| Gay marriage and desegregation- a fair comparison? |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (4:47 pm) I do not agree that comparisons between racial segregation and gay marriage is an inappropriate one to make. When racial segregation was supported by many in our nation, similar arguments were made-- that "God" didn't intend for blacks and whites to intermingle... that "God" made us separate to remain separate and that Blacks were "marked" by "God" because they were inferior... Insane, non-sensical rhetoric that divided our nation... Some said that de-segregation would destroy our nation ... It didn't ... Nor will gay marriage... Gay people deserve to be treated with respect and (as you state) should have the right to marry and enjoy the same rights and protections under the law... The "God" argument used by ignorant over-zealous Evangelicals (who actually lust for Armageddon and the end of the world!) is non-sensical... If they had their way, we'd be back in the Dark Ages (and you couldn't even have an alcoholic drink, either!) posted by: SheSpecies (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:00 pm) Hmmm. I have to agree with WinstonSmith here. Definitely. And I also have to disagree with you on your statement that, "Homosexuals are not discriminated against in all facets of life." Aside from the fact that I've had 1st hand personal experience with this matter, I also realise that whether or not homosexuals are discriminated in "ALL" facets of life is simply not the relevant point. The point is that it's no one's place in this world to tell another human who they can and can not love. I'll also tell you that despite some of the progressive changes in our societies, homosexuals are still very much discriminated against...just as some races are still heavily discriminated against. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:17 pm) No, homosexuals may not currently be discriminated against as much as blacks used to be, but just last year it was actually illegal to engage in homosexual activity in many places across the country, while I don't think its every been illegal to engage in black activity. The cultural discrimination is still there. I think the homosexual rights movement is part of the broader civil rights movement, which includes race, sex, religion, etc. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:28 pm) Reply to: WinstonSmith I didn't mean to imply that the comparison is entirely inappropriate, just that it isn't entirely accurate. Marriage is just one part of life, whereas the discrimination prior to desegregation involved all areas of life. posted by: soontobev (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:33 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Illegal to engage in homosexual activity... So theoretically...if someone was a homosexual in a location like that...it would be illegal to exist? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:36 pm) Reply to: SheSpecies "...whether or not homosexuals are discriminated in "ALL" facets of life is simply not the relevant point. The point is that it's no one's place in this world to tell another human who they can and can not love." I absolutely agree, and that was my point. I realize that homosexuals are certainly discriminated against, but it is less a personal discrimination than a general discrimination against all homosexuals (you can't generally tell a person is gay simply by looking at them), and this is how it differs from the discrimination of blacks pre-desegregation. Any discrimination is absolutely wrong, so don't think I am trying to justify anything; I am merely pointing out that denial of marriage rights is different than denial of all basic rights. But it is not at all the role of the government to forbid any consenting couple the right to marry. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:42 pm) Reply to: soontobev No, sexuality does not define existence- a homosexual simply wouldn't be allowed to have sex without violating the law. It's amazing such laws existed for so long. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (7:52 pm) I don't follow what you mean about adding an amendment that would itself be unconstitutional to the constitution. If it becomes part of the constitution, it's certainly constitutional since it's part of the constitution. If it's not added, it has no relevance whatsoever since it's just a proposed amendment. I agree though that people are overlooking the basic purpose of the Constitution. It is there to define our government, and guarantee us certain rights. It is not there to take away rights. That was tried only once with something called prohibition, and it did not work out very well. Certain people want to amend the constitution now to take away rights for entirely political reasons. They talk about it for "flag burning" and for gay marriage. I agree that the flag should be treated with respect, but making it unconstitutional to burn a flag will not help one bit. It will just make the flag stand for less than it does now. And if they are so sure that an amendment is needed to ban gay marriage, then they must believe deep down that our constitution allows it, and possibly even precludes laws against it. Otherwise, there would be little point. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (4:53 am) Both the case in Mass. and Brown have quite a bit in common. While it is arguable that gays/lesbians have not suffered the same level of state sanctioned descrimination as African Americans did prior to (and even after) Brown there are some commonalities to consider. #1 In both cases, the rights of a politically weak and generally socially unpopular minority were protected by a federal system that has for centuries excluded them as being derserving of equal consideration. In this situation, as well as in Brown, the courts are being put in the situation of acting as steward for the underrepresented and even unpopular. #2 Both the Brown case and the one in Mass. have sparked a social debate that will likely set in motion a change to the US Constitution... a feat that is in and of itself rare. #3 In Brown the supreme court combined several cases from lower courts around the nation into one... as it was a topic of national concern. The same thing is likely to happen with the gay marriage issue. Mass. is just one of several states grappling with it. #4 In Brown the court ruled that the "separate but equal" standard was unconstitutional, but it did not mandate what specifically had to be done in order to insure an equal education for minorities in the public school. If/when the gay marriage issue is heard by the supreme court, they are likely to take a similarly vague approach to what is clearly a controversial issue. (Of course, with as conservative as this court is, I'm not all that hopeful ~ although they did recently overturn state sodomy laws... so I guess you never know). #5 If you take a close look at opponents of gay marriage, I'd be willing to bet that the demographic make up of these folks is very similar to those who opposed desegregation. In short... I think there are quite a few fair comparisons to make between the two. But the bottom line, in my opinion, is that legal marriage as sanctioned by the state is a service provided by and for the tax payer, thus, homosexuals should have an equal opportunity to benefit from what their taxes contribute to. (Marriage as sanctioned by a church is an entire issue all together and should not be manipulated by the state). As always... great blog. posted by: SheSpecies (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (10:29 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Wow...that was quite a mouthfull there! I'm impressed. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.26.04 (4:40 pm) Reply to: SheSpecies Sorry... I get a little overly excited sometimes. :) posted by: SheSpecies (reply) post date: 05.26.04 (7:56 pm) Reply to: juniperflux :-) I'm glad people are getting excited about this stuff. Love is a basic human right...and if that's being accepted as a basis for tax breaks and benefits in life, it should be granted to more folks. I'm actually quite relieved that even people who it doesn't directly affect are speaking out about it. Gives me some faith in this world. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 06.05.04 (12:19 pm) Hey! Where are you???? Come back to us! posted by: Shark99 (reply) post date: 06.05.04 (5:08 pm) I just hope interracial marriage isn't illegal, I'd hate not to be able to marry Scarlett. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (11:16 am) Reply to: juniperflux That's what I've been telling her! Every morning its "I'm going to write a blog today..." but it never happens. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (3:10 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Sorry! I've been really busy and exhausted lately, as well as politically apathetic. I'll try and post something soon, though. Glad to know someone missed me. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (3:11 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 I don't recall anyone asking your opinion. :P posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.06.04 (3:18 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Okay, I meant to respond to your comment on this a looong time ago. You brought up some very good points about the Brown case and how it ties in with the Massachusetts rulings on gay marriage, and I agree with everything you said. However, my point was that segregation involved much more than the issue of gay marriage does and that segregation violated more rights. Similarities can be found between just about any two court cases, but that doesn't make them exactly comparable in terms of the issues at hand and the rights involved. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:41 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Hmmmmm... you realize of course, that this raises more questions than it does answers. Apparently Dragonbait22 and therealspartacus007 hang out together each morning discussing the status of each other's blogs? Very interesting indeed. :) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (1:42 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 I agree completely. If we look at the two in terms of the rights lost by both groups and the descrimination felt by either minority, it's complete apples and oranges. However, if we take a look at both situations in terms of how they are playing out and the impact they have had and potentially have in changing the lives of an underrepresented group, then certainly there are similarities. As always, great blog. And welcome back! We missed you! posted by: greeneyedgrrl (reply) post date: 06.07.04 (7:21 pm) First, I want to say that I don't think it's very productive to compare and rate the struggle for equality for different minority groups-- "my struggle is different from yours, more difficult than yours, more dangerous than yours". I think it's much more important that we provide support and encouragement to each other in our different situations and to learn from our own experiences with discrimination and hatred to be more open minded and tolerant and sympathetic for other groups who also experience discrimination. Of course, these situations aren't totally the same, but comparisons can be made. Marriage is just one aspect of life where one can face discriminaton. African Americans as a group have historically faced discrimination in many areas, including housing, employment, child custody. They have often been the victims of hate crimes. Many gay/lesbian/bi/trans people have experienced discrimination in these same areas. Maybe it would be more accurate to compare the struggle for equality in one area--such as marriage, instead of marriage vs. segregation or the overall struggle for equality. Until a few years ago (maybe three or four), it was illegal for an African American person and a Caucasian person to marry where I live. I'm sure this must be the case in more areas than just this one. Even if it wasn't really enforced anymore, that was the law. This was overturned but only by a 53% "yes" vote. I wouldn't agree with your statement that "homosexuals are not discriminated against in all facets of life". This may be true for some, but not for homosexuals in general. Of course, one can't always look at another person and tell whether or not that person is gay, but often it is assumed by one's appearance or it is inferred by some part of one's life. It would be niave to think that gay/lesbian/bi/trans people aren't assaulted, murdered, fired from their jobs, rejected by their community, and robbed of the custody of their own children (not to mention treated like perverts). This still goes on every day. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (9:11 pm) Reply to: greeneyedgrrl I agree that it isn't productive to compare the struggles of various minority groups, but that is precisely what many gay marriage advocates are doing. I don't think there is a single person who has never been discriminated against in some manner, and we should all show respect for all others. And I agree that it would make better sense to compare the single aspect of marriage (gay marriage as it compares to interracial marriage), which was the basic point I was trying to make. :) I didn't mean that homosexuals are not the recipients of discrimination at all, but that it is different than the discrimination faced by blacks because, as you alluded to, homosexuals are not necessarily targetted based solely on physical appearance. A black person during segregation had no way of avoiding discrimination. That being said, it in no way takes away from discrimination against homosexuals, nor does it make it right that a gay person often has to hide their true identity to avoid discrimination, but it does make it different than racism against blacks. Thanks for your comment, and I apologize for the delayed response. posted by: GreenEyedGrrl (reply) post date: 06.10.04 (12:55 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Agreed. I don't think it is the same thing, exactly. Some people know I'm gay. Some don't. I could hide it if I wanted to. My girlfriend, on the other hand, probably couldn't. I mean, she could deny being gay and no one could prove it, I guess, but she's very androgynous. Sure, she could put on a dress and pantyhose, but she'd still look like a big dyke--- like a big dyke in a dress. Being butch doesn't necessarily make her a lesbian, but that is what everyone assumes when they see her. I could never really know what it is like to be African American, but I can relate to being afraid of another person's blind hate. It's pretty scary to feel hatred that is based on what I am, not on anything I've done or said, but on the fact that I exist. It's scary because it's not rational. Maybe this is just my experience living in the Bible belt. But, down here, homophobia is rampant, it's ugly, it's wrapped up in a disguise of Christian morality, and sometimes it's violent. I have heard other gay people make the comparison between racial segregation and gay marriage but I don't necessarily see it as the same. Different battle, same concept. Equal rights for everyone. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.10.04 (1:04 pm) Reply to: GreenEyedGrrl "Different battle, same concept. Equal rights for everyone." Exactly! :) |
|