Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[TemplarKormac]

"The debate over same-sex marriage has become for the twenty-first century what the abortion debate was for the twentieth century: a single, defining issue that divides the country in a zero-sum political battle. Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views"

- Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, 2005

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have any churches ever been "forced" to perform any marriages at all?

Not yet.

Supporters of miscegenation laws predicted that their repeal would lead to churches being forced by the government to perform interracial marriages.

 

[Bfgrn]

So, as you can see, if the courts redefine marriage, it will have a profound impact on religious liberty. Because churches are tax exempt entities, it only stands to reason that government will use that redefinition to pressure churches to perform gay marriages, that or lose their tax exempt status. What that does, subsequently will essentially dissolve that church, or destroy it.

The doctor just answered your question. Marriage will never be forced by the state.

 

[Syriusly]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend.

You've got it all wrong, TK. It's not the struggle that is compared. Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (despite both being imutable traits). What is compared (and 100% comparable) is the bigotry and discrimination. There is no difference between racist bigots of yore and anti gay bigots of today...except their target. (right down to the language used)



Anti-miscegenation argument:

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates. (Rick Santorum on CNN, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

White race-purity is the cornerstone of our civilization. Its mongrelization with non-white blood, particularly with Negro blood, would spell the downfall of our civilization. (Lothrop Stoddard, lawyer and eugenicist, 1924)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall. (Rick Santorum in Iowa, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There is no such thing as a homosexual version of human nature. ... Homosexual behavior is biologically destructive to human health, and biologically destructive behavior is biologically unnatural by functional definition. -- North Carolina Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Same-sex marriage argument:

Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids. ... Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity -- either mothers or fathers -- are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let's not confuse them further. (National Organization for Marriage,Marriage Talking Points)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Intermarriage between whites and blacks ... is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. (U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Ga., 1912)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It is unreasonable ... to believe there is no public interest in how marriage is structured except to affirm whatever attractions people have. If so, pedophiles would be married to children, necrophiles to dead bodies, pornophiles to pictures and exhibitionists to strangers. (Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

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. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Today, the heritage that these noble men passed to their posterity is under attack. White heritage is considered 'racist,' 'bigoted,' 'hateful,' among other negative connotations. ... Add the word 'Christian' with the word 'white' and the hatred for our culture and heritage gets almost maniacal. Christianity is mocked, laughed at and disregarded as something for weirdoes or extremists. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

We've been hammered by the left for my standing up for the traditional family, and I will continue to do so. The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say that they're tolerant, and they're anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values. (Rick Santorum on WGIR radio, 2011)

Conservatives are using the same arguments and tactics they used fifty years ago

Failed them then......is failing now

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

Well Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) proposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and Southern Democrats- and Republicans- attempted to prevent it.

But Northern Democrats- with Republican assistance- overcame the fillisbuster and passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was signed by Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson.

And Democrats and Republicans- from the North- bypassed the fillibuster

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you realize that you're using the same arguments that were used to support miscegenation laws, almost word for word?

No.

Miscegenation laws, and my views thereof, are irrelevant to this discussion. A white man and a black woman marrying has no impact on religious liberty, and I agree with that reasoning completely, moreover, churches willingly marry interracial couples now, with no incident; because there is not one verse in the Bible which dictates what race you must be to marry. What the Bible does do, however, is state clearly the definition of marriage. What you fail to see as a proponent of a positive ruling, is that this issue hits at the very core of our beliefs. Big difference. People can warp the teachings of the Bible to suit their beliefs and wrongly impose them on others, and there are people like me, who use the Bible as is, with its clear and concrete definitions of marriage to dictate what my beliefs are, and not necessarily impose them on anyone.

You are using faulty analogies by comparing miscegenation laws and gay marriage, and comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. The nature of the two are at their essence different in every way. Blacks had NO rights, gays have rights (not all of them according to you), but still had more rights under law than any black person pre-1960 did. Trust me, comparing the two is a mistake.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The doctor just answered your question. Marriage will never be forced by the state.

"The doctor" is not the preeminent authority on legal doctrine and case law. You two don't consider the wider ranging implications of a positive ruling. This will not only hit religious institutions, it will hit churches too. Just like Hobby Lobby has far wider implications on religious liberty than just the right not to provide money for things that they find religiously unacceptable, this ruling will extend beyond the tax statuses of religious institutions.

Government has a nice way of looking for loopholes, and I see a big one here; if you can revoke the tax exempt status of a school or religious institution for not accepting or accommodating gay marriage/rights, what's to stop you from doing the same to a church?

You have no understanding of the subtlety and impacts SCOTUS rulings have beyond their original intent. Lots of circumstances are or could be relevant to that ruling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Supporters of miscegenation laws predicted that their repeal would lead to churches being forced by the government to perform interracial marriages.

So? You don't seem to understand that these are two distinctly separate issues. We have a biblical reason for our stance. They didn't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you realize that you're using the same arguments that were used to support miscegenation laws, almost word for word?

No.

Miscegenation laws, and my views thereof, are irrelevant to this discussion. A white man and a black woman marrying has no impact on religious liberty, and I agree with that reasoning completely, moreover, churches willingly marry interracial couples now, with no incident; because there is not one verse in the Bible which dictates what race you must be to marry. What the Bible does do, however, is state clearly the definition of marriage. What you fail to see as a proponent of a positive ruling, is that this issue hits at the very core of our beliefs. Big difference. People can warp the teachings of the Bible to suit their beliefs and wrongly impose them on others, and there are people like me, who use the Bible as is, with its clear and concrete definitions of marriage to dictate what my beliefs are, and not necessarily impose them on anyone.

You are using faulty analogies by comparing miscegenation laws and gay marriage, and comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. The nature of the two are at their essence different in every way. Blacks had NO rights, gays have rights (not all of them according to you), but still had more rights under law than any black person pre-1960 did. Trust me, comparing the two is a mistake.

Did you know that up until the 70s, it was a sincerely held core spiritual belief of the Mormon church that black people were subhuman?

My comparisons and analogies don't become faulty simply because you declare them to be so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you know that up until the 70s, it was a sincerely held core spiritual belief of the Mormon church that black people were subhuman?

Do I sound like a Mormon to you? How does that apply to me? I am a Southern Baptist, of the Protestant denomination. I don't consider anyone or anything "subhuman" unless they give me ample reason to consider otherwise.

My comparisons and analogies don't become faulty simply because you declare them to be so.

I'm not making the declaration, history is. There is no similarity between gay civil rights and black civil rights.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The doctor just answered your question. Marriage will never be forced by the state.

"The doctor" is not the preeminent authority on legal doctrine and case law. You two don't consider the wider ranging implications of a positive ruling. This will not only hit religious institutions, it will hit churches too. Just like Hobby Lobby has far wider implications on religious liberty than just the right not to provide money for things that they find religiously unacceptable, this ruling will extend beyond the tax statuses of religious institutions.

Government has a nice way of looking for loopholes, and I see a big one here; if you can revoke the tax exempt status of a school or religious institution for not accepting or accommodating gay marriage/rights, what's to stop you from doing the same to a church?

You have no understanding of the subtlety and impacts SCOTUS rulings have beyond their original intent. Lots of circumstances are or could be relevant to that ruling.

You are no more, and likely less, of an authority on legal doctrine and case law than I am.

The "wider ranging implications" that you've come up with are simply your imagination, since the decision hasn't been released yet, and any "wider implications" depend entirely on the wording of the decision. The questions to be decided are as follows:

1. Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?
2. If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

What possible decision on those questions do you think will lead to your hypothesized consequences?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you know that up until the 70s, it was a sincerely held core spiritual belief of the Mormon church that black people were subhuman?

Do I sound like a Mormon to you? How does that apply to me? I am a Southern Baptist, of the Protestant denomination. I don't consider anyone or anything "subhuman" unless they give me ample reason to consider otherwise.

My comparisons and analogies don't become faulty simply because you declare them to be so.

I'm not making the declaration, history is. There is no similarity between gay civil rights and black civil rights.

There are many similarities between racial civil rights and LGBT civil rights. Trying to deny it is just silly.

The biggest similarity is in the arguments used against both.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

2. If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

What possible decision on those questions do you think will lead to your hypothesized consequences?

My "hypothesized consequences" come from actual purveyors of the law. This crap does not simply come out of my imagination, thank you. When I'm not posting here, I'm reading case law, Supreme Court rulings, circuit court opinions, opinions by prominent attorneys on whatever subject or issue they pertain to, dissertations of prominent law and constitutional professors/scholars, and et cetera. I take great care to educate myself on these things. I have nothing else better to do, anyhow.

To the questions:

1. No. Condoning one form of marriage or another is not an implied power given to the government by the constitution. The Federal government can have its own definition while states are entitled to the same.

2. No. Once again, the 10th Amendment gives states such power of determination.

OR

1. Yes. The Constitution under the 14th Amendment requires that all laws apply equally to all those under their purview. Religious views are thusly intolerant and irrelevant, and individuals may not make laws or impose doctrine which adversely affects the rights of gay couples under the law.

This gives government the ability to use its power under the Constitution to use whatever applicable law to effect that end, including the usage of tax laws to coerce religious institutions and faith based non profits to tolerate, accept or even accommodate a thing that represents sin in their religious beliefs.

2. Yes. For the same reasons stated in 1, if states make law recognizing one form of marriage over the other, it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

And as stated in response to 1, this will give government the power to do, by any legal means necessary, what it takes to ensure equal protection under the law, even if that means exploiting the tax exempt statuses of religious institutions and faith based non profits to do such.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are many similarities between racial civil rights and LGBT civil rights. Trying to deny it is just silly.

Name them. Don't just call it silly, make a case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The biggest similarity is in the arguments used against both.

No similarity. While they tried to use the bible as a means to push those laws The Bible in reality did not actually say anything against them.

Today, as far as gay marriage goes for Christians, the Bible says many times over what the definition of marriage is. No need to warp or contort the meaning of the Bible to make the case.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The biggest similarity is in the arguments used against both.

No similarity. While they tried to use the bible as a means to push those laws The Bible in reality did not actually say anything against them.

Today, as far as gay marriage goes for Christians, the Bible says many times over what the definition of marriage is. No need to warp or contort the meaning of the Bible to make the case.

You're saying that the arguments aren't the same because your interpretation of the bible is more correct than theirs was.

From a non-religious perspective, that argument holds no merit. I'm not in a position to debate the theology behind the arguments, just the arguments themselves (which happen to look identical).

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're saying that the arguments aren't the same because your interpretation of the bible is more correct than theirs was.

No, I have an actual frame of reference. I don't have to cherrypick the Bible to make my case. My interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant when the case for my argument is clearly defined by the Bible itself.

From a non-religious perspective, that argument holds no merit.

Given the religious impact of this issue, the argument holds plenty of merit. Or are we to simply disregard the religious opinions and objections of others simply because "the argument" according to you, "holds no merit?"

I'm not in a position to debate the theology behind the arguments, just the arguments themselves (which happen to look identical).

Well, to each man his own. Statements like these are why I respect you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

2. If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

What possible decision on those questions do you think will lead to your hypothesized consequences?

My "hypothesized consequences" come from actual purveyors of the law. This crap does not simply come out of my imagination, thank you. When I'm not posting here, I'm reading case law, Supreme Court rulings, circuit court opinions, opinions by prominent attorneys on whatever subject or issue they pertain to, prominent law and constitutional professors, and et cetera. I take great care to educate myself on these things. I have nothing else better to do, anyhow.

To the questions:

1. No. Condoning one form of marriage or another is not an implied power given to the government by the constitution. The Federal government can have its own definition while states are entitled to the same.

2. No. Once again, the 10th Amendment gives states such power of determination.

OR

1. Yes. The Constitution under the 14th Amendment requires that all laws apply equally to all those under their purview. Religious views are thusly intolerant and irrelevant, and individuals may not make laws or impose doctrine which adversely affects the rights of gay couples under the law.

How does your second statement follow from the first? How is that second sentence relevant to the question being decided?

This gives government the ability to use its power under the Constitution to use whatever applicable law to effect that end, including the usage of tax laws to coerce religious institutions and faith based non profits to tolerate, accept or even accommodate a thing that represents sin in their religious beliefs.

This reads like a conspiracy theory.

2. Yes. For the same reasons stated in 1, if states make law recognizing one form of marriage over the other, it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

What's the legal difference between these 2 "forms" of marriage, in your mind?

And as stated in response to 1, this will give government the power to do, by any legal means necessary, what it takes to ensure equal protection under the law, even if that means exploiting the tax exempt statuses of religious institutions and faith based non profits to do such.

This is what the Section 1 of the 14th says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You notice that the only restrictions in that amendment refer to States and Laws.

Not Churches and Religions.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're saying that the arguments aren't the same because your interpretation of the bible is more correct than theirs was.

No, I have an actual frame of reference. I don't have to cherrypick the Bible to make my case. My interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant when the case for my argument is clearly defined by the Bible itself.

The fact that there are thousands of different sects of Christianity around the world seem to imply that very little in the Bible is "clearly defined".

I know many devout Christians who have no problems with gay marriage. Why is your interpretation of the Bible more valid than Jay Bakker's?

From a non-religious perspective, that argument holds no merit.

Given the religious impact of this issue, the argument holds plenty of merit. Or are we to simply disregard the religious opinions and objections of others simply because "the argument" according to you, "holds no merit?"

Your argument is a theological one, not a legal one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The biggest similarity is in the arguments used against both.

No similarity. While they tried to use the bible as a means to push those laws The Bible in reality did not actually say anything against them.

Today, as far as gay marriage goes for Christians, the Bible says many times over what the definition of marriage is. No need to warp or contort the meaning of the Bible to make the case.

The Bible never says other marriages are not acceptable. The Bible never says Christians must actively oppose the choices of others as to what form of marriage they might desire to enter into. The Bible never says Christians must refuse to associate with homosexuals, or gay couples in a relationship, or gay married couples.

All of those claimed beliefs are invented without benefit of Scripture.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I should really stop debating on my phone... Let me get to my PC