Sanctity of marriage was under attack 40 years ago

[_Scottie]

This article is a good summary of my feelings on same sex marriage.

Looking back in time, it is so easy to see how the U.S Supreme Court was right in making many of its decisions. One might say, they were creating laws. Those creations made this country a much better place for all of us to live. Having said that, many of the historic decisions were not well accepted at the time.

40 years ago this week, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man, could marry. In order to change the law and allow such a marriage, the court relied on the fourteenth amendment. In writing the opinion for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren said:

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Many of the states were outraged with this decision. You see, these laws were created as part of the democratic process. If two people who were of different races made love, it was a misdemeanor as long as they were not married. If they married, it was a felony. The states wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage. The federal circuit court judge cited God in making his decision.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Now let us fast forward the story 40 years. This Sunday, in Braintree, a Catholic priest decided to use the pulpit as a political soapbox. He pointed out that in each pew there was a thank-you card that was prepared and ready to be sent to the State Senator who has voted to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on whether gay marriages should be allowed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court already said they should be allowed on constitutional grounds.

Just like 40 years ago, the people trying to prevent gay marriage have no legal problem with people having gay sex. They just don't want them married. Gays can live together. They can adopt children. They just can't get married. Sounds a lot like the same thought process used in the Jeter-Loving case.

Now, back to the priest and what he had to say. He went on the attack against a state representative. From the pulpit, he criticized the rep's decision to vote against allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote for a ban on gay marriage. The rep is a lawyer who knows history and the law. He knows that you can not deprive people of their constitutional rights by vote. If that was the case, we would still have anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia today.

So, you see, many people thought that the "sanctity of marriage" was being threatened! If God had wanted blacks and whites to marry, why, he would have put us all on the same continent! But, He didn't. It's was unnatural to think that 2 different races should marry! It was an affront to God!

I honestly believe that in another 40 years we will look back and see just how cruel and unjust we were towards the gay community. Just like we now look back 40 years ago and cannot fathom how it was even a question of whether a black and a white could marry.

[_truth dancer]

Nice post Scottie!

Absolutely agree!

We can look back in history and see many beliefs and behaviors that were common and acceptable which today make us queasy.

While we have come a long way since slavery, torture, and the rape of women were acceptable, we have a long way to go.

I wonder how long it will be before the world accepts women as equals with men? There has been some progress over the last couple of hundred years but it may take another few centuries for this to happen. :-(

I have a sense that in the future, humankind will look upon our day in horror as we hold to ideas that will be considered repulsive and primitive. (Poisioning our planet, eating animals, etc).

Thanks for this Scottie,

~dancer~

[_Mahonri]

"I wonder how long it will be before the world accepts women as equals with men?"

Never.

Put them on a tennis court, golf course, wrestling mat, footrace or soccer field and watch 'equality' at work. The women piss and moan about no opportunity, unfair competition and the like. They are NOT equal to men in many ways. In the same vein put a man on the balance beam and watch him kill himself while the woman takes it in stride and does well.

Each has their own talents and abilities. Equal is a myth.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Never.

Put them on a tennis court, golf course, wrestling mat, footrace or soccer field and watch 'equality' at work. The women piss and moan about no opportunity, unfair competition and the like. They are NOT equal to men in many ways. In the same vein put a man on the balance beam and watch him kill himself while the woman takes it in stride and does well.

Each has their own talents and abilities. Equal is a myth.

So you believe that equality is purely a matter of physical attributes and ability at sports? Do you have any idea of just how stupid that is?

Also, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to miss the point of the OP, genius.

[_Yoda]

"I wonder how long it will be before the world accepts women as equals with men?"

Never.

Put them on a tennis court, golf course, wrestling mat, footrace or soccer field and watch 'equality' at work. The women piss and moan about no opportunity, unfair competition and the like. They are NOT equal to men in many ways. In the same vein put a man on the balance beam and watch him kill himself while the woman takes it in stride and does well.

Each has their own talents and abilities. Equal is a myth.

Did you ever hear of Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Jean_King

That shoots the hole in your theory as far as the tennis court is concerned. ;)

And, frankly, I think I could probably give you a run for your money at golf. I average right around 78. The guys I play with hate me. LOL

EVERYONE is different, as far as their talents and abilities. The point is, if you are competing for a job, you should obtain that job based on your qualifications, not based on your gender.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have to be honest and say that I do have reservations regarding gay marriage but I don't quite know how to fully express it. On one hand, I do fully support the right for gay/lesbian couples to engage in the ceremony of their choice to honor their committment, to hold joint property, avail themselves of joint healthcare plans, raise children and such as that but I suppose on some level I balk at the use of the term "marriage" to define it. That has got to have something to do with my thinking being rooted in tradition. And yet again, I think that people can create new traditions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on this.

Does it show?

[_Scottie]

I have to be honest and say that I do have reservations regarding gay marriage but I don't quite know how to fully express it. On one hand, I do fully support the right for gay/lesbian couples to engage in the ceremony of their choice to honor their committment, to hold joint property, avail themselves of joint healthcare plans, raise children and such as that but I suppose on some level I balk at the use of the term "marriage" to define it. That has got to have something to do with my thinking being rooted in tradition. And yet again, I think that people can create new traditions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on this.

Does it show?

I think one problem here is that when we talk about the gay community, it is this nebulous thing without a face.

Think of 2 actual gay people. They have devoted themselves to one another. They get butterflies in their stomach when they see the other. The do little romantic gestures. They, like everyone else, want to be married. Who are we to deny them of that? What if, as all young girls do, these lesbian women have planned their weddings since they were 6 years old. Now, we are going to tell them that just because they have a preference for another woman that they cannot enjoy seeing their dreams become a reality?

And why? Because many of us that are not gay can't empathize enough to understand. We just don't understand it.

Although, that being said, I don't think the gay community is doing itself any favors by showing the flamboyant, overly-extravagant gays and lesbians that you see at the gay pride parades. You know, the guys with the leather ass-less chaps. I think that too many people get it in their minds that these are the typical gays, and that who in their right minds would let these guys raise a child?

[_Jersey Girl]

I have to be honest and say that I do have reservations regarding gay marriage but I don't quite know how to fully express it. On one hand, I do fully support the right for gay/lesbian couples to engage in the ceremony of their choice to honor their committment, to hold joint property, avail themselves of joint healthcare plans, raise children and such as that but I suppose on some level I balk at the use of the term "marriage" to define it. That has got to have something to do with my thinking being rooted in tradition. And yet again, I think that people can create new traditions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on this.

Does it show?

I think one problem here is that when we talk about the gay community, it is this nebulous thing without a face.

Think of 2 actual gay people. They have devoted themselves to one another. They get butterflies in their stomach when they see the other. The do little romantic gestures. They, like everyone else, want to be married. Who are we to deny them of that? What if, as all young girls do, these lesbian women have planned their weddings since they were 6 years old. Now, we are going to tell them that just because they have a preference for another woman that they cannot enjoy seeing their dreams become a reality?

And why? Because many of us that are not gay can't empathize enough to understand. We just don't understand it.

Although, that being said, I don't think the gay community is doing itself any favors by showing the flamboyant, overly-extravagant gays and lesbians that you see at the gay pride parades. You know, the guys with the leather ass-less chaps. I think that too many people get it in their minds that these are the typical gays, and that who in their right minds would let these guys raise a child?

I don't think I can do justice in the way of response to the above. I have defended gay rights on numerous occasions even to the point of debating scripture with other believers on the topic of homosexuality. If I am not mistaken I've done it on this very board and it's not difficult for me to do. (Go ahead, try me ;-)

As I alluded to earlier, it has to do with the traditional view of marriage and what constitutes marriage. But then it would, my being hetero.

I think there are also too many unanswered questions for me regarding the "origin" if you will, of homosexuality in general.

Do I get stars for being honest?

[_Angus McAwesome]

To me it's pretty clear cut. Are they consenting adults? Are they tax paying US citizens? If the answer to both is "yes" then I don't see any reason to deny gays the same rights granted to the rest of the citizenry.

As far as I can tell there really are only two argument against gay marriage, either the religious based "sanctity of marriage", i.e. marriage is a sacred religious institution, and "the purpose of marriage is to have kids".

The first one fails, at least in the US, simply because marriage is deeply rooted in government. You have to apply to the government for a license and you receive benefits ranging from lower taxes to powers of attorney over your spouse in the invent they are incapacitated. Since the government is involved, if you try to ban gay marriage based on religious grounds you're essentially forcing your religion on not just gays, but also forcing the government grant special favor to a religion or group of religions in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The second one fails because if marriage was about procreation, then why are the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped, criminals, alcoholics, and drug addicts, i.e. people that either can't have children because they are unable to or shouldn't have children because their situation or lifestyle could present a risk to raising a healthy child, allowed to marry?

Eitherway, there isn't an argument against gay marriage that doesn't make the person making it look like a bigoted ass.

[_Jersey Girl]

Would you mind tackling the "consenting adults" thing with me?

Sincerely,
The Bigotted Ass