Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Marriage in the March of Time

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Marriage in the March of Time

    Marriage in the March of Time

    By Colbert I. King
    Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page A19- Washington Post ( boldface by me)

    There's really no telling what the 29 black intellectuals who met 100 years ago in Niagara Falls would think of America today. Of course, the same might be said of Americans in the year 2105 who look back to see how we lived out our lives a century before. There's good reason, however, to believe that the 29 men, led by W.E.B. Du Bois, then a professor at Atlanta University, would hardly recognize this as the same country.

    At the dawn of 20th-century America, those black men journeyed to Niagara Falls, N.Y., to prepare a militant statement on race and inequality that was to stand in sharp contrast to the conciliatory and accommodationist stance of Booker T. Washington -- white America's favorite black man at the time. Hotels on the U.S. side of Niagara Falls wouldn't let them register, however. So their demands were drafted in a hotel on the Canadian side of the falls.

    The breadth of legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination 100 years ago remains a historical shame. But what will Americans 100 years down the road think when they examine our era?

    In 1905, when the Niagara Movement -- forerunner to the NAACP -- was born, nowhere was the color line more heat-tempered and rock-hard than when it came to sex. The prohibition against interracial marriage was a national obsession, enshrined in both law and tradition.

    Consider this: As early as 1664, Maryland earned the distinction of becoming the first colony to ban marriages between blacks and whites. The other southern colonies played catch-up in the decades that followed. They weren't alone. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts also joined the pack.

    In the 19th century, interracial marriage was illegal in most states. As the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in a brief in a New Jersey case, "by the 1960s, at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes."

    The arguments mounted against interracial marriage also had a familiar ring. God played heavily in the judgments.

    The Georgia Supreme Court in 1869 based its interracial marriage ban on natural law, observing that "the God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it."

    Hear the 1871 Indiana Supreme Court quoting an 1867 Pennsylvania decision: Racial separation is enacted not because of "prejudice, nor caste, nor injustice of any kind, but simply to suffer men to follow the law of races established by the Creator himself, and not to compel them to intermix contrary to their instincts."

    The North Carolina Supreme Court in 1869 upheld the state's anti-race mixing law, stating that "the policy of prohibiting the intermarriage of the two races is so well established, and the wishes of both races so well known."

    A host of state anti-miscegenation laws -- strongly backed by white public sentiment -- were upheld in state courts well into the 20th century. The reasoning was simple and absolute: Marriage between the races defied the natural order; intermarriage bans had legitimate historical roots and were based on a "divinely ordained" scheme. Conclusion: Government had the right to define marriage as a union of two persons of the same race.

    It remained that way for generations, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws setting forth who can marry whom violate "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" -- marriage -- and the "principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    So much, therefore, for the ruling of the Virginia judge who, in 1959, had sentenced the interracial couple, the Lovings, stating: "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."

    So much, too, for the unbending, firmly ingrained, immutable understanding enshrined in law and court rulings that interracial partners cannot marry.

    Now fast-forward past today to 100 years from now. How will future generations view our present-day fight against allowing monogamous couples with life commitments to each other to marry? What will they think of our rush to enact state laws prohibiting same-sex life partners from joining the same institution shared by different-sex couples? How will they regard our assertion that there is a public interest in promoting discrimination in the marriage statute?

    Let's get one issue out of the way before the e-mails and letters start flooding in. I don't equate the long, bloody struggle of African Americans against racial injustice, ugly brutality and unjust treatment with the effort to give equal rights to lesbians and gay men.

    But I do believe that homosexuals are subject to prejudice and that they are forbidden the same rights and safeguards that heterosexuals enjoy, including the right to marry. That, in my book, is wrong.

    There is justice to their cause that should be ours, too. Leaving the security of the majority to stand up and say so ought not be so hard in 2005. Sadly, for many Americans, it is. Just as it was 1905.

  2. #2
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    I really hate when the right to same sex marriage people try to cheapen the struggles of the cival rights movement by saying they are the same thing.

    Its offensive,IMO.

  3. #3
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    but whatever..... I've learned to expect that persons such as yourself who support discrimination of gays to react that way.
    I dont support discrimination of anyone.
    Any man deserves the same rights as i have as an american.

  4. #4
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    Does that mean you have changed your mind about supporting anti- gay marriage ? Or do you still support national bans on gay marriage ?
    I agree with the majority of the worlds population.I also agree with the majority of American Voters.
    A person can not truely support equal rights and oppose gay marriage at the same time.
    Sure ya can.
    I dont support abortion either,doesnt mean i dont support equal rights for females.
    Same rights is equal rights- not something homosexuals have in this country- and it's not limited to marriage either.
    A gay man has the same rights as i do under the current deffinition of the law.No more and no less,this is what i support.

    So which is it MnM ? Do you support equal rights for all or discrimination for some ? I'm all ears for this one
    I have been very plain on this i thought,i support equal rights for everyone.

  5. #5
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    Sigh. What a let down... I had hopes that you had a change of heart and were going to stop discriminating against homosexuals. Guess not, but thanks for clearly stating your feelings on the subject anyway.
    Why a let down???
    Ya gotta admit,im consistant.

    And i dont discriminate against homosexuals.They can do whatever they want,just like me,under the laws of this land.

    Im beginning to think you discriminate against anyone who isnt homosexual.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    The mistake liberals/gay activists make is to look for government to 'solve' the problem that
    is of government's own making and add more government in the process. What we really
    need is to abolish the marriage license altogether and get the government out of this
    quasi-religious business entirely. There's plenty of contract law already. We've got wills, living
    wills, power of attorney, etc.

    Many states forbid 1st cousins from marrying. Why? All states forbid plural marriages. Why?
    Uncles/nieces and aunts/nephews can't marry either. Would it be okay for uncles/nephews and
    aunts/nieces to marry?

    If each state has different regulations (age requirements, etc.) how can other states
    be required to accept a license granted in another state? Why shouldn't married people
    re-license themselves whenever they move to or conduct business in another state?
    We need to get new dog licenses, auto registrations, etc. when we move. There have
    already been cases in which two heterosexual adults married... and then one had a
    gender change... are they still married? Should it now be accepted in another state?

    The people most threatened by gay marriage are already married people. They want to
    hold on to their special state franchise, and fear its dilution just as barbers or hypnotists or
    chiropractors or taxi medalion holders might want to restrict new comers from free
    competition.

    The problem is that tax laws, immigration laws, social security, inheritence, etc. are all based on
    concepts of family and marriage that are old fashioned.

    Odd as it may seem, these two different viewpoints essentially merge...please force yourself
    to look at these as hard as it may be to do it... you may be surprised at what you think later.
    http://www.michiganmilitia.org/html/...%20license.htm
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/

    I don't expect anyone to agree fully with either of the above links, but it is food for thought.

  7. #7
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    I've been saying something along those lines for years. It would be hard to design a worse system than we have now, particularly in the breakup part.

  8. #8
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    Many states forbid 1st cousins from marrying. Why? All states forbid plural marriages. Why?
    Uncles/nieces and aunts/nephews can't marry either. Would it be okay for uncles/nephews and
    aunts/nieces to marry?
    I think this is a great question.
    If gays are allowed to get "married"should we allow an even broader version of what married couples can be??
    Should it be limited to human on human,or should it also include the animal kingdom?Can someone marry thier pet and get the tax breaks???

  9. #9
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    I agree with that-- and it's totaly hypocritical when an anti-gay person tries to use the arguemnet of "special rights" because it's actualy we heterosexuals who get "special rights"

    Over 1000 different special rights in the US to be exact.
    WOW!!!! 1000!!!!!!!!! Thats alot!!!! I didnt know i had it so good!!!!

    BTW just so i know,outside of marriage and its so called bennifits,what rights do I have as an american uberhetroman over the rights that a gay american man doesnt have??

    Or is this all about the marriage thingy and a Gay man does have the exact same rights as a straight man in America?

    Dam,and here ya got me all excited about having more rights then someone else.

  10. #10
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    Well for starters you can not be legaly fired from a job for being hetero-
    I didnt think you could legaly be fired for being gay??
    Did i miss something???
    Are you talking about the dont ask dont tell in the military??
    I know you can legaly be fired for smoking off duty now with some companies!WOW!!!
    A gay man who smokes a pack a day is fucked if your right!!

    The list is available on most non discriminatory websites about gay rights in the US.
    that website doesnt exist.
    Its either pro or con for the issue IMO.

    It is entirely about equal rights for hetero and homosexuals and nothing more. Those that support gay marriage support equal rights.Those that oppose it do not-- Fact.
    Then you and the homosexual community are screwed on this issue,more people oppose it BY FAR then support it--Fact.

  11. #11
    God/dess Lena's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    On a sweet muddy river.
    Posts
    6,399
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 78 Times in 43 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
    I think this is a great question.
    If gays are allowed to get "married"should we allow an even broader version of what married couples can be??
    Should it be limited to human on human,or should it also include the animal kingdom?Can someone marry thier pet and get the tax breaks???
    But it's not like we want to marry dogs and cats, I just want to marry my girlfreind.

    And yes, in most states it's legal for employers to discriminate against gays and lesbians, tho some cities have their own laws. In PA, you can discriminate as long as you aren't in Philly or a state employer. However, it's not legal to discriminate against transgendered people, they are protected by gender laws.

    Lena



  12. #12
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Lena
    But it's not like we want to marry dogs and cats, I just want to marry my girlfreind.
    I have no personal objection to you marrying your girlfriend, Lena, but the logic is what's being questioned, I think. "I want to marry my dog/sister/cousin/favorite-five-women - how can you discriminate against me because of my sexual preference?"

    I guess there have been links(?) and arguments(?) made about how heterosexual and homosexual preferences are different/superior than polygamist, bestial, or incestuous** sexual preferences, and thus the first two are deserving of marriage, where the other three are not, but it hasn't been convincing to me. It's all "consenting parties, none of your business" arguments. Of course, I'm the last one who needs to be convinced, since I really don't care.



    **A number of studies - in my reading, in Discover magazine, for example - have reasonably argued that the fear of birth defects in incestuous populations has been highly exaggerated over the course of humanity. There have been tribal and royal communities with a high degree of incestuous relationships with no more birth defects than a normal population. And what about incestuous partners who are sterile? Should they be denied pursuit of their true feelings of love?

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    I know you can legaly be fired for smoking off duty now with some companies!WOW!!!
    A gay man who smokes a pack a day is fucked if your right!!
    Actually, the gay man would most likely be protected from firing while the straight man would not !

  14. #14
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Lena
    But it's not like we want to marry dogs and cats, I just want to marry my girlfreind.
    If you support changing what a legal marriage is to suit your own agenda,why would you not support a persons right to marry 4-5 people,thier aunt,or tubby thier cat??

    Or do you support that?? (IMO I dont think you do)

  15. #15
    God/dess Lena's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    On a sweet muddy river.
    Posts
    6,399
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 78 Times in 43 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
    If you support changing what a legal marriage is to suit your own agenda,why would you not support a persons right to marry 4-5 people,thier aunt,or tubby thier cat??

    Or do you support that?? (IMO I dont think you do)
    What does the one have to do with the other?



  16. #16
    God/dess Lena's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    On a sweet muddy river.
    Posts
    6,399
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 78 Times in 43 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    I have no personal objection to you marrying your girlfriend, Lena, but the logic is what's being questioned, I think. "I want to marry my dog/sister/cousin/favorite-five-women - how can you discriminate against me because of my sexual preference?"

    I guess there have been links(?) and arguments(?) made about how heterosexual and homosexual preferences are different/superior than polygamist, bestial, or incestuous** sexual preferences, and thus the first two are deserving of marriage, where the other three are not, but it hasn't been convincing to me. It's all "consenting parties, none of your business" arguments. Of course, I'm the last one who needs to be convinced, since I really don't care.
    I guess the slope just doesn't look that slippery to me, Jay. I can't imagine that it does to you (or anyone) either, but I guess it's just different viewpoints.

    Lena



  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    As long as you're greasing up that slippery slope, single partner marriage discriminates against Islamic Fundamentalists freedom to practice their religion ! Where's the ACLU when you need them ?

  18. #18
    Senior Member Mark W.'s Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    The slippery slope theory is proven to be unfounded in every place where gays have been given equal rights in matters of marriage.

    The fact is there has not been a surge in any of the so called dangerous outcome of equal rights for gays in these places.

    The slippery slope theory is in my opinion nothing more than a poor intellectual attempt to disguise discrimination .
    Last edited by Mark W.; 02-16-2005 at 01:38 AM.

  19. #19
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Yeah, I hear that a lot, "The logic is flawed and hateful," without saying convincingly why that is so - especially since I prefer logical arguments, and I don't hate anyone or anything involved.

    Is there some ineffable quality that makes one nontraditional form of marriage superior to another? Why a homosexual marriage and why not polygamy, as long as everybody involved is OK with it? Please, no "that's hateful," or, "that's flawed," or, "that's just another attempt," or, "there's links." I'm stupid and can't read behind the words, and I'm lazy and don't want to google for the next hour on something I'm not invested in, and I'm simple and just need a simple answer. So why?

  20. #20
    Senior Member Mark W.'s Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    If your not invested in understanding the answer to your question, why should anyone bother doing the research for you ?


    two cents

  21. #21
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Thats just it,
    even if the research is done,
    and facts proven,
    any answer,
    other then the one the gay community wants,
    will be deemed homophobic and full of discriminations.

    Im glad the American public,and its leaders,and most of the worlds population,all agree.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Mark W.'s Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Marriage in the March of Time

    Im glad the American public,and its leaders,and most of the worlds population,all agree.
    Actually you are wrong; polls show that most Americans do not want the Constitution altered to prevent gay marriage.

    You are really paranoid about this whole percieved gay agenda, aren't you ?

    Can you clarify what it is that you see as the gay agenda and why it is so threatening to you or your family?

    The only thing I see gays fighting for equality in areas where they are denied it. Why is it so wrong to standing up against discrimination anyway? I fail to see what it is that you object to so venomously.

    How for example, would Lena and her girlfriend being able to marry ruin your life ? Why do you fear it so intently ?

    Maybe if you can explain why it would bring an end to all then it would not seem so much like discrimination.

Similar Threads

  1. March goals!!!
    By BritishBecky in forum Other Work
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 01:26 AM
  2. plans for march
    By DominoDiva in forum Other Work
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 08:26 PM
  3. march or april?
    By tennisqt in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 09:41 PM
  4. It's March Madness time...(who's up for a little contest)
    By doc-catfish in forum General Board
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 05:28 PM
  5. March Madness
    By rockie in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2006, 12:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •