khaosworks | Adding Fuel to the Fire

Let's also not forget that a mere half century ago it was mostly illegal for mixed races to marry in the South. Do we really want to go back to that?

The circle turns, if you wait long enough. Before slavery began to be associated with race in the Americas, free white and black lived together and indeed did intermarry in colonial Virginia. Even after 1661, when the court decided that the children of slaves would still be slaves - and started them on the road to equating "slave" with "black", Virginia still apparently continued to have a, shall we say, flexible stance towards interracial marriages.

There's a book titled "Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861" by Joshua D. Rothman, from Continuity Press which I've not read but looks like an interesting study (and I wouldn't mind being bought for a starving grad student, hint hint).

The fact that he extends the study up to the beginnings of the Civil War is interesting, because I'd always beleived that the end of the line, really, for racial tolerance was the Stono Rebellion in 1739 and the passing of the Negro Act which essentially removed all civil rights from all African-Americans.

Dude. Your Prisoner userpic is da bomb.

(The actual thoughtful comment I was going to make here, regarding lesser-evils and that sort of thing, evaporated in a puff of sleep-dep.)

Agree with your point. It's noxious and certainly hearkens back to aspects of the Bad Old Days.

Here is a not-quite-"however" Question:
if it were to come down to two choices:
(1) no recognition of gay unions whatever
(2) recognition of "civil unions"

would you not choose choice (2) over choice (1), even if you'd really prefer choice (3) (not listed as an option)?

I agree that it would be entirely repugnant for choice (3) not to be there -- but in the event that the only way to get rid of choice (1) is to espouse choice (2), I can see taking that route and I would not tar those who do so out of necessity.

It's nice to be idealistic, but sometimes it's necessary to compromise if you don't want to get trampled entirely. Think about your argument for not voting for Nader: people might want to vote for Nader because he's more like what they want than the Democratic candidate. But it's not the best course of action for success: voting for Nader will lead directly to a second term for Bush. I believe this situation is precisely analogous. Clinging to the term "marriage" for righteous reasons, when so many ideologically oppose it, will tend to reduce the chances of any sort of state-recognized union -- at least in the current political climate.

The word "marriage" is so entirely invested with religious dogma that dislodging it from that association will probably take a considerable amount of time. I'm hoping people will finally have come to terms with it by the time my children are old enough to vote (3-5 years), but even that may be a little optimistic.

On the positive side, Georgia decided it was OK to call it evolution "evolution" in their curriculum, so maybe there's some hope...

-----------

Rereading your post, it may be that you are calling out specifically those who state that they prefer the establishment of "civil unions", as opposed to those who merely support this course as the lesser of two evils. If that's the case, I'm solidly in your camp, and this entire post is superfluous.

I was thinking of John Kerry's position, that he, for religious reasons, is against "gay marriage" because he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he is in favor of civil unions and equal protection under the law.

I find that quite appalling.

Sweetie. Far be it for me to weigh in on matters so far removed from my sphere of activities/influence, but it seems to me that Kerry's position on this is the only one he can take and not get hammered politically. (Anyway, and not saying this particularly well, but, he may be using the term "marriage" in its restrictive, orthodox-religious sense, which would not extend to same-sex unions. "Civil unions" is nice and religious-baggage-free.) & not that you asked me? but if I had a position, it would be this one. J

Oh, I'm not naive - I know Kerry's position is the only politically viable one. But it's still an appalling point of view.

The way you suggest he uses marriage would make sense only if he made it clear that he considers all marriages "civil unions" in law. But that's not at all clear from the context, and implicitly is otherwise, since the debate has been framed specifically around the issuing of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

But it doesn't make sense anyway to divide the two, since even if you split it down the middle and call, in law, all marriages - same sex or opposite - "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to refer to religion, what happens at a gay-friendly church (and there are those) or religion who perform those ceremonies? Are they then precluded from calling themselves married? Orthodox churches wouldn't, but they can't do anything to stop them.

So in the end, in boils down to the same thing - marriage is a civil union is a marriage. If they have the same benefits, the same meanings, religious or otherwise, then calling it by different names is an artificial and discriminatory (in all senses of the word) distinction that one cannot defend rationally.

Not that rationality has anything to do with it, of course.

Don't think anyone, least of all me, would ever think you were politically naive! Even if Kerry was using the terms in the discriminatory way you suggest (ie, "marriage" for "us", "civil unions" for "them"), I guess it would only be appalling (to me, anyway) if Kerry *really* believed in that position. If you think (as I do) that that's merely the position he *had* to take, so as not to completely alienate both opposing camps (and ends of the electorate), then the thing is just a cop-out, and at the most he's a (cowardly) realist. (Of course, some might feel the strong position taken by your Shrub is more morally defensible simply because it's honest...)

Re: dividing the two - you know my views on the necessary separation of church and state. I have no problems with the state recognising and enforcing legal rights and obligations in *all* civil unions between spouses of whatever gender - rights to property, maintenance, children (and even consortium! okay, maybe not that).

But I don't have a problem with the state saying that it isn't going to comment on whether that union is considered a "marriage" for religious purposes (and there are separate *religious* rights and obligations, for instance husband's spiritually responsibility for wife, baptism of children etc). That should be left to the church. The gay-friendly church, say, of New Hampshire (?), would certainly regard a same-sex union as a marriage, for their purposes, and be happy to recognise/enforce the rights etc of one, and all members of that church would no doubt take that view. But an orthodox church wouldn't. And I think there isn't anything particularly contradictory for a politician (or anyone else, for that matter), who was part of an orthodox church to say, from a religious point of view, I don't consider this union to be a marriage, while at the same time supporting the establishment of the legal estate of civil union. But that's just me, of course.

And, that does presuppose it's what Kerry meant, which might not be the case at all - not that I've followed the man's record or anything, but I vaguely recall he'd previously been a supporter of gay marriage? Which brings me back to, "Cop out".

Separately, is it just me, or is your LJ rather "happening", these days? Aren't you supposed to be *working*?

As far as I can tell, Kerry's position has always been that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of equal protection and benefits for same-sex civil unions. He also opposes any legislation that will enshrine a "one man-one woman" definition of marriage or discriminate against homosexuality.

As for happening... well, I've not been commenting on politics for a long time. Several people have said they miss my ranting. :-) I stopped because I just couldn't get up the energy to get pissed off anymore about stuff.

But I figure, with the run-up to the election, it's time to start ranting again. Even though I can't vote, I can sure as hell try to exhort people to get the Shrub out of power, for the sake of both America and the rest of the world.

And part of it is to stave off boredom while I am working...

P.S. One of the points I've been trying to make clear is that naming is important. It certainly is to the religious right - they claim that calling same sex unions "marriages" is to remove the dignity from opposite sex unions.

Well, then, to call opposite sex unions "marriages" but then call same sex unions "civil unions" would remove the dignity from same sex unions. Ideally, either the government calls all unions "marriages" or it calls all unions "civil unions". That would be non-discriminatory.

Of course, again, if wishes were horses... let's see how it plays out.

Well, now that your ranting is accompanied by a relevant pundit photo, it's even more entertaining. Your "Gropenfuhrer!" photo caused some consternation in the T. household the other day - spouse was surprised by it when sitting down at computer to do some work. He came running into the bedroom: "Is that *Terence*? What, is he on drugs or something??" Yeah, that's why everyone in Georgia is so happy all the time.

*laugh* Well, tell Han Li I'm still sane. A friend of mine,

mrdankelly, who's a Chicago-based writer, has his pundit photo too, so I was just being a copycat.

Not an original opinion, I know, but nevertheless:

I fully support the term "civil union" for all same-sex legalized relationships provided that all heterosexual legalized relationships are also so designated.

If the term "marriage" is relegated to relationships sanctified within the religion of choice of the couple, that's fine. But if the government chooses to designate licensed heterosexual couplings with the word "marriage", then it ought, as I see it, to be required to apply the word equally, without discrimination, across all licensed relationships. After all, it is one of the tenets of our government that it does not discriminate unless the public good is threatened. Or so it likes to claim.

It follows as the knight follows the wench, then (at least, in 95% of cases ;-), that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to require proof of social harm, none of which has yet been offered.

Off to play in Photoshop a bit, connected with this -- and maybe to wonder at the number of people in the world who are willing to equate the special case with the general case, and wonder why there are things they can't explain.

Plessy was a massive improvement on prior conditions. We may have to live with civil unions/domestic partnership before we can convince people, one more time, that separate is inherently unequal. I don't support it, but I don't assume that we *have* grown any since 1955, either.

Adding Fuel to the Fire

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject