Miscegenation laws and Perry v. Schwarzenegger
I’d like to tackle this question raised by a commenter at the law blog Volokh:
…[H]ow is opposing legalization of same-sex marriage today different from opposing the legalization of interracial marriage back [in the 1960s in the Loving vs Virginia case]?
For one thing, Proposition 8 didn’t establish criminal penalties for same-sex marriage, like the miscegenation laws did. It merely affirmed the virtually universal definition in this country of marriage as being between one man one woman.
The anti-miscegenation laws in this country, on the other hand, were spotty and not at all universal, although they were very prevalent in the Southern states and also were in some northern ones (seven of the thirteen colonies had them). They also established criminal penalties for their violation. But many states in the north that originally did have such laws repealed them fairly early (for example, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1843), and Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never passed miscegenation laws at all.
The ban against interracial marriage was never universally accepted—not anywhere near it (look at Othello and Desdemona, for example—although come to think of it, that came to a bad end). And even in the states where anti-miscegenation laws existed until the modern era, enforcement was intermittent and episodic, indicating a back-and-forth tendency:
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas and Louisiana). However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced…
So there is a very different sort of social and cultural record for anti-miscegenation laws as compared to same sex marriage, which until recently didn’t even require a law against it, so widely accepted and universal was the idea that marriage was only possible between opposite sexes.
The court in Loving v. Virginia found miscegenation laws unconstitutional because they banned a basic right (marriage) on the basis of the race of the spouses. Should that right be extended to same-sex marriage? I am in agreement with the decision of the NY Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006), in which that court:
…rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. […] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, however, that’s exactly what Judge Walker did.
I am, however in favor of leaving the issue of same-sex marriage to the states and taking it out of the hands of the federal government. The Constitution is silent on the subject of sexual orientation. But if the American people ultimately decide, state by state, to allow same sex marriage, then so be it.
I guess my response is “how it is different from polygamy?” and all sorts of other things that person *probably* thinks should stay illegal.
There are three classes as far as I am concerned.
The obvious first one is the traditional role – a man and a women.
The next class is consenting adults and includes a HUGE amount of things like homosexuals, polygamists, etc.
And the class that I think can be argued is truly different is pedophile as the kid in this one isn’t truly able to be “consensual”. The argument here (assuming the second class is made legal) is how old one has to be in order to be consensual and there can be a great deal or argument.
Personally I guess I fall into the idea that states get out of the whole marriage things and simply allow individuals to enter into contracts that dictate how things like inheritance, hospital visitations, and other secular ideas are handled. If a church wants to marry homosexuals then that is their business, if they don’t that is too – but the state doesn’t recognize either one as anything.
Of course few homosexuals want this because it isn’t really about the legal implications – it is about forcing us to approve of what they do. Most will not be happy unless you force churches to marry them because it is a social want, not a legal one.
Of course there are ones that truly want the legal just as there are people who understand the implications of legalizing homosexual marriage and are consistent with it too. But for the most part it is a social fight played in the legal grounds with little to no support for anyone outside of their group – the homosexuals typically oppose polygamists as strongly as anyone else even though it is *exactly* the same issue.
Many people who oppose polygamy invariably turn a blind eye to the proclivity of many men and women to produce children out of wedlock. Not merely out of wedlock but often a mother’s numerous children will have different (and often unknown) baby-daddys.
The increasing chance of incest among these people should create more disapproval than it does.
I am uncomfortable with seeing gay marriage as a civil rights issue.
As it now stands, I can marry a person of the opposite sex, independent of my sexual orientation. It’s just that I might not want to. And I cannot marry a person of the same sex, also independent of my sexual orientation, sex, race, color, creed, etc.
The civil rights argument in this case seems to be: you get to do what you want to do, why shouldn’t I get to do what I want to do. As a principle, this is corrosive.
It is illegal to drive 100 MPH on the highway. I also do not want to, it is way too scary. But if someone wants to drive 100 MPH on the highway, are their civil rights being violated? “You get to drive slow the way you want to: why shouldn’t fast drivers also be allowed to drive the way they want to?”.
There are probably good reasons for gay marriage to be accepted by our society. But civil rights does not strike me as the right reason, and imposition by judges strikes me as the wrong method.
The idea of polygamy brings a new reinforcement to the idea that Marriage, as understood to be a commitment between one man and one woman, is an institution of the Church, and not a matter for “human nature” and all the permutations of that subjective field of study.
We may as well be arguing the government’s authority to recognize Baptisms. In fact, the U.S. government has never weaned itself from the Church, regardless of all the legal standings and precedents that argue this or that, it is still the government intrusion into ideological beliefs that is unsettling and quite adolescent.
Civil unions. Period. Whatever happens after that is up to communities, churches, states or clubs to so designate as they will. Mexico is a model of this sort of sensibility.
The difference between ‘inter-racial’ marriage and ‘same-sex’ marriage is that one involves a man and a woman, and the other does not. Therefore, the couples in question are not participating in a comparable relationship.
You may replace the bishops in a chess set with pawns, but you may not then call the game you have ‘chess’.
‘Gay Marriage’ does not exist, any more than do square circles.
If marriage is a “right,” then what’s to prevent anyone from marrying? Can gay brothers “marry” each other now, despite the “incest” involved? Can adoptive siblings marry, even though there’s no actual “incest” (they’re prevented from doing so now, for no apparent reason)? This decision opens up a horrendous legal can of worms; the judge is a fool.
strcpy is correct, this is not about benefits or equality, if it were, civil unions would suffice, this is about compelling societal acceptance of the view that homosexuality is entirely normal.
strcpy also asks, “how it is different from polygamy?” and again is correct that it is not different when Mark Woodworth’s observation that, “civil rights does not strike me as the right reason, and imposition by judges strikes me as the wrong method” is considered.
That is because a judicial ruling by the SCOTUS that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory by way of the 14th amendment, results in the legal removal of ALL LEGAL barriers to the same ruling being applied to PLURAL marriage.
Polygamy, polyandry and virtually any non-incestuous, polyamourous ‘marriage arrangement’ involving adults will be instantly susceptible to the same discrimination argument and SCOTUS will be compelled to rule in favor of legalization of plural marriage by the prior precedent.
The repercussions for society will be profound.
The only argument that I can come up with is that the first set of laws would not have changed the definitions of terms and so the thoughts behind them and their meaning.
while in the case of the new laws, the crux behind it all is that they wish to change a definition, which changes its meaning, and temporally invalidates itself as once it wins, the term it wins against is meaningless, and so also almost everything else in law in a subtle way.
You could argue no marriage, or yes marriage
but you cant argue that marriage as a term that means something has to change to be legal, or that the law has to change language to suit a false constitutional stretch.
the definition of marriage as it has been in society around the globe for more than a few thousand years, would not change if the couple were only racially mixed.
however, they are arguing that the global definition of a term change to suit them, and want the law to substantiate that change in thought by legal means.
after all, they could make up something that means EXACTLY the same thing, but with the one difference of gender (which is why civil is not acceptable).
with that an actual argument, it can then be taken far enough to say, that this new thing be respected and then made equal with what we call marriage, and that discrimination based on that was not good, etc.
But this would not accomplish the actual goal, would it?
Race has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of marriage any more than curly hair would. The use of the civil rights argument is absurd. Gay men and women have precisely the same right to marry as straight people do. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is innate in humans, and other species, so it can’t be spoken of as being unnature.
And more from Hitchens,
When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle—and I do, I sometimes do—I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fanatics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and our upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them.
We can’t effectively fight religious intolerance overseas if we make excuses for the religious intolerance we have here, because when we do it is the same defense the Jihadist use to raise their ranks against us. We have nothing in common with them, we are incompatible with them, and democracy cannot share the same planet with them. Conservatism could very easily be a proponent of same sex marriage if it would stand by principles of self-reliance, self-responsibility, and respect for basic rights before its necessity to bridge a political coalition with the Religious Right … but power talks, and principles walk. It’s sad.
Polygamy is polygamy, we know what that is, and what it does to the lives of women and innocent children and it is wrong.
Incest is incest, we know what is, and we know that it is wrong because it is unnatural and vile, and of the deformities it bears in children.
Bestiality is bestiality, and we know that it is wrong because it is vile and unnatural beyond description.
Heterosexual marriage is a union of love between two consenting adults, and no different from homosexual love in the sense that it is a form of love not just a form of sex.
If it weren’t for gay rights gay marriage wouldn’t even be on the table. But homosexuals are pressing for basic rights, so we see a call for changes in old traditions.
Is marriage in trouble? I doubt it. Just as most straight couples have long lasting marriages, I expect that most homosexual couples would as well What we’re seeing now is the start of a time of transition, and those always upset people and give the impression of more trouble than is really going on.
By the middle of this century we will see a number of states legalizing same sex marriages, and others tolerating them. We’ll adapt as we have before.
The Judges decision is base on his rejection of 2000 years of Law based on the Judeo — Christian moral codes. This is similar to the Nazi’s claim at Nuremberg that the West had no right to try them based on the Judeo – Christian moral codes since they did not believe or adhere to those codes. The Nazis developed a ‘progressive’ theory of law in which ‘law’ was interpreted as a result of force and social struggle. According to the Nazi legal theory, the legal system should not contain fixed rules of law but evolve in continuous flow as a ‘living law’. If the Judge’s decision is allowed to stand as it is, it will rip a moral hole in the Constitution and we will have system of laws by caprice.
Why not allow marriage between a human and a goat, for that matter?
Marriage has always been universally accepted as some sort of religious based union between a male and a female ( or multiple females, and sometimes males depending upon the culture).
The basis of all of these unions is the ability to procreate.
Even in looking at the laws you noted, the intent was to prevent the intermingling of black and white and the birth of the inevitable offspring of such unions.
That was the underlying reason for those laws, however misguided, and as such the ability to procreate is buried deep in the impetus for such laws.
The ability to procreate is something entirely missing from a gay/lesbian type union.
Geoffrey Britain wrote:
which forces me to recycle something I saw recently:
2000 years of Law based on the Judeo — Christian moral codes.
A Jewish minx lying about her virginity and therefore her son is a divine being, scapegoating our responsibilities on human sacrifice, inventing an everlasting fire for the offense of even thought crime, the wish-thing of a master/servant relationship, these are not moral codes but our first ”attempt” at understanding humanity. Chemistry replaced Alchemy because, like with many things we started with, we can do better.
The basis of all of these unions is the ability to procreate Is this why people get married? Is it more about a sense of love — or more than a sense of sex?
The difference is that discrimination based on race is specifically (14th Amendment, Brown v. BOE) and referentially (“all men are created equal”) prohibited. There are no legal precedents (until now) prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual preference. You can argue equity here but you can’t argue law.
Homosexuality is homosexuality, and we know that it is wrong because it is vile, spreads disease, and is unnatural beyond description.
You’re most welcome.
Incest = bestiality = homosexuality = necrophilia = …
Things that are contrary to a civilized, decent, lasting society.
@ stumbly 6:11 p.m. “This decision opens up a horrendous legal can of worms; the judge is a fool.”
One hardly wants to think about how many, and how many different kinds of, judicial rulings to which that statement could be applied.
http://www.wesurroundthempa.org/?p=1516
To all those expecting a gradual, state-by-state approval of sodomite “marriage”… ain’t gonna happen. The revolution will stop it.
Whether it will be the Tea Party Revolution or the Islamist Revolution, I don’t know. But the revolution will stop it.
I’m assuming this is a troll, but I’ll bite anyway:
“Polygamy is polygamy, we know what that is, and what it does to the lives of women and innocent children and it is wrong.”
Polygamy is not inherently tied to pedophilia anymore than homosexuality is with the male end of the spectrum. Indeed, if we go by famous cases we will find *significantly* higher percentages of homosexual pedophiles than polygamists. We can also point out a HUGE percentage of people that homosexual desires destroys their lives – much more than either heterosexuals or polygamists (especially so in the male side of homosexual sub-culture). But your allowed to make bad choices singly or in a group if you are an adult.
If love between one person and another is not inherently different then love between one person and another person and another person is not inherently different either. If you choose to argue if something should be legal based on percentage of what society deems as bad incidents and improper behavior then I do not think you are going to get very far with “gay rights”, especially with males.
Occam’s Beard: I see nothing especially vile about homosexuality, although it’s not my cup of tea. I wonder what it is that some people consider vile about it (other than because it is prohibited by certain religions, that is). I suspect it is the sodomy aspect. But homosexual women don’t engage in that practice, homosexual men have other sexual acts they can engage in, and some heterosexual couples engage in it as well. So is it the act of sodomy of which you disapprove? It is certainly not exclusive to gayness, or even required by gayness. And is that not also the aspect of gay sex that would be most likely to spread disease? Are you suggesting the act itself be banned, even for heterosexual couples?
What’s more, it is at least arguable that allowing gay marriage would cut down on the spread of disease rather than foster it, since it discourages promiscuity (at least, theoretically; I’m not at all sure it actually does so in the real world).
Its more than that, but alas, we are not actually permitted to have a truthful conversation that includes correcting the positive myths, lack of distinctions, and real social impacts.
the other thing is that its easier to normalize deviancy with women than with men. (for a good biological reason, but we are the same, so i cant talk about that either).
lots of other things too…. but ultimately, cant talk about them, especially in a truthful way, as now these things are all related to special protected classes (so said the head of ny police on the news).
I should also point out that the questions your asking is like a prep sheet from a feminist discourse…
first rule, focus on somehting meaningless then make that seem to be the real reason, then paint this as a phobia. ergo your question if its the sodomy. how can it be that if thats a major thing in pornography?
the whole idea is to command both sides of the argument, as feminists do. ever hear them argue and then take over both sides of it as if they are schizo?
perhaps it has to do with all the things that we dont get today as a public. like how external states and ‘tribes’ use them to compromise your tribe… big problem way above what they do in the bedroom, eh? given that what they do denies social pressure, they are much higher in predation of others. they have higher rates of mental disorders, higher rates of desease, low rates of responsible behavior (ie, they are vectors), and a general dislike of any society they are born into, and overemotional hyper sensitivity for some…
even the vagina monologues makes drugging and raping a pubescent girl as a ‘good rape’… sexualization of children is another…
societies tend to negate things that statistically are negative in too high numbers. that doesn’t mean 100% and its out… it means that given things even 20%
nyyo referred to:
“The basis of all of these unions is the ability to procreate”
nyyo stated:
“Is this why people get married? Is it more about a sense of love – or more than a sense of sex?”
———
People go into a marriage – hopefully – out of a sense of love.
People tend to develop feelings that lead to a certain exclusivity.
After a certain level of exclusivity is reached, marriage is a very real option for such a couple.
However, the obvious is going to happen in a marriage and the majority of the time an offspring will be the result at some point in the marriage.
Society has, over the centuries, established guidelines regarding the formalization of a union between a man and a woman, and that union has been seen historically as very important to society.
A huge part of the importance society has placed upon such unions is reflected in the importance to society of generating offspring.
Just as important to society has been the question of exactly who the baby daddy is.
As a general rule, in western culture that I’m familiar with at least, males are not happy with the idea of being fooled or tricked into expending their lives and resources raising the children of other males.
This is why the exclusivity that came with marriage was also important.
It meant that any offspring were considered legitimate offspring of that male, and he had a reasonable expectation that any children produced during his marriage were his legitimate offspring.
Children are an incredibly valuable resource to society, and marriage provides them a certain amount of protection and sustenance via the parents rather than society at large.
With no offspring, societies stagnate and wither away.
So, I suggest that marriage can generally be considered about love – from the standpoint of the people getting married, but is generally considered to be about the offspring – from the standpoint of society.
The concept of marriage creates the environment to protect that which is important to the individual as well as what is important to the society.
By it’s nature, the generation of children is completely lacking in gay/lesbian relationships unless they bring in outside help of some sort.
NYYO,
A Jewish Minx? why don’t you just fire up the ovens right now. Robespierre, Hitler and Stalin all thought they could do it better too.
On the subject of miscegination, does anybody notice that the current PC on television is only blacks marry (or date) blacks, ditto for Asians etc. Just look at any advertisements and also most television shows!
Since ad agencies are the most PC around (plenty of gay appearing actors, multicultural etc) this indicates an overly sensitive view that blacks don’t approve of interracial marriage.
Quite a change from the 1970’s when it was a bold and PC requirement to show an interracial couple.
Neo –
Not that I speak for him, but I don’t think Occam’s Beard was calling homosexuality “vile and unnatural” per se, he was simply spitting nyyo-the-vile-and-unnatural-troll’s argument back in its face.
troll –
Fine, ignore the minx. Pre-Christian Judaic law also outlaws homosexual sex (note: not the orientation, just the sodomy act), and, oddly enough, puts it in the same category as some of your aforementioned favorite activities: incest and bestiality! That implies a similar “naturality” to all of those. If it wasn’t natural, why would it need to be forbidden? (Interestingly, polygamy, though never looked upon favorably, was not expressly forbidden to Jews until a few hundred years ago.)
What I don’t see here is a discussion of the primary role of marriage, which is the raising of children. Scottie discusses it, but no one else has mentioned the fact that the whole issue is one of what people _want_. Yet another indication, I think, of the self-centeredness of our culture.
The question is basically “why should the State have any interest in marriage”. The answer is because the family is the cornerstone of society in any culture. The State acts to protect the nursery of the future generations. One of the assumptions that is interesting is that women _don’t_ need protection in a marital relationship. I know it’s not PC, but if you are a woman with 3-4 children (and I know – who has that many these days – so are we deliberately acting to limit family size?) are you working? if so, who’s raising your children? What is the function of the family? are you ready for the “village” to raise them? Or are you staying home, raising your children? and if so, and if your spouse and primary support of the family walks out, who supports you and those children? The State has acted in the past to ensure that a non-working wife and a couple’s children have a means of support – that a man cannot create children and walk away. _That’s_ why the State is involved in marriage. It really isn’t just about what adults want – if that were the case, then who cares. Eliminate marriage as an institution that involves the state. Sign contracts and use the courts to enforce them.
But children are _important_. They are the future.
You _do_ expect their will be a future, don’t you??
What’s vile about incest, bestiality, or necrophilia? How about cannibalism? I hear some people consider that vile too. Can’t imagine why. Religious nuts, I guess. Why let perfectly good protein go to waste?
Absolutely. And you’ll note that, not coincidentally, the disapprobation of female homosexuality is much less pronounced than that of male variety.
Sodomy is a recipe for spreading disease, both in theory and in practice. Male homosexuals are the major reservoirs of syphilis, gonorrhea, and of course HIV, and are among the major ones for, e.g., hepatitis B.
The problem with male homosexuals is the combination of the nature of their practices on one hand with their promiscuity on the other. Their epidemiology is a nightmare; one might as well try to track down the sexual partners of an alley cat. The promiscuity aspect is a general male trait. It’s in the DNA to, well, spread the DNA. All men — be they janitors, Nobel Laureates, or even (!) Presidents — have Mother Nature shouting in their ear to spread the pollywogs as far as possible. Men are all throttle, no brake pedal. In normal relations, women provide that brake pedal, but with two men, it’s on. (Patient Zero, the airline steward Gaetan Dugas, claimed he’d had relations with several thousand men in a three year period. It worked out, IIRC, to just under five different men per day. Now introduce a disease to that behavior pattern, which is hardly unprecedented among homosexuals. (Recall that I’m from SF; to get the flavor, check out the Up Your Alley Fair. (Very most definitely NSFW, and not so safe if you’ve just eaten, either.)
As an atheist, I take religious strictures generally as prescriptions on how to live and build a healthy society, overlain with mysticism. Strip away the mysticism, and the prescriptions are still generally sound. Pigs carry trichinosis? Don’t eat pork. Live in a hot climate without refrigeration? Don’t eat filter feeders (e.g., shellfish). Those strictures are now obsolete, but were sound. Others remain in force. Want a cohesive society? Don’t steal. Don’t commit adultery. Don’t commit murder. Want a physically healthy society? Don’t engage in incest, bestiality, or homosexuality, which weaken society by promoting genetic defects, zoonoses, and STDs.
Religious teachings on how to comport oneself represent the distilled wisdom of millennia (e.g., the Golden Rule), and are not to be discarded lightly. (And this from an atheist!)
(As an aside, do people seriously think that religious prohibitions against these things arose from theoretical considerations? I don’t. I presume that each of these prohibitions represents hard-won knowledge, ruefully obtained in the School of Sad Experience.)
The question is what behaviors does society want to promote to help it thrive? Looking out for the young, the elderly, and the infirm. Hard work, self-reliance, honesty, a sense of duty and responsibility, treating others as you yourself would want to be treated. Stable marriages are also on that list. To see the alternative, visit any inner city (preferably in daylight).
To put it another way, what society has contravened these strictures in the long term?
Thanks for the laugh. Maybe we should legalize marriage for alley cats too.
Let me turn the point around. What is vile about intravenous drug use? One can make the same arguments regarding it. The short answer: it weakens society.
It’s as simple as that.
(Unfortunately, I’m traveling the next few days, but will check back when I return.)
I’m not a troll, I’ve been posting legitimate comments here for years, I just have a different opinion on this topic, but defining me as a troll might end any descent on this topic, and it might not.
Okay, why would one take authority from pre-Christian Judaic law? Why would you say “my favorite activities” — you are the troll.
**dissent
O.B. 12:56 post
Well done! The norms, values, and beliefs of a society don’t come out of thin air.
Thanks, Occam’s Beard for expressing my thoughts so succinctly. You are right on.
Maybe, maybe not. The assumptions that go into excusing homosexual lifestyles also acts to excuse the excesses of male behavior in general.
It seems to me that the broad support for homosexual marriage comes at least in part from those who don’t want to think of marriage (or heterosexual relationships in general) as a material commitment, but instead as a mere accolade.
Wow. I’m in full agreement.
May i add one more thing to occam’s post?
and that is something we dont think about much in the west any more. parasites.
in the past, you could guarantee that the homosexuals were also the people who had lots of parasites. in society, they became pariahs, because of this desease/parasite issue… not so different than how we treated leprosy.
also, the sexual deseases as well as parasites often have an interesting effect on the mind. so not only are they known to be desease carriers, they get crazier too. ALSO add that they are willing to lie so as not to not have sex (not all of course. but the 1000 a year guys?)
as far as the other things like the high number of child victims…
one can go back to moses harmon and his daughter. i keep bringing them up becuase they are the ones who wanted and did start the whole thing as to normalizing this and this as a vision of what the new land should be. interesing stuff in his newsletter, lucifer bringer of light, which later became American eugenics. his daughter, the famous Lillian Harmon and her progressive sisters. its why obama gave a shout out in kansas, its where Harmon started.
even more interesting, if you go to a post i did a while back, i gave you the female equivalent of this that took the ideas and then brought them to Wiemar just before that weirdo with the odd mustache. and then i showed how that same line of thinking came back to America, as there is a direct link and even quotes from our current schools czar.
its not like its hidden, but if you dont know where to look, what the history is, and so forth, there is just too much literature and other things to get through before you find it, and when you do, you have no context to know you have it. which is why i keep pointing to the same spots over and over.
follow the yellow brick road…
if you dont like Baum…
then start at the beginning to find the end…
I’m in full agreement — don’t eat unrefrigerated, spoiled food! Doh, topic closed. Grow up.
I think much of these dietary strictures are innate, as is morality and ethics in general. A normal person knows not to murder, or steal, (a psychopathic or sociopathic person often does not) thought it does mention thought crime and tried to turn envy into a vice when we should look at what others have and therefore work hard to get a similar thing for ourselves (again the origins of thought crime) but the commandants say nothing about thou shall not commit genocide, or child rape/torture, or degradation to women because the very same book goes on to demonstrate that these things are allowed. This, like much of my opposition on this thread, is the infancy of human philosophy, we look less like the primates that we are when we acknowledge we have done better than this. On the refrigeration stuff, it’s important, I’m in full agreement, dude your beard is shaved, and I highly doubt you are an Atheist — I mean why are you so unsure than there is no God? You’re certainly not a moral Atheist from what it sounds like.
Here is the test. Substitute the word gay/straight for black/white.
Virginia’s law forbade marriage between a black and a white. A white man could not marry a black woman; a white woman could not marry a black man.
Prop 8 forbade redefinition of marriage. A gay man can marry a gay woman. A gay man can marry a straight woman. A staight man cn marry a gay woman. A straight man can marry a straight woman.
However, a gay man cannot marry a straight man, nor can a straight man marry a straight man, etc. In so far as it discriminates, it discriminates equally between both genders, and therefore does not discriminate.
For the record, I am in favor of gay marriage. If a gay man wishes to marry a gay woman, I’ll be at the courthouse door defending their right to do so, and what they do in their bedroom is no one else’s business. But redefining marraige as something it isn’t?
Occam’s Beard: you have clarified your position, and it’s as I thought. I am in agreement on several points: sodomy plus promiscuity tends to spread disease, and gay people are unlikely to become less promiscuous as a result of gay marriage being legalized (although I seem to recall some statistics indicating that gay men have become less so as a result of the spread of AIDS). That said, it was the word “vile” and its moral dimension to which I was referring, as well as its application to homosexuality as a whole.
Artfldgr: you continue to try to cast me in some feminist mode. My arguments here are based on my trying to understand why the word “vile” was used, and coming up with the best explanation I could. Period.
Neo seems to reason very much like many, perhaps most, attorneys do. It’s about Who Wins the Debate, on points, not about Right and Wrong.
To re-define “marriage’, a word with Latin roots and a constant meaning for >2000years, in order to suit the alleged rights of homosexuals, is one more step dowward to a certain level of Hell.
No one here has remarked on the now-emerging socio-political consequences of re-defining marriage. See Scandinavia for data. Not good. And perhaps not what Neo foresees.
Neo might be a changer, but retains more than a shred of moral relativity. Disappointing.
Tom: This entire post is about the law, rather than what’s right or wrong or my own personal ideas on gay marriage, or on how homosexuality affects society, or on gay activism and the decision in Perry (I am completely against the latter, by the way, because I think the decision about gay marriage should be up to each state).
And in the comments section here, I was curious about the use of the word “vile” by one of the commenters, and on what it was based when that particular poster used it. I got some clarification from him. What’s that got to do with moral relativism?
… let alone the fact that miscegenation laws would be based upon genetic differences, at best, while the definition of “marriage” as a man-to-woman relationship is rooted in chromosomal differences
I can see some purpose in state-recognized marriage– there are issues of paternity and child care. But I don’t crave the attention of the state in what is essentially a private matter. I’m fine with my church marriage. What is the purpose of civil unions? Some issues, I guess, of privacy and inheritance– but certainly they could be handled by changing the laws on those issues– not by overturning tradition, the common sense of things, and a couple thousand years of human wisdom. This whole obsession with being married– is it just to get health benefits from your partner? To inherit his property? To be patted on the head by the state and told you’re wonderful? Maybe it’s just an act of political theater–sort of shocking the bourgeoise–but I don’t get it.
It’s personal for the gay couple — it doesn’t require others understanding. Roc you begin well then argue against yourself. Heterosexual marriage isn’t repelled by Homosexual marriage … it’s just marriage, two consenting adults in love, period.
While I can understand not wanting the
“attention” of the state in what should be a private matter, I’d in turn have to ask what should the state be if not an outgrowth of society and it’s views?
Society has for thousands of years deemed *marriage* to be the union of male and female.
The state simply acknowledges that fact in issuing marriage licenses to male/female unions.
There are limitations though which society, via the mechanisms of the state, impose on who can marry who.
For instance, I don’t think any sane person is going to argue that brothers and sisters who have the same parents should marry each other.
Likewise, I don’t think a sane person is going to argue that a human should be able to marry an animal.
The limitations imposed by society, via the state, should not be overturned simply because a judge has a personal stake of some sort in the outcome of the verdict.
Human society made a judgment call on this matter generations ago – for very good reasons that others have already noted – and it’s foolish to simply discard that judgment without a damn good reason.
Now, as to leaving it to the states, I’d normally agree.
However – and this is a big however – every state is required to accept the rules other states create.
For instance, you can’t get a ticket for driving without a license in NC if you have a valid driver’s license from from SC.
NC has to accept the driver’s license of SC.
Same thing with marriage.
If gay/lesbian marriages are authorized in CA, then the “couple” moves to NC, then under our Constitution NC is obligated to acknowledge that marriage even though it’s not allowed under NC law.
This is a big problem with “leaving it to the states” as the decision of one state affects all of the other states.
nyyo says:
“it’s just marriage, two consenting adults in love, period.”
—–
But, but…think of the children!
(Kind of like turning that phrase around for a damn change!)
Scottie: I believe you are wrong about the conflict of laws (interstate recognition of same sex marriage) issue. It is by no means settled that states must recognize such marriages from other states. Drivers’ licenses come under a very different standard.
See this. It was written in 2005, and perhaps the situation has changed, but an admittedly quick Googling doesn’t indicate it.
As usual, Neo has summed up my position perfectly:
“I am, however in favor of leaving the issue of same-sex marriage to the states and taking it out of the hands of the federal government. The Constitution is silent on the subject of sexual orientation. But if the American people ultimately decide, state by state, to allow same sex marriage, then so be it.”
The Constitution is silent on the subject, and when the Constitution is silent, the matter is “reserved to the States, respectively, and to the people.” 10th Amendment. If we ever hope to have democracy in this country again, we will have to stop the judicial branch from ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Saying the right to marry is a “fundamental right” does not mean the states cannot regulate marriage. The states (and the colonies before them) always had, and still have, the right to regulate marriage. They have the right to regulate marriage differently: see, e.g., the differences in the age of consent and in the definition of incest. First cousins may marry in California but not in some other states. Surely it is as “fundamental” for first cousins who want to marry in Pennsyvania as for same-sex couples in California. So, following the judge’s reasoning, all such bans are unconstitutional.
For a federal judge to substitute his idea of what the law should be for that of the people of the state is nothing other than judicial dictatorship.
Okay finis. Good point, people.
**points
neo,
I didn’t have time for much more than a quick peruse of the link you provided so I may have missed some explanatory text that would resolve the issue I’m concerned over.
However, I did pick up on a couple of important discussion points that were covered in the document you referenced.
The first is, the author of the document points out that there was specific language indicating in that state law that the marriage wouldn’t be valid in states that prohibited same sex marriages if the participants were not from that state wherein it was legal.
What happens when a state does not have a specific prohibition against it, or if another state passes similar same sex marriage arrangements without these specific exclusions?
The second thing I noticed is that the author seems confident that other states can simply choose not to recognize same sex marriage.
I’m unconvinced this is correct.
Specifically, I’m referring to Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
So by the simple reading of the US Constitution, if California decides to redefine marriage as between two adults rather than a male and female adult, then the other states are obliged to recognize that marriage even if it were not possible in a state other than California.
>>For instance, I don’t think any sane person is going to argue that brothers and sisters who have the same parents should marry each other.>>
Personally, I agree…but if society has already established that children are not the primary purpose of marriage, and if one or both of the partners is sterile – why not? If the possibility of children is a factor, why is it not a factor in other situations? Besides…with National Health Care in the offing – who cares what problems will ensue – the State will care for any deficient or disabled offspring…
Person/animal – consent factor.
suek,
Well, there goes that morality thing out the window I guess….
I think a strong case has been made that it’s in society’s best interest to encourage a certain amount of marriage for the children that kind of union generates.
It’s simply healthy for society.
A case can be argued as well on religious grounds regarding inappropriateness of same sex marriage, but not everyone is a strict adherent to religion (I fall into that category).
If you ignore the healthy society arguments, and if you deem nothing to be immoral (funny to me that I of all people am arguing THAT point…lol) – then frankly there is no argument left against same sex marriage, or hell – marrying a goat for that matter!
Ahh, I’m just not convinced it’s going to turn out the way some people, who have decided it doesn’t affect them and therefore should be allowed, think it will in the long run.
Society is the way it is for very good reasons that have been worked out over millenia. Society may have to re-learn certain lessons all over again…
Scottie: because the link is Adobe, I can’t cut and paste, and it would take too long to try to copy parts otherwise. But suffice to say I skimmed it but found quite a few parts that indicated there is a fair amount of doubt on whether state A would have to credit same-sex marriages from other states if state A banned it. I don’t know if there’s been further elucidation on that point; I couldn’t find it when I looked. It’s an interesting question, though, and I’d like to see a good and more recent article on the subject.
Here’s a good article on the issue:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/looking_for_love_in_all_the_wr.html
>>If you ignore the healthy society arguments, and if you deem nothing to be immoral (funny to me that I of all people am arguing THAT point…lol) – then frankly there is no argument left against same sex marriage, or hell – marrying a goat for that matter!>>
Absolutely. There was a very good article somewhere that I read the other day, on the fact that _all_ laws had _some_ sort of morality behind them. You don’t make laws just because you don’t _like_ something. You make the law because for whatever reason, you think something is right or something is wrong. That means that there is a moral – of some kind – standard being applied.
I’ll try to find the link…but I’ve read a lot of blogs, on two different machines since then, and I think this was itself a link from another blog. I should have saved it – it was a very good article.
you continue to try to cast me in some feminist mode.
actually not
but if you have adopted a dialectic without knowing it, because you internalized the process to automation, then what?
how do you think that male bad message in media works? (you obviously dont dislike men!)
i noticed that when people see others employ a tactic even if they dont realize it, they start to adapt it. especially this stuff that has some group backing…
take the parts apart, ignore the messae, and see how its being constructed.
it does say something as to how we go about things. and the way i was commenting on, is a super common thing amoung the militant feminists as to pretending to discuss, and in reality be playing with negative indices.
we are great mimics and we mimic who we admire, and you do seem to admire how they have accomplished stuff. but, even a child can beat up their parents to get what they want, when the opposiiton isnt opposed.
hard to live in a world where discourse and permited social intercourse are medated by harridens and you not normalize what they want you to…
its why what they do works..
not because we are blank slates, but becuse we adapt, get in lne with the social order, care about others, dont want to be abnormal, and we copy what seems to work.
they did a study on women and men in terms of babies. turns ot that out of the 28 items on the list, women liked seceral and were indiffernet to most, and men hated most and only liked a couple.
now, is it still proper to force someone who genetically doenst have the endorphin reinforcement to take care of kids, and do things that put his social alarms off nad makes him ill tempered?
of course it is… because women want to be men, and they want the men to be women.
the leaders just want gay workers who will be much less fecund, will raise their children, and they can insure teir genes dominate.
but casted into social behavior, they just get you to align using the fact that they take over a system that was never designed to see anything unreal ever!
they never tell you what they actually want, they know you dont want it.
i guess you have yet to read moses harmon, and lillian harmon
the FIRST step to a free love sexual utopia is to break marraige, and all gender barriers.
THEN and only then will the ones who are like bonobos will then have their sexual utopia
bet you didnt know that a huge part of your life and desires was a set up to move the whole of the population as they know you cant do both. so you not being an elite in the big families, self exterminates your familial line.
and in case you didnt notice, the more capable she is, the less likely her kids will threaten theres in this game
its a META game above your life. where making you think that what your doing personally is ok. and we ignore the agregate demographic… they dont, thats their point as they know you as a demographic to change, not a person. so they dont care about those dreams and things you do. but they know you do, and so this is HOW you mold a mass..
what a tiny entity in a mass things is superflous, as long as what its thinking enables the behaviors to the mass!!!
and all this stuffs outcome to the leaders who have control over what the mass experiences, is what they want. while all the stuff tht gets generated to get you to act or think something normal, is what is being done to reorganize the whole mass and change its makup.
they want dumb breeders
the smart they want homosexual so they do the high work but dont breed to threaten their children
and their children are above it all with a boot on the neck forever.
but if your a person in this mix, you will have to want the good of the whole, over your personal selfish end.
and that is exactly what gays in the passt and others did who were responsible.
but today, a womans right to have waht she wants and change the future demographic in ignorance (never knowing that they are the resevior of intelligence and other things by not working).
same with every one of these groups in which the facts are not facts.
so what you get is the africans chase out whites. anyone want to read the articles by africans who lament that the whole place ha fallen apart, economy is gone. televisions broadcast audio on different channels than shows. no electric off and on . desease is high, poverty has rcketed, as has inflation
now what?
well, lets throw obama money on it.
but you cant pick any of these groups, including women, as a controlled group.
men are never a controlled group which is why they did politics. the idea of getting those to gether with separate goals who wont get together to preserce the freedom and families.
women in feminism have changed the demographical and educational make up
if you just focus on one key aspect that fits their goals, and ignore everything else as breking a few eggs.
the jewish race is dying due to these actions.
what hitler couldnt do overtly
the progressives with their useful idiot selfish vain soldiers, ahve done it covertly.
50 million people in the US alone…
we adopt what wins. which is why relationshnips degrade now. those things that were forbidden, like using love as your lever to get what you want. are now in play as a liberated way of being.
the result, the male copies her to be faire and the whole thing falls apart. they split the children have no father, the girls get early puberty, and more precociousness… which is great if your a leader and you want to have free whores who do more than real whores do, as your common pool of victims your over.
take a look at the view from their plateau with their goals all working…
you will be horrified..
[more so when you realize what part of what you thought was so good, was so bad in the big picture]
(I am completely against the latter, by the way, because I think the decision about gay marriage should be up to each state
then i guess you havent actually worked out what happens next and then decided whether its ok.
the whole idea of the soviet type game is to get you to rationalize that driving off a cliff is tghe moral thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see thelma and louise).
they basically changed the peoples focus by forbidding us to realize differences, comparatice advantage, outdomes, and all that.
in favor of being so close that we cant see the whole.
and the beahvor from that whole was the oppression they described to you
when a child is told not to put their fingers in a light socket, its not because of the immediate, but the long term view. which the child does not understand.
so the child huffs off upset that mom and dad wont let them play with dynamite..
do that to society, and especially the professional class of those who tell you what thoughts are ok or not, and what is the result?
a bunch of adults, acting like kids, who beleive what they do is great, but it has moved us to drive off a cliff.
and since they resist any kind of ol fasioned synoptic views, they are completely reactionary and instictional
meaning you can be herded by the crap they have in you… your reluctance and defense of things, employing relativism is what it shows.
which is why so long ago i said its a done deal.
there is no time for all these people to realize the way the cahnge to the game has doomed them.
they dont even know the history to learn from the past how this happened.
that is. the elite studied hisotories of fallen societies.
then bright people like you, and no synoptic view, now then induce the same mental states and bad ideas that cause societal break down.
oh and hide it.
the story of soddom and gommorah is that societies fall apart when they are like that. and they attributed it to god.
not the other way around, that they were oppressed from the fun, so they made up god. which is an INVERSION
that is, when people did things and the results were negatgivce, they imagined tht god looked after the consequences.
today we know those consequences come out of the agregate of actions and behaviors. so we think we dont need god, as they changed it. you can see in those two sentences that the concepts are worlds apart.
so they get rid of god…
but since god didnt actually punish soddom and gomorrah, then it was the consequences of the behaviors of that society in agregate. that made the mystical destruction occur, and sans explanation, god.
now we have an explanation… but we are so into thinking in circles we now actually have to try things over and over again to know.
we out think ourselfs to death
i will point out that once normalized the vile is not vile
care to compare the way an abatoir and a average person feels in a slaugher house?
the fact that this has been normalized (stalin term) for you, doesnt make it a social good.
thats why this takes 40 years. to get you to normalize behaviors that in the agregate destroy society in a way tht they are undefended and cant respond.
which is why the women have led us to war.
its a done deal now… no way to avoid it
and out of this will be a one world govt with no women at all…. (sharia has lots of women right? which is why thats the religion for the masses!)
This is the article that I thought was very good…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/lack_of_intellectualism_is_los.html