|
June 03, 2006
Creating a personal second class
I found a couple of very thoughtful posts on the gay marriage issue which I think are well worth reading. I say "thoughtful," because both are sincere, and not hemmed in by ideological considerations. Sean Kinsell criticizes the implicit (maybe explicit) tyranny in the approach of demanding approval: Anyway, I know I've banged this gong plenty already, but I will never, ever get used to this stuff. When will people get it through their heads that you can't coerce people into approving of you? You can, possibly, coerce them into postures of approval, temporarily, through political machinations. But the current climate indicates that--and can you blame them?--they're not going to sit still for it for long.I think the disconnect is further accelerated and inflamed by heterosexuals who stake out the politically correct position not out of sincere belief or personal considerations (after all, they're not interested in marrying others of the same sex), but in order to prove they are more cool, more sophisticated (in a similar manner to the process outlined by Ace of Spades). From the Grand Stand, who has gay friends and family members, finds that opposition to same sex marriage is agonizingly difficult, because it is personal: We want to dramatically alter the definition of the institution of marriage and change it, so that it no longer has the meaning and purpose it had before... so that a few people can be happy.I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm not much of a fan of family law or family courts, and I don't like the idea of putting gay couples under a government nanny state radar screen, as I think that once it starts, it will be tough to opt out. I also think it is very dishonest the way the gay marriage issue substitutes for sincere thinking. It has become a way for trendy people to achieve "fast-track" certification of non-bigoted status. Few take the time to grapple with the realities of people. I liked the old days when it was cool to be gay, but no one worried about aping mainstream society's institutions, much less claiming them as civil rights. From where derives the idea that marriage is an attribute of citizenship -- the status of which defines whether one is a first or second class citizen? I don't think legal inability to marry is any more of feature of citizenship than would be the social inability to marry. Heterosexual or homosexual; there is no "right" to marry anyone. A prerequisite is finding a partner who agrees with the idea of entering into a legal contract. Whether that contract is state-sanctioned depends on a variety of factors. Love alone is not enough. A married man falls in love with a married woman. They cannot marry. First cousins fall in love, but cannot marry. A lonely man or a lonely woman want to marry, but neither can find partners. Gay or straight, they cannot marry. I don't see any of them as second class citizens. A homosexual man can marry a consenting homosexual woman (or either or both parties can be heterosexual). The sexual preferences of the parties are not prerequisites, and are secondary to the sexes of the parties. Are married homosexuals first class citizens? I don't see why. And what about the heterosexuals who would obtain an entirely new "right" to marry others of the same sex? I'm not sure why they would do it, but let us suppose they have financial reasons. They are in love with each other's money and power and want to share it. To offer an absurd hypothetical, should Donald Trump be allowed to marry Bill Gates and combine their fortunes and futures? Right now, they can't. And while I abhor the idea of amending the Constitution to stop them, I don't think the question involves an attribute of citizenship. Yeah, I know, Bill and Don are straight. But does it really matter? (I thought the whole idea was that it shouldn't.) posted by Eric on 06.03.06 at 11:42 AM
Comments
Excellent post and no doubt assorted gay marriage supporters have thrown out their strongest weapon on you- the comparison to blacks and civil rights. How do you reply to that? From my standpoint it is a bogus comparison. The fact is that blacks from the earliest days of arrival in America (as indentured servants) had a right to marry whites and did. Randall Kennedy's book "Interracial Intimacies" records just such a number of LEGAL unions as far back as the 1600s. What happened is that as slavery developed, this right was TAKEN AWAY by colonial and later state legislatures and courts. A few centuries later it was restored. Liberals patted themselves on the back for this great advance in "racial progress" but the fact is that white America had merely gotten around to RESTORING the rights blacks once had. It didn't give blacks anything new on that score. It should also be noted that bans on interracial marriage were not in effect in all states. Over 20 allowed LEGAL interracial unions as the fatefu1 1960s approached. The picture some homosexual union supporters often draw is of an America of doom and gloom where interracial marriage did not exist until the noble liberals of the Supreme Court in the 1960s decided to be "progressive", but that is not the real story at all. Homosexuals are demanding a right they NEVER had in US history and indeed in most of recorded Western history-- the right to legally sanctioned marriages. Blacks by contrast could point to documented evidence, of a right they once had that was TAKEN AWAY as slavery developed, a right finally restored, belatedly, centuries later. Homosexual union supporter comparisons with black rights sound catchy and compelling on the surface, but their claims ring hollow when the detail of history is examined. Enriquecardova · June 3, 2006 09:25 PM correction to above re wwii and laws: Many activists like to point to statutes and laws forbidding interracial unions. But as stated above, such laws were not uniform across all states and activists typically (and conveniently) overlook common law, under which blacks and whites contracted marriages recognized by the authorities, before such unions were spiked by later statutes. Thus whether under common or statute law, the point still holds. Blacks possessed prior rights, homosexuals possessed none. Even in hostile places such unions and their complications, were sometimes left alone. Randall Kennedy's "Interracial Initmacies" records the 1800s case of a Negro petitioner, who petitioned the white legislature of one of the Carolinas to divorce his white wife. One would think that said white legislature in the 1800s would jump at the chance to liquidate yet another dreaded interracial hookup. But for reasons that are unclear, the white legislators rejected the Negro's divorce petition. Whatever their deliberations, and even though they held all the cards, they apparently found it better to let the matter lie, indicating that such unions though very small in number, were a fact of life, even in states than banned them. enriquecardova · June 4, 2006 12:06 AM correction to the above re WWII and laws: Many activists like to point to statutes and laws forbidding interracial unions. But as stated above, such laws were not uniform across all states and activists typically (and conveniently) overlook common law, under which blacks and whites contracted marriages recognized by the authorities, before such unions were spiked by later statutes. Thus whether under common or statute law, the point still holds. Blacks possessed prior rights, homosexuals possessed none. Even in hostile places such unions and their complications, were sometimes left alone. Randall Kennedy's "Interracial Initmacies" records the 1800s case of a Negro petitioner, who petitioned the white legislature of one of the Carolinas to divorce his white wife. One would think that said white legislature in the 1800s would jump at the chance to liquidate yet another dreaded interracial hookup. But for reasons that are unclear, the white legislators rejected the Negro's divorce petition. Whatever their deliberations, and even though they held all the cards, they apparently found it better to let the matter lie, indicating that such unions though very small in number, were a fact of life, even in states than banned them enrique cardova · June 4, 2006 12:09 AM I don't know. Why shouldn't same-sex couples get the same benefits of marriage that straight couples do? You either take away the benefits conferred on ALL marriages/civil unions, or grant them to any two single, consenting adults regardless of gender or orientation? Why limit yourself to just supporting same-sex marriages emotionally? Why not have them backed by law? Your attitude seems a bit condescending, patting gay couples on the head, smiling indulgently when they participate in a committment ceremony while secretly being joyful that they will never be equal to straight couples. Patti · June 4, 2006 05:30 PM The indulgent smiles and secret joyfulness you attribute to me would be irrelevant to the merits of argument even if they could be documented. (Hmmm.... Maybe I am overly indulgent . . .) Eric Scheie · June 5, 2006 09:38 AM <a>kodak advantix</a> as95290 · June 12, 2006 07:50 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Ugh, I was with you for a while, but then you came up with that awful image of The Donald and Gates together. Oh my. I think I'll have nightmares for weeks...