosexuals than homophobia in the past. Prior to about 1990, discrimination against homosexuals was largely a latent presumption in American society. However, the last fifteen years or so have seen a number of laws proposed by homophobic bigots that are intended to discriminate specifically. Take the recent gender-discrimination law passed by Oregon voters. There, the procedural reality was that there was no device to prevent gay marriage. Perceiving and characterizing this lack of prohibition a suspension of democracy, conservatives drafted and pushed and won a measure to specifically insert that gender-discriminatory prohibition.
Laws intended to discriminate in such a way are generally a bad idea, and have a history of eventually losing in court. Furthermore, in gender issues, which do not inherently demand strict scrutiny by the courts, intention to discriminate is one thing that will invite a tougher examination (see Legal Information Institute).
So not only is it statistically inadvisable to push such discriminatory laws--for all the victories they win in preliminary rounds, such causes fail when it comes to the ultimate decision--it is also legalistically myopic.
This celebration of discrimination and "negative-irrational-emotion-that-we-should-not-call-hatred-lest-we-offend-the-haters" is a disgusting testament to American privilege.
As one blogger put it:
We might wonder why these conservatives are so obsessed with sex. After all, that seems to be the issue of contention, that who you have sex with defines the quality of person you are.
And, frankly, that's just giving too much attention to sex.
Apparently the temperance of tradition and faith, while it prescribes adultery for even looking at someone else in a sexual manner, has no objection to obsessing over what other people think about sex.
It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly.
____________________
Notes:
See Also -
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html
Title: "Marriage in the March of Time"
Date: February 12, 2005
Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King considers the historical debate about marriage in the United States.
There's really no telling what the 29 black intellectuals who met 100 years ago in Niagara Falls would think of America today. Of course, the same might be said of Americans in the year 2105 who look back to see how we lived out our lives a century before. There's good reason, however, to believe that the 29 men, led by W.E.B. Du Bois, then a professor at Atlanta University, would hardly recognize this as the same country ....
.... The breadth of legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination 100 years ago remains a historical shame. But what will Americans 100 years down the road think when they examine our era? ....
.... Consider this: As early as 1664, Maryland earned the distinction of becoming the first colony to ban marriages between blacks and whites ....
.... It remained that way for generations, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws setting forth who can marry whom violate "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" -- marriage -- and the "principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment" ....
.... Now fast-forward past today to 100 years from now. How will future generations view our present-day fight against allowing monogamous couples with life commitments to each other to marry? What will they think of our rush to enact state laws prohibiting same-sex life partners from joining the same institution shared by different-sex couples? How will they regard our assertion that there is a public interest in promoting discrimination in the marriage statute? ....
Washington Post
I can only urge people to read the full article.
• • •
The present is more shameful a statement regarding homosexuals than homophobia in the past. Prior to about 1990, discrimination against homosexuals was largely a latent presumption in American society. However, the last fifteen years or so have seen a number of laws proposed by homophobic bigots that are intended to discriminate specifically. Take the recent gender-discrimination law passed by Oregon voters. There, the procedural reality was that there was no device to prevent gay marriage. Perceiving and characterizing this lack of prohibition a suspension of democracy, conservatives drafted and pushed and won a measure to specifically insert that gender-discriminatory prohibition.
Laws intended to discriminate in such a way are generally a bad idea, and have a history of eventually losing in court. Furthermore, in gender issues, which do not inherently demand strict scrutiny by the courts, intention to discriminate is one thing that will invite a tougher examination (see Legal Information Institute).
So not only is it statistically inadvisable to push such discriminatory laws--for all the victories they win in preliminary rounds, such causes fail when it comes to the ultimate decision--it is also legalistically myopic.
This celebration of discrimination and "negative-irrational-emotion-that-we-should-not-call-hatred-lest-we-offend-the-haters" is a disgusting testament to American privilege.
As one blogger put it:
... people find homosexuality itself objectionable; that the idea of two men together is disgusting. Frankly, the idea of most hetrosexual couples together isn't the prettiest sight either; but we should acknowledge that relationships are about far more than sex; they are about companionship, friendship and love. To simplify all homosexual relationships to sex is a hasty and incorrect generalization.
Outlyer.org
We might wonder why these conservatives are so obsessed with sex. After all, that seems to be the issue of contention, that who you have sex with defines the quality of person you are.
And, frankly, that's just giving too much attention to sex.
Apparently the temperance of tradition and faith, while it prescribes adultery for even looking at someone else in a sexual manner, has no objection to obsessing over what other people think about sex.
It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly.
____________________
Notes:
King, Colbert I. "Marriage in the March of Time". Washington Post. February 12, 2005; page A19. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html
Outlyer.org. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal”. February 25, 2004. See http://www.outlyer.org/archives/000102.html
Outlyer.org. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal”. February 25, 2004. See http://www.outlyer.org/archives/000102.html
See Also -
Legal Information Institute. "About Equal Protection". Cornell University. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html