Jim Stillman
Nevar
Acceptance of same-sex marriage or Civil Unions; Fighting Yesterday’s War
December 29th 2007 18:09
In a previous post, I suggested that sincere devout people, conservative Christians for the most part and predominately supporters of Republican candidates, have been and are being cynically used for partisan purposes. An example of this manipulation could be found in the alleged “War on Christmas” discovered and promoted by commentators on Fox News.
Another area surrounds the idea of marriage between individuals of the same sex.
Public opinion in large measure depends on what the relationship is called. A poll conducted by the Pew Institute last year indicated, a clear majority (56%) continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry while 35% express support. But nearly as large a majority (54%) supports allowing homosexual couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.
In all cases, there are two aspects of “illegal marriages” in the United States. First, is the marriage/union legal where celebrated? Second, will the marriage/union, valid where celebrated, have the parties’ status recognized in another jurisdiction?
The term “marriage” is a charged one. What I refer to are formal, legally recognized, unions between individuals of the same sex. From these unions flow legal rights, including the right of intestate inheritance, the right to participate in advance care and medical decisions – in short two people living as a family. (Of course, one of the consequences is the right to dissolution of the relationship in a procedure akin to Divorce.) Regardless of the attempts in some jurisdictions to forbid such unions, the issue has been joined and there will come a time when same-sex couples will be able to enter into marriage or quasi-marital relationships; the idea of forbidding these will be as foreign as the once common laws preventing mixed race marriage. (For my present purposes, I will refer to these arrangements as “civil unions”.)
It is, in my opinion, appropriate to consider the various anti-miscegenation laws in effect in the United States dating back to colonial times and continuing through 1967. Starting in the min-seventeenth century, colonies in America started passing laws forbidding marriage, and sexual relations, between white persons and emancipated blacks. It should not be assumed that white-black relationships were the only ones prohibited, and in many cases, criminalized. There were, also, prohibitions against marriages between whites and Asians, Native Americans and others.
The rationale was similar to the arguments against same sex unions: it violated “God’s Law”; it was prohibited in the Bible, the principal purpose of marriage, procreation, could not take place. These are, as my friend Ahmed would describe them, are “strawmen”. Taking each in turn, any violation of Divine Law is punishable by one’s Church or religious authorities or, perhaps, after death; it is not a concern for civil authority. While homosexuality is prohibited in the Judeo-Christian Scripture, and, indeed, conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims all, to some degree, reject homosexuality and, perforce, mixed-race and same-sex marriage, more liberal faithful are less dogmatic, suggesting that there are many commandments that are no longer enforced, as, for example, the prohibition of wearing fabrics of mixed materials and, as to Christians, dietary laws imposed on Jews and Muslims. As to the impossibility of procreation, should we prohibit marriage by an older woman past menopause?
As noted above, the first laws criminalizing marriage between whites and blacks were enacted in the mid 1600’s in Virginia and Maryland, colonies where slavery was an important part of the economy. Originally the laws applied to slaves but were expanded to all inter-racial relationships. The trend was adopted in colonies where the issue of slavery was not present, namely Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. After Independence, more and more states enacted what were referred to as anti-miscegenation laws; by the early part of the twentieth century, thirty states had adopted some form of such laws.
Following the end of World War II, most non-Southern states had begun repealing the anti-miscegenation laws, part of a growing strength of the civil rights movement. A 1958 Gallop poll, however, showed that a vast majority of white Americans saw nothing wrong in the laws. Finally, in 1967, the United States Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and declared all such laws unconstitutional.
I submit that the laws prohibiting same-sex unions, regardless of terminology, to be as discriminatory as the now discredited anti-miscegenation laws. These “marriages” or “civil unions” will one day be as completely recognized as valid and given recognition. This is the obvious trend in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Unions between two members of the same sex in some sort of ceremony -- religious or otherwise -- existed for many years before anyone sought to gain legal recognition for such unions. Generally, these unions were kept private, with knowledge limited to immediate friends and family members. Then, in 1971 a suit was filed in Minnesota seeking to legalize a same-sex marriage was filed. Baker v. Nelson was inspired by the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. In Loving, the Supreme Court invalidated a state statute that prohibited interracial marriage. The court ruled that to deny marriage on the basis of race was a violation of the constitutional principles of equal protection and due process of law, because the law had "no legitimate purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination."
Both the Minnesota court and the later Washington Supreme Court were not impressed by this argument! Both courts determined that homosexuals had no constitutional right to marry, marriage being a man-woman relationship. The Washington Supreme Court determined that the state's Equal Rights Amendment could not be held to allow homosexuals the right to marry. The law provided protection only on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation.
In 1993, Hawaii’s Supreme Court held that homosexual and heterosexual couples could enter into a formal relationship – not “marriage” and not “civil unions” – but something called a “Domestic Partnership” and legislation was passed. Right now, only Massachusetts affords complete marriage to same-sex couples; Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey permit Civil Unions and California, Hawaii and Maine offer some sort of legal arrangements.
In the United States major interstate issues remain to be resolved. If a same-sex couple enter into a Massachusetts marriage and then move to, say, Florida, may they obtain a Florida divorce? If one party dies a Florida resident, would their surviving partner be allowed to elect a spouse’s share of the estate? All of these issues will, eventually, be resolved. But, more and more states are grappling with the issues.
Internationally, an increasing number of countries will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, among them being the Netherlands and Canada. Different terminology and some limited rights are afforded in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Switzerland among others. Some countries, such as Israel, will not permit same-sex marriages in the country but do recognize civil unions and marriages celebrated elsewhere.
I understand and appreciate the strong religious based viewpoints of those who find same-sex relationships loathsome and abominable. Unfortunately, the battle is over. Just as the anti-miscegenation laws finally fell, albeit after hundreds of years, so the bar against allowing marital-spousal like rights for committed homosexual couples will eventually disappear.
Another area surrounds the idea of marriage between individuals of the same sex.
Public opinion in large measure depends on what the relationship is called. A poll conducted by the Pew Institute last year indicated, a clear majority (56%) continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry while 35% express support. But nearly as large a majority (54%) supports allowing homosexual couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.
In all cases, there are two aspects of “illegal marriages” in the United States. First, is the marriage/union legal where celebrated? Second, will the marriage/union, valid where celebrated, have the parties’ status recognized in another jurisdiction?
The term “marriage” is a charged one. What I refer to are formal, legally recognized, unions between individuals of the same sex. From these unions flow legal rights, including the right of intestate inheritance, the right to participate in advance care and medical decisions – in short two people living as a family. (Of course, one of the consequences is the right to dissolution of the relationship in a procedure akin to Divorce.) Regardless of the attempts in some jurisdictions to forbid such unions, the issue has been joined and there will come a time when same-sex couples will be able to enter into marriage or quasi-marital relationships; the idea of forbidding these will be as foreign as the once common laws preventing mixed race marriage. (For my present purposes, I will refer to these arrangements as “civil unions”.)
It is, in my opinion, appropriate to consider the various anti-miscegenation laws in effect in the United States dating back to colonial times and continuing through 1967. Starting in the min-seventeenth century, colonies in America started passing laws forbidding marriage, and sexual relations, between white persons and emancipated blacks. It should not be assumed that white-black relationships were the only ones prohibited, and in many cases, criminalized. There were, also, prohibitions against marriages between whites and Asians, Native Americans and others.
The rationale was similar to the arguments against same sex unions: it violated “God’s Law”; it was prohibited in the Bible, the principal purpose of marriage, procreation, could not take place. These are, as my friend Ahmed would describe them, are “strawmen”. Taking each in turn, any violation of Divine Law is punishable by one’s Church or religious authorities or, perhaps, after death; it is not a concern for civil authority. While homosexuality is prohibited in the Judeo-Christian Scripture, and, indeed, conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims all, to some degree, reject homosexuality and, perforce, mixed-race and same-sex marriage, more liberal faithful are less dogmatic, suggesting that there are many commandments that are no longer enforced, as, for example, the prohibition of wearing fabrics of mixed materials and, as to Christians, dietary laws imposed on Jews and Muslims. As to the impossibility of procreation, should we prohibit marriage by an older woman past menopause?
As noted above, the first laws criminalizing marriage between whites and blacks were enacted in the mid 1600’s in Virginia and Maryland, colonies where slavery was an important part of the economy. Originally the laws applied to slaves but were expanded to all inter-racial relationships. The trend was adopted in colonies where the issue of slavery was not present, namely Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. After Independence, more and more states enacted what were referred to as anti-miscegenation laws; by the early part of the twentieth century, thirty states had adopted some form of such laws.
Following the end of World War II, most non-Southern states had begun repealing the anti-miscegenation laws, part of a growing strength of the civil rights movement. A 1958 Gallop poll, however, showed that a vast majority of white Americans saw nothing wrong in the laws. Finally, in 1967, the United States Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and declared all such laws unconstitutional.
I submit that the laws prohibiting same-sex unions, regardless of terminology, to be as discriminatory as the now discredited anti-miscegenation laws. These “marriages” or “civil unions” will one day be as completely recognized as valid and given recognition. This is the obvious trend in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Unions between two members of the same sex in some sort of ceremony -- religious or otherwise -- existed for many years before anyone sought to gain legal recognition for such unions. Generally, these unions were kept private, with knowledge limited to immediate friends and family members. Then, in 1971 a suit was filed in Minnesota seeking to legalize a same-sex marriage was filed. Baker v. Nelson was inspired by the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. In Loving, the Supreme Court invalidated a state statute that prohibited interracial marriage. The court ruled that to deny marriage on the basis of race was a violation of the constitutional principles of equal protection and due process of law, because the law had "no legitimate purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination."
Both the Minnesota court and the later Washington Supreme Court were not impressed by this argument! Both courts determined that homosexuals had no constitutional right to marry, marriage being a man-woman relationship. The Washington Supreme Court determined that the state's Equal Rights Amendment could not be held to allow homosexuals the right to marry. The law provided protection only on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation.
In 1993, Hawaii’s Supreme Court held that homosexual and heterosexual couples could enter into a formal relationship – not “marriage” and not “civil unions” – but something called a “Domestic Partnership” and legislation was passed. Right now, only Massachusetts affords complete marriage to same-sex couples; Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey permit Civil Unions and California, Hawaii and Maine offer some sort of legal arrangements.
In the United States major interstate issues remain to be resolved. If a same-sex couple enter into a Massachusetts marriage and then move to, say, Florida, may they obtain a Florida divorce? If one party dies a Florida resident, would their surviving partner be allowed to elect a spouse’s share of the estate? All of these issues will, eventually, be resolved. But, more and more states are grappling with the issues.
Internationally, an increasing number of countries will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, among them being the Netherlands and Canada. Different terminology and some limited rights are afforded in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Switzerland among others. Some countries, such as Israel, will not permit same-sex marriages in the country but do recognize civil unions and marriages celebrated elsewhere.
I understand and appreciate the strong religious based viewpoints of those who find same-sex relationships loathsome and abominable. Unfortunately, the battle is over. Just as the anti-miscegenation laws finally fell, albeit after hundreds of years, so the bar against allowing marital-spousal like rights for committed homosexual couples will eventually disappear.
| 78 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
Man you took a lot of word to say 'The Law has Spoken the Case is Closed.'
Before going off on tangents about inter racial marriages and religious bias you had better make sure that this is the whole picture.
Is it only a case of another race (the gay race) getting civil liberties?
Sorry but that is the implication your comparisaon is making.
Such a suggestion has no scientific validity. Plenty of theories mind you but each one opens up a further can of worms and implausible conclusions.
To state that this is purely a religious reactionary issue is both narrow minded and totally incorrect. Christian Religious groups may be at the vangaurd this time around but athiest ideologies have played their share in rejecting same sex marriages.
Communism saw this as drinking water from a dirt glass - As Carl Marx stated.
Nazism which is based upon facism and Nihilism also rejected any immorality that threatens the state. Rholm was head of the SA and executed for being caught in the act.
The next issue I have is one of the superiority of the Law. Quaint but can't help but feel that it is naive. What about bad laws? Do they stay forever or should they be changed?
What about changes of policy and social movements? When they change the laws change to match.
The Soviets used to quote that History has made it decision and chose socialsm for the future. How wrong they they were. History choses nothing.
So it is no point arguing that this is a dead issue if it is still being debated today. The issue is alive and laws can be changed.
This an ideological fight not a fight about the inevitable course of history (which is incidently is impossible to predict)
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I think it's perfectly possible to predict considering history often repeats throughout its course.
the gay rights issue has turned into a debate over human rights, increasingly as time goes on the opponents of gay rights are being pushed into obscurity, as the opponents of interracial marriages were. Inevitably gays will be given full rights after which there will be a few generations who are born into this world where gays have the exact same rights as everyone else, after which acceptance of gay rights will become the norm.
This is predictable because it's history, history repeats a lot of times and there is no reason for it to go off in a tangent. For instance slavery in the US didn't end until the civil war, when advocates of slavery crossed the line and engaged in military action. People support gays by and large, though their support is limited because they aren't so oppressed. But the louder the opponents of gay rights speak the more obvious it becomes that they are losing, so it's just a matter of time before they cross the line, do something stupid, and we see the end of all this nonesense.
Comment by Damo
I don't know many people who would claim that they can predict future based upon history.
History at the best of times is an approxiamtion of facts to fit a narrative. At worst it is lies made up by the winning side.
To equate gays with a new race is an odd way of looking at things because of two reasons:
One: there is no racial basis for the results.
and
Two: race is a reasonably artificial term created to describe big differences but fails when a half way point is found. Of which many exist.
However to define behaviour as neo-racial is based upon nothing and therefore invalid.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
When the history books are wrong because the winning side has made up a story then we are not discussing history but fairy tales. So there is no 'at worst', at worst you can mistake history for the fairy tales of the winning side.
Even if history is not a sure fire way to predict the future it initself is a good indication of what the future may bring. People largely react in a finite number of ways given virtually any number of situations and historically those reasons are always the same, from the Roman Empire which was brought down due to infighting to the Ottoman Empire which was brought down due to infighting to the British Empire which was brought down due to infighting. Sure, the details may be different, but arguing that is arguing semantics, the verdict itself is clear and the remnants of those empires is enough proof that history is not just the past but a good indication of the future. How it chooses to act out over the course of time may be unpredictable but the end results tend to be quite predictable.
Equating gays with race is not to say gays are in some way a race. We're not comparing, say, birds to cattle and saying they are the samething in the sense they are of the same species, but they are both animals. Gay rights is ultimately about human rights, it's not about comparing homosexuality to race, it's about comparing homosexual rights to race rights, both of which fall under the banner of human rights.
Comment by Damo
Okay you can keep your view of the collapse any empire you like and you can try to create the image of the tide of history being on your side. I won't fight you because you have obviously decided that is the case.
I disagree on all points but you can have you own way.
I am not into this progressive evolution of history thing.
Progressive historians are like progressive mathermaticians, they can't exist. And any attempt to be one is logical nonsense. 2 plus 2 won't equal a progressive 5 ever.
Any way you can clam anything you want as a human right and for some strange reason if you are making that judgement you will always be in agreement with yourself. How clever of you.
Now if we would get back to what I said.
I said that claiming this issue to be a sacrosant and unquestionable truth is without foundation.
Homosexuality is a behavour not a race creed or colour etc. Only by participating in the behaviour does someone qualify for the title.
Now here is a strange problem. This is the only sexual behaviour that has been deemed by you as a human right. Even hetrosexuals cannot make that claim as many dead disappointed virgins would testify.
Now, I am not going to convince of something if you mind is already made up. However I do find the fact that this issue is being portayed as purely a human rights issue a tad low brow and a biased version of what a human right is.
My point is that not everyone agrees with the so called 'progressive truths' because there is no scientific evidence to support them.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Personally I do not view homosexuality as a human right in the sense sodomy between two men is a right. What I do see as a human right is to live as one pleases with no fear of government or any other form of oppresion *provided* the life being lived does not negatively effect someone elses life. Ultimately it's a case by case study though the genrel concept of human rights is freedom from oppression.
So forgive me for not referring to hetrosexual rights, since this debate is only over same-sex marriages. Of course I'd be just as dissapointed if sex between a man and woman was made illegal. It's the simple fact that people living peacefully and co-existing peacefully should not be oppressed. What has a homosexual done to be denied the right to live with another man and call it marriage besides not subscribing to the ideals of any given number of religions?
As for the merits of homosexuality in science. I find that to be a null and void issue when it comes to their rights. Science is a cruel thing, if we were to follow it religously we'd be giving scholarships to asians while shunning off africans. We don't because we have compassion and mutual understanding. We let each other prove their worth through hard work and not their race or chosen behaviour. We don't pick a Muslim over a gay man even though in effect they're seperated by behaviour and ideals. We pick one or the other based on qualifications.
Progressive truths are just convenient ideas people embody to make themselves feel better. It's no different to religous fundamentalists adopting their own views of the perfect world just to feel better. So I'm not basing my opinion on progressive truths or religion, I'm basing it on the concept of freedom. If homosexuals are not hurting anyone then they should freely do as they please, they should have the right to wed and they should have a right to call it marriage. They should have access to welfare as according to their needs.
The only place I bring into question is gay adoption. We do not know how children raised by gay parents turn out in real life. I'm not trying to say that it means they're going to be abused but it's an issue of concern as humans have been hardwired to be raised by a man and woman. So there hsould be appropriate research conducted into such matters because when we talk of children they have rights of their own. But thats as far as I can see homosexuals need to be investigated. Otherwise if they live and die peacefully they should not have to be persecuted by people who follow different religions or beliefs.
Also your argument that I'm convinced does not really hold any water as it would appear you're convinced the other way. I'm discussing this not to be convinced one wya or the other but to gain a better understanding of different views. It's a bit of a stretch to ask me to change my mind overnight on such an issue but it can certainly develop through open communication with other people. This shouldn't be treated as some fight in which the conditions of victory, defeat and stalemate are clearly defined, this is no more than a discussion to foster better understanding of each others opinions. So I'm not expecting you to 'convince' me of anything and I don't expect you to be 'convinced' of anything.
Comment by Damo
I think we have both been blogging long enough to realize that no one changes their mind by reading someone elses blog.
However my argument was with the simplistic and presumtious nature of this debate. Which assumes that anyone who does not support the plan must be a fundamentalist christian. And that anyone who does support the plan is standing up for human rights.
Where have I seen this kind of logic before?
My argument is that they are bogus tests; this has nothing to do with race based civil rights and has everything to do with a highly quetionable demand being claimed as a human right. Sorry I have seen enough debate to recognize the ones that are not debate but are instead rants.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Thanks for 'playing the game" it was lovely to see you and hereby I pay you my dues or should I say "plight thee my troth"
katyzzz