Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
Balkinization
I discovered an interesting fact in reading yesterday's Washington Post (reg. req.) letters to the editor section (Letters to the Editor: Expanding the Definition of Marriage). In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage:
Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited.
This history of the amendment is rather interesting as described here: The Socio-Political Context of the Integration of Sport in America:
Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, he held the heavyweight title for seven years before losing it Jess Willard in Cuba in 1915. [The famous James Earl Jones' movie "The Great White Hope" was based on Johnson's life.] Johnson had a profound effect on race relations. His flamboyant personality and his incessant appetite for confrontation and white women ultimately led to his demise. Johnson married three white women and had numerous affairs with others. He was fearless and had little respect for the conventions of the day (Wiggins, 1993, p.27).
It was this behavior that earned him the name “Bad Nigger.” A Bad Nigger, in black folklore, was a black man who did not play by the rules of convention; they dressed well and had unquenchable sex drives. They lived hedonistic lifestyles with a blatant disregard for death or danger. The term was used a badge of reverence among blacks (Roberts, 1983, p69).
In December of 1908, Johnson beat Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia for the heavy weigh title. In 1910, he beat former heavyweight champion, Jim Jeffries so badly that it humiliated whites. Not only did he beat him, but he taunted him and rubbed in the face of white Americans. Race riots ensued all over America as a result of this event (Rust and Rust, 1985, p.147).
Because of Johnson's arrogance and love for white women, many whites considered him a serious threat to racial order. After Johnson married Lucille Cameron (a white woman), two ministers in the South recommended lynching him (Gilmore, 1975, p.107). In a reaction to the Johnson-Cameron marriage, in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated that
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).
Influenced by Roddenberry and others, miscegenation bills were introduced in 1913 in half of the twenty states where this law did not exist.
The historical similarities are obvious.
shows what good company Bush is in...
just despicable
Andrew Sullivan claims that Seaborn Roddenberry was a Republican. Not true:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000370
Bush just doesn't have a clue.
Shows what company Bush is in ... Yeah, Black and White marriage is the same as gay and lesbian marriage. If you have no sense at all! I guess if you are racist, you are also a gay basher by default.
Logic is a foreign concept to a liberal!
Uh, Boneman...the point is that in 1912, the hollow arguments made against interracial marriage were much the same as those made against gay marriage in 2004, and stirred up the same panicked response in the state legistlatures. I'll would be willing to bet the bible has a few zingers in it about the eternal damnation to be leveled upon those entering an interracial relationship.
The comparison illuminates the fact that just as the anti-miscegenation amendment seems backward, paranoid, and unfounded today, someday, the Federal Marriage Amendment will seem so as well. Frankly, it seems to me to be each of those things now, but even you will look back someday and think "what a bunch of foolish old white men" So, there is the logic, laid out for you by a liberal.
Does Bush really think future generations will look at the current marriage amendment and see it any differently than we now look at this one against interracial marriage? If you look at the trend in attitudes in the last 40 years toward gay people and the fact that people under 30 today support gay marriage by a wide margin--it's pretty obvious where we're heading.
If we believe the polls...IF...around 3/4 of those polled are against breaking the law. There is a law on record. President Bush is not proposing to ban gay marriages. He is affirming a pre-existant law! The county and city officials that are by-passing those laws should be repealed or impeached
Just because something's "law" doesn't make it right, and it is often difficult or impossible for political reasons to get a law repealed. Meanwhile, injustice continues. Challenging a law in the courts (which is what Mayor Newsom's activities were always calculated to do) is the quickest nonviolent way to get rid of unjust laws...if the courts cooperate.
The distinction between interracial and homosexual discrimination cannot be equated. Cite one Scriptural passage that calls interracial marital activity sinful, or any discrimination on the basis of skin color. Those who used the Bible had weak, non-textual arguments. Christians, however, still adhere to Romans 1:26-32 and I Corinthians 6:9-11, that calls homosexuality a sin. Also, Christians believe that homosexuals may be forgiven their sin, just as lust, adultery, or polygamy; race and color are not issues that may be altered. Christians tend to support the legislation against all sins, from murder to homosexual marriage. All are born with a sinful nature, prone to sin; homosexuality would be classified as simply one of those in-born desires that Christ may overcome.
It would be nice if we could send you back in time to discuss it with your co-religionists, who vociferously proclaimed that the bible justified miscegenation laws, not to mention slavery (which, in fact the Bible does tolerate).
Now that someone mentioned Star Trek, does anyone know if Rep. Roddenberry is somehow related to The Great Bird of the Galaxy, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry? His father, Eugene Edward Roddenberry, moved the family from Texas to southern California when Gene was fairly young and we thought he might have some roots in Georgia.
It would be supremely ironic, given that in its third season TOS was the first TV show to show a white and black kissing.
There are no simularities between the Defence of Marriage Act, a proposed Constitutional amendmant to affirm marriage is -- as defined -- between a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation proposals. Tear down the value/moral of marriage being between a man and woman (not related and of age), and what standard is left? Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality why stop there? Is marriage all about tax deductions and insurance eligibility?
No. If a state insists on going down this path (Vermont, California, New York, and Hawaii), then the only way to defend the sanctity of marriage is by Constitutional Amendmant. This establishes the federal power by which the States can not exercise their will per the Tenth Amendmant.
Remember fighting a war over this in the 1800s? We lost over 600,000 Americans because of States insisting on engaging in slavery per the 10th Amendmant. It is the gays that are standing on shakey ground.
Oh, Mike. If by "defend the sanctity of marriage" you mean deny same-sex couples the right to marry, then you are correct in saying that the only way to do that is to pass a constitutional amendment, because, in the end, denying these rights to same-sex couples is indeed unconstitutional and will, no doubt, be found so by the courts.
However, you are making the same circuitous moral argument for denying these rights that the anti-miscegenation proponents made to ban interracial marriage.
Hey, I know, why not a constitutional amendment banning divorce? Or adultery? Oh wait, then we would be denying rights to heterosexual couples. Wouldn't that be a more targeted defense of the "sanctity of marriage?" It's hard to argue otherwise without descending into the moral mumbo-jumbo that you very moral people are always babbling on about. The bottom line is that vocal proponents of the FMA, like yourself, are morally arrogant, and you honestly believe that homosexuals are morally inferior (an vicious argument that's been used over and over to discriminate against blacks) and are thus not worthy of equal rights.
I wrote what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth. Homosexuality is a vice like all others. No one has a constitutional right to engage in vice and have it recognized by the States as a life style. The inferiority complex that gays and those that engage in other abhorent sexual practices or vice is self supplied.
While those supporting their choices scream "don't force your morals on me." We in the majority say you can't force your lack of morals on us. If put to the test, this amendmant will come to pass. Most gays I work with (yes I'm in an industry well populated with gays) do not want this kind of public attention.
Like I said. This is yet another battle in the Culture War. The anti-Christian/anti-religion secularists are fighting to rip apart the religious fabric our American society was created with. They can not win our we all loose.
"I'll would be willing to bet the bible has a few zingers in it about the eternal damnation to be leveled upon those entering an interracial relationship."
You would, huh? Just how much would you be willing to bet?
We've been moving out of the Christian dark ages for over 500 years now and gays are just the last group left that people with inferiority complexes can feel superior to. Homophobes are desperate to cram this amendment through because they know that their days of government under their control is coming to an end. The younger generations are more and more tolerant of homosexuality. Bye, bye bigots and good riddance
Hey Mike...Who are you defending marriage from? How does gay marriage prevent heterosexuals from getting married?
A verse that was often cited by anti-miscegenationists was Genesis 28:1:
And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
Here's a Klan website that cites other biblical verses that are construed as forbidding miscegenation:
http://www.k-k-k.com/story.html
Here's another cite that attempts to refute the claim that the Bible condemns miscegenation:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html
Since alot of Bible-thumpers here have found it necessary to quote the Bible's views on homosexuality, it would be very useful to know some of the other things that are in the Bible that your average Bible-thumper never mentions. Things such as executing disobedient children, executing people who gather as much as a stick on the Sabbath, God accepting human sacrifice, God commanding that women and children be murdered. There's a whole website devoted to the fundamental absurdities and vicious cruelties in the Bible.
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Mike, being gay is not a vice, you are wrong. Simple as that.
America was not based on religious doctrine. Many of the ideas of the Enlightenment, where the notions of democracy and self determination got their start were very anti-religious with a preference to tolerance of religion over establishment. That's clear if you get your history from anywhere but the pulpit or the 700 club.
This is a done deal, tolerance for gays is growing because your warnings about gay armeggedon are hollow just as the threat from interacial decay were in their days. The parallels are not anly appropriate but timely.
This isn't mine, but I feel it worth quoting:
***12 Reasons why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal
*1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth
control.
*2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children.
Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world
needs more children.
*3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.
*4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
*5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
*6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.
*7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have
only one religion in America.
*8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
*9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
*10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
*11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer
lifespans.
*12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
The Constitution should never be used to deny people rights. It has never worked and it never will. It is simply too important of a document and "operating system" for the country to be treated to partisan politics. We already have a lot of people who don't believe the legitimacy of our own government, from right-wing militias to anti-globalization radicals. Once either side decides that the Constitution has become a political pawn, it truly is the end of this experiment in democracy.
I have to agree. Homosexuality is not a vice. I've never heard of straight folks going out on the town for a night of boozin', smokin' and homosexuality. Maybe I'm in the dark, though. There is vice amongst gays just as much as there's vice amongst straights. There's also LOVE. Let's not forget the whole point here!
What the fundies don't seem to want to remember here is that we're NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES!
Churches can, do, and will continue to be able to decide who they marry and who they don't (and I'd like to point out that gays have been able to get church ceremonies for decades -- I went to the church wedding of two lesbians in 1979).
What the discussion is about now is the LEGAL contract, the one that even atheists and "heathens" are allowed to enter into. The one that people who are unable (or unwilling) to ever bear children are allowed enter into. The one that two people who've only known each other a few hours are allowed enter into in some states. The one that people go on TV and compete to be able to enter into with some rich bachelor.
The one that two people who love each other and have perhaps spent years building a life together are forbidden from entering into if they happen to be of the same gender.
We are talking about laws, legal contracts between consenting adults, and very real legal ramifications. Legal marriage may be accompanied by a religious ceremony, but that's not a requirement. Those who want to muddy the issue by bringing religion into it only do so because they know that, without their religious arguments, they haven't a leg to stand on.
And FTR, I'm straight, very happily married, and feel this proposed amendment threatens marriage far far more than happy couples like this ever will.
When will these politicians and lawyers wake up and smell the coffee. It is not necessary to make a constitutional amendment to allow "gay" marriages. The word Marriage just has to be redefined in general, just like the IRS redefined the word "foster child" in 2002 so that now if you are unrelated to child, but that child lives in your home for a full twelve months they can be your dependent but not your qualifying child for the purposes of the child tax credit Another brillant Bush idea. When we abolished the write-off for sales tax during the tax reform act of 1986, did we have to make a constitutional amendment, NO. Separation of Church and State Marriage should simply be redefined by the IRS, SSA and everyother administration as a union between two people who love eachother that is the point. The licenses matter because no couple heter or homosexual should be denied health, pension benefits just because their not married. We should recognize any union between any parties who reside together and are finacially responsible for one another as a common law marriage and allow the benefits that go with this. For those who are Catholic, like I am, than marriage may mean more, but who are we, or any other religious group to impose our beliefs upon another group. Same goes with race, creed, color sex. Wake up all you high paid attorneys and politicians, redefine the word marriage and there will be no talk of amending constitutions, Bush is doing it this year with his line 57 tax big brother is really watching. Shop tax free than unknowningly get hit with the tax. Why don't you just put a gun to the heads of every struggling middle class family. You can't even make it in new York unless you make $80,000 for a family of six and that's in the boondocks. Dear Hillary I beg you to listen to a former paralegal now turned single disabled mother of four who can not believe the stupidity of the entire family court system, the tax code and the system in general. When are you going to run, if you don't you know Roe v. Wade will be overturned, woman are still discriminated against. I can't get diability because when I was in a severe car accident I wasn't "working" hell I was a single mother of 4 kids ages 4,6,8 and 9 and for all you cynics out there, they all came from the same father a dead-beat dad. The more we progress technologically, the less sensible we become everyday. Marriage is the union (civil or otherwise) between two people who love and will committ to eachother through good times & bad It's that simple. Too much paperwork for SSA and the IRS and every multibillion dollar conglomerate to redefine marriage. Your all idiots. Grow up and let people love one another. Disabled stay at home single mother of four, having a hard time financially but having the greatest and most rewarding job of all MOTHERHOOD
Why does same-sex marriage threaten the sanctity of marriage so greatly, when convicted murders, pedophiles, rapists, spouse abusers, drug addicts, etc. have the right to marry freely (even serially if they choose)?
Even a "card carrying" Satanist who breaks every tenet held by mainstream Christianity can walk into the County Clerk's office and get a marriage license.
I don't get it...
D wrote:
"Christians, however, still adhere to Romans 1:26-32 and I Corinthians 6:9-11, that calls homosexuality a sin."
D, how dare you claim to speak for all Christians. As a _devout_ Christian who believes in the righteousness of both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, I am insulted by your words.
I understand that you are a Pauline Christian, and if that is the way you choose to believe, fine. But remember that Paul never even saw Our Lord during his original incarnation, and the letters to the Corinthians and the Romans were merely Paul's idea about what Christians should believe. It is my opinion that you would do better as a Christian to humbly apply the words of John, the beloved disciple (and one who was actually around at the same time as Jesus!), in John 13:34
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
D wrote:
"Christians, however, still adhere to Romans 1:26-32 and I Corinthians 6:9-11, that calls homosexuality a sin."
...and, as I stated, there are a TON of other CAPITAL sins that people partake in that don't preclude them from marrying.
This line of argument is weak at best.
... And another thing!
To those here who seem to believe somehow that Christianity, or, God forbid, religion in general just don't like you or your lifestyle: get over it!
I feel just about equally insulted when I hear someone whose beliefs I would ordinarily completely agree with (toleration, dignification, love for one another, looking beyond the surface, etc.) go on to tell me how he or she despises my religion because he or she mistakenly believes that it is intolerant and hateful. Please.
Whether we're talking about Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Seiks, Druzes, Parsees, or whatever other religion you wish to name, the intolerant hateful members are usually a vast minority. The rest of us believers somehow get stained by the same brush. How would you feel if we pointed to some gay murderer and then implied that all gays were murderers? Please stop it.
Jane is correct. The term marriage must be redefined, since, throughout history, it's been defined as a social institution that unites a man and woman for the purpose of founding and raising a family. Whatever vows or promises two men or two women are making to each other, it's not marriage. Same-sex marriage is fundamentally contradictory. However, gays have been married as long as marriage has been around, simply by marrying someone of the opposite sex. The opposite sex part makes it "marriage." You can pretend it's all Bible-thumpers and homophobes who are opposed to this concept, but you cannot make sane people say a tree is not a tree. It's a tree. Gays have found an alternative lifestyle. Fine with me. Now they should spend some time to find an alternative word for their commitment to each other. Marriage is already spoken for.
By that argument, the laws must be rewritten to associate the same rights and benefits the term "married" carries with whatever "alternative word" is devised for the same commitment executed by same-sex couples.
Seems easier and more logical to keep the current legal rights associated with the term "marriage", and extend them to encompass same-sex unions (rather than creating this new term and associated laws in order to protect these archaic semantics).
As an aside, just because something has been "defined throughout history..." does not make it necessarily correct. The true power of a civilized society is not bound in the rationale of the past, but in taking a fresh, logical, and critical look based on our CURRENT knowledge. Not only is there nothing wrong with questioning the actions and beliefs of the past, but I would go so far as to say it is the ONLY way we will advance.
Consider all the "radical" ideas that were once considered blasphemous that you now take for granted as "given"... People like Luther and Galileo come to mind for me... Heck, even Jesus' ideas ran counter to the modes of his time that had been "defined throughout history".
Just a thought...
Chico: Marriage has not always been defined "throughout history" as the union between one man and one woman. Counterexamples are many, but include the historical polygamy of the ancient Israelites (even the Old Testament's Solomon and David), as well as some Native American and some African tribes; the historical polyandry of Tibet, the Polynesian Marquesas, and the Nayar of India; and the same-sex marriages of Nero, the West African Dahomey, and those of the early Christian Church as researched by John Boswell. As far as marriage being defined as an institution that exists for the purpose of founding and raising a family, 1) we don't deny marriage licenses to post-menopausal women or men with vasectomies, while 2) many gay couples have and raise children, either from previous relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption.
First - The President is claiming that this proposed amendment will "protect the sanctity of marriage." In the United States it was decided long ago that it is best to separate church and state. The state should not be involved in defining what is holy. There is no place in our constitution for an amendment that defines what is holy.
Second - What is it that threatens heterosexuals about two men or two women expressing their love for one another? Let's ignore any tax or other financial benefits for a minute. I want to express my love for my partner with my family and friends there to witness it. I want to make that commitment and have it recognized the same way that a heterosexual couples vows are recognized. Why should I be denied that right? How will that cause a heterosexual couple's marriage to have any less value? This has not happened in the countries in Europe where marriage is legal. It has not happened in Canada. Why would it happen in the U.S.?
Third - I have no problem if people like Mike do not understand that being gay is not a choice. I was rasied to believe it was a choice. It took me over 25 years to realize I was wrong. It is not a choice. I was born this way and I will die this way. I don't care if Mike likes it or not. That's the way God made me. What I have a problem with is the fact that people feel they have a right to judge me. Who gave anyone the right to judge another person. The most valuable lesson I ever learned from the bible was compassion. I was taught to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I treat everyone with respect. I may not agree with them. I may not like them. But I do not judge them. My partner and I have an acronym we use for this. TETO - To Each There Own. Why are so many people who claim to be Christian so quick to judge. Where in the bible does it say that anyone other than God has the right to judge another person? I have no fear that when I stand before God he will accept me with open arms and bless me for the many challenges that I have endured because of the many people who judged me based on one single facet of my character, rather than trying to get to know me and appreciating who I am as a person.
Being gay does not define who I am. It is one facet of my character and my personality. I am proud of who I am. I have a great life. I have a wonderful partner, and he and I will grow old together. We may not be allowed to marry in our lifetime, but I know that if not for my generation, then for the next, or maybe the one after that. It will happen. Evolution is a wonderful thing!
Once the Constitutional Amendment is defeated, I think the homosexual community will have to thank President Bush. He will have done more to advance the rights of gay people in 9 months than has happened in the last 9 years. If he had not taken such a strong stance against the gay community, this topic would not have been debated and discussed so openly. People would not have made their position public. I would not have had some of the frank and open discussions with my straight friends that I have had over the last few days.
My only hope is that people do not allow this subject to distract them from the real issues that they should consider when deciding who should lead our country. People should be making their decision based on the economy, foreign policy, domsetic security, and issues that are the responsibility of the President.
I find it amusing that it's the folks using religion as a battering ram who are the ones who immediately think of bestiality and polygamy, whereas the dirty heathens and sinful gays are thinking of love, honour and life-long commitment.
If you want to have a Christian Marriage, go nuts. I have an Atheist Marriage myself, and somehow have managed to avoid the temptation of snagging a few extra husbands and acquiring wild life for bedroom games. Miraculously, I also believe in ethics and justice and fair play and the traditionally (stated as) Christian values of not judging others, loving my neighbour and following the narrow path.
Oh, and I think that my gay friends who are married deserve that monumental social recognition of their personal commitment as much as I do, and I'm sure their children (foster, natural, and adopted) value their love as much as my children value mine. Amusingly, my gay friends are the religious ones.
hey tifaret,
Protesting being tarred with the same brush as the bigots by being called Christian (being a Christian sweetie yourself) you say, "How would you feel if we pointed to some gay murderer and then implied that all gays were murderers?" Honey, it happens all the time. Whenever there's a killer who's gay what do you hear? "Gay serial killer." How often do you hear "Christian serial killer"? What, you think there aren't any? You want to prove what nice people the vast majority of Christians are? Well, you're just one person so it's rather a tall order to demand you prove anything about a vast majority but let's say you want to prove there's one Christian that's really great. How might you go about it? Maybe instead of protesting how hurt you are at being lumped in with the baddies, make it obvious how Christian AND wonderful you are. Write letters to the editor, to your Congressional representative, send a bouquet to SF City Hall (or Portland). Go to the "God hates fags" protests and hold up a sign that says "God loves married fags, too! Love! Honor! Sloppy kisses!" I'm sure you can think of something.
This is a quote from someone very dear to me, who is a bible scholar (among other things):
"The Bible actually does not use the word "gay" or "lesbian" anywhere, nor does it, in point of fact, prohibit same-sex marriage. It condemns male-male *sexual activity* in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 22:13 (no mention anywhere is made of female same-sex sexual activity).
Other things that the OT [Old Testament] condemns/prohibits in Leviticus:
Leviticus 19:19 prohibits the wearing of garments that are made of two or more different fibers (sorry, the poly/cotton blend has to go)
Leviticus 19:27 prohibits trimming or shaving the sideburns and beard.
Leviticus 20:9 makes cursing your parent(s) a crime punishable by death.
Leviticus 20:18 provides for the social/religious excommunication of any man and woman who violate menstrual taboo.
Leviticus 21:17-20 bars any deformed or disabled person from approaching an altar of God, as they are considered ritually impure.
All of these Levitican laws, which explicitly concern the conditions of ritual purity, or the condition in which a male person may approach worship in the Temple, are considered strictly OT laws. Jesus and Paul of Tarsus were both quite clear in Mark 7:17-23 and Romans 14:14,20 that these laws were superseded by the revelations of Jesus in regard to the notion that each human being contains within him or herself the ability to worship directly and intimately, rather than having to go through a Temple-based ritual conduit.
Another frequently-cited bit of OT, in regard to the horrors of homosex[uality], is Genesis 19:1-9, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often used to argue against homosexuality, yet Ezekiel identifies the problems in Sodom thusly: "As I live, says the Lord God, ... This was the sin of your sister city of Sodom: she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in my eyes." [Ezekiel (16:48-49)]
The list goes on from there. Suffice to say that reading the *whole* of the Bible provides many excellent rejoinders to the Leviticans out there... odd how many contemporary Christians want to cling like grim death to superannuated pre-Rabbinical Jewish law, isn't it? Or at least to the parts that they feel suit their purposes."
What does it all mean? If you want others to live by morality based on parts of Old Testament edicts that were specifically superceded by the revelations of Jesus (your savior), maybe you should consider following the others. On the other hand, if you're wearing mixed-fiber clothing, shaving, or a man touching a woman when you do not know if she's menstruating (i.e. a modern person living in this modern age after Jesus' revelations), maybe you should give all this bible-citation a miss and think about practicing the love and tolerance that Jesus himself was said to have preached.
Are you Christian or aren't you?
props to malcolm for what he just posted. you can't just prop open the bible, read a sentence, and make an argument.
like any good book, there's context!
even when paul said, "slaves obey your masters", within the same letter he acknowledged that before god salvation was for everybody and that everybody was equal. here's a guy writing from prison for teaching his beliefs in a society where slavery was legal. he didn't need to go preaching radical social upheaval, that would be detrimental to the greater cause, not freedom in life, but freedom from death.
my ancestors specifically came to this country to worship how they wanted to. that religious freedom is mocked when we start putting religious beliefs in law, especially when those laws restrict behavior based on other people's religious beliefs.
conservative christians, i ask, what if the tables were turned? what if a majority was telling you that you couldn't marry heterosexually? and furthermore, why are you so worried? does heterosexual marriage suck that badly that we're worried our kids will run away from it?
oh no, the sky is falling evidentally,
m.
default: I agree with your first paragraph. Beyond that, your contention that marriage carries an "archaic" meaning is further proof that the word, as defined, does not serve your purposes. I agree with that, too.
Thom: enjoyed your exceptions to the rule. Looked up a few of them. I'm sure there are many more interesting aberrations, each of which, has its own terminology.
Of interest:
A largely Christian community considering same sex marriage in light of scripture, etc:
http://clgs.org/marriage
Some people are religious and do belong to religions that affirm same-sex relationships. And, as the site above illustrates, even some Christians see precedent for this affirmation within their own tradition.
Personally, being religious, I would rather see all the states and federal governments get out of the business of regulating marriage between adults (i.e., people considered legally mature enough to create contracts).
If your church or temple has a standard for who can be married in the eyes of your faith, let that be the standard within that sphere. In the secular sphere all that is really "sacred" about marriage is the legal contracts one implicitly signs by agreeing to a state regulated marriage.
If you read the language of the proposed amendment carefully, you'll note that it divides the world between 'married couples consisting of one man and one woman' and 'everyone else' - and it says that the 'incidents of marriage' can be denied to everyone who is not married. It does not say that the incidents of marriage will be denied only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people, including heterosexual couples. The current language of this amendment could easily be used as a basis for states to outlaw ALL sex outside of marriage.
As a happily married Christian heterosexual male, I find it confusing when I hear my marriage needs defending. That gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of my marriage. The sanctity of MY marriage is only defined by myself, my wife and my God. Speaking of God, when it is pointed out by foes of homosexual marriage that it is "against the Bible" don't they understand they are striking points against themselves? If the argument is strictly biblically based, they ARE attempting to force their religious beliefs into the Constitution. This is explicitly against one the original amendments to the Constitution. When they argue in response that the originators of the Constitution would have supported them on this, all they need to do is look again at that First Amendment. It was such a concern to the 'originators' of the Constitution that it was the FIRST amendment.
On another line of discussion, if marriage is defined as only a union between a man and a woman, can I no longer legally marry ideas? Or would these ideas need to masculine and feminine in nature to be married? This sure would impede our progress as a nation, by dampening creativity. What about marrying ketchup (restaurant jargon for pouring ketchup bottles together). Would we need to stop doing that, as well?
The whole thing smarts of hatred and intolerance, which as has been pointed out too many times above, is NOT a CHRISTIAN value at all.
It's not "if" marriage is defined...marriage "is" defined as an opposite-sex union. Regardless, your creativity will be every bit what it is now. And, yes, you'll still be able to marry ketchups together, as long as it's Hunt's to Heinz. √
Try actually READING Romans or Corinthians.
In Corinthians sodomites are lumped in with drunkards, the greedy, etc., as classes of people who would not have entered the kingdom of heaven, except that: "11 And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God."
In Romans idolators were given over to sinful lusts as punishment: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts... "
Please note that in neither case, nor in any other portion of the bible, is lesbianism proscribed.
Tifaret;
Bashing Paul is the first trope of all anti-Christian nutters. Paul and Peter shared some of the same disciples (such as John Mark, who wrote the Gospel According to Mark). John has the greatest emphasis on predestination of any NT writer except Paul. Paul, Peter, and James the Just all spoke against the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem. Ect, ect.
If you want to be a "non-Pauline Christian", your options are Gnosticism and Ebionism. You can't pick out parts of the New Testament, you must reject the whole.
Wait, I take that back. I forgot I was addressing a typical American. You almost certainly DON'T CARE about logical consistency, therefore what you must do to maintain it goes right past you.
I find it queer how people talk about religion and religious issues being "between my spouse, my God, and myself". You have your God and I have mine, etc.
Where did you get your God? Walmart? Nordstrom? What kind of leash do you keep Him on?
It never ceases to amaze me how people
adamantly, ignorantly and arrogantly view themselves as the center of the universe.
Their God rules the universe, and they rule their
God. The Bible has absolute authority when their favorite verses are quoted or misquoted. But, their defense of scripture ends sharply when other scriptures come into conflict with their views.
So let's get with it. We're not that big. We can make stories and pretend what we want about God and the universe, but in the end, if there is a hell and if adulterers, liars, thieves, murders, homosexuals and such are going there, then why not do the smart thing and quit being sinners instead of playing pretend games with our souls?
Sometimes I wonder if the first day of hell will be like a reenactment of the crucifixion so that we will see what kind of pain we caused Jesus to go through unnecessarily--so we can feel the rejection, the betrayal, the shame, and the physical torment that God had to anticipate with perfect knowledge for an eternity before remembering it with a perfect memory for another eternity. Unnecessarily. I wonder if the devil will want us to see what kind of love we thwarted and cast aside. I wonder if he will want us to know for all eternity what beauty of heaven we will never see. What permanent isolation from everything wonderful and beautiful, and to feel the heat of hatred and accusation of all who must spend eternity in hell with us because we would not pray for them or pray for ourselves, or do anything whatsoever to bring ourselves or our so-called loved ones or friends into heaven.
And, now, here we are living here on earth thinking about ourselves--our so-called "rights"--rights to perversions, rights to poison the minds of others, rights to fill the blood banks with deadly diseases, rights to fill the air of others with cigarette smoke, and deprive everyone else of the right to enjoy entertainment and education free from the popular perversions of the day.
We cry out for the right to divorce without any serious reason of adultery or endangerment. When we get married, many of us are asked if we know this is serious, if we know that this is a commitment, that feelings come and go, and that this is not a promise to "feel" love but to "deliver" love faithfully, enduringly, diligently, permanently, and we give our most sincere look and affirmation. Feelings wane and we shrug our shoulders, wimp out, and say, "I can't pretend to feel what I don't feel."
What lying bastards and whores we have become. America--the aspiration of becoming the worlds largest whorehouse with judges operating as its pimps for the wayward spouses, defending their property "rights" and custody "rights".
Oh, so you have a "right to be happy"? What about your children? And your spouse? And others in your family and circle of friends? Try being happy honoring your word as though you actually have some integrity, as though your most sacred vows actually mean something to you. Try making your word count for something so that when you promise to love your children, the promise will actually be worth something. Try living with your real wife instead of your whore. Try living with your real husband instead of your giggalo. Do the kind of thing to your spouse that you would want your parents to do to each other or your childrens' spouses to do to them. Don't be a liar and a hypocrite and a wimp.
It's to the point where people no longer need to ask how a loving God can send people to hell. Now people beg God to return quickly so that justice may be done and this arrogant perversion will end.
In all of this, though, each of us may find ourselves frustrated in that we are powerless to change the whole world, but one freedom we do have which can never be taken away from us is the way we can testify to all of heaven with our hearts and our words and our actions. We can fight a losing battle and still win. We may not change the perverse or cause everyone to give up lies and hypocricy and sin, but we can carry a message that gives them the opportunity to do so. And, in doing that, God can see where our heart is. He can see that our desire was to rescue others from hell. And, for those who will perish regardless, it can never be said it will be for lack of our care or for cowardice or for compromise with sin on our part. Some will be led to Christ. Some will repent and be faithful. Some will lash back and judge and accuse falsely and misrepresent giving to heaven their testimonies for the kingdom of hell. But, having the grace and courage to face up to that and refuse to back down will be our victory cry of emancipation from slavery to cowardice and sin
and lies.
look this is based on facts that mean nothing i am a child from interracial marriage if u have a problem please send me an email your facts on the behalf of baining interracial marriages is irelevent and you should get your facts straight before you jump to conclusions on lives you do not live
I'm sorry. I went off blasting away at infidelity and may have left some of you thinking I was opposed to interracial marriages.
I was in an interracial marriage, and my daughter from that marriage is, without question, the absolute most lovely young lady that has ever existed since the beginning of time or who will ever exist hereafter.
I see the differences in races as a proof of God's great love and creativity and a blessing we should enjoy. If that makes some white supremicists angry, so be it. It's what I believe and how I live. And, I'm white. So, the KKK and Nazis can take their nonsense and stick it in their ears.
As for saving marriages from gay marriages, my opinions in regard to this might make nearly everyone in the world angry with me. First, I
have had gay friends, so whatever opposition I
have toward homosexual choices or behavior does
not stem from hatred for the people involved, but
it is more like my opposition to smoking, drug
abuse, or perhaps more accurately promiscuous
behaviour on the part of straights.
Part of the objection I have is that statistically
I have been told that homosexuals are usually,
though not always far more promiscuous. So, that,
in and of itself is more of an opposition to
promiscuity than homosexual behavior. With 40% of
adults in Botswana infected with HIV, it is not
hard to understand this concern. But, many of
these STD's can be spread just as quickly
heterosexually as homosexually. And, in a sense,
if homosexual marriage would cut down promiscuity,
I can see that as an argument in favor of it.
But, part of my concern is this: Currently, our
marriage laws are absolutely treacherous in that
marriage is no longer considered binding as it
once was. With the $250 billion or so spent on
the divorce industry each year, I cannot help but
wonder if the motive behind the march for
legalizing homosexual marriages is to provide more
marriages for the legal community to plunder for
wealth.
I wonder if a better approach might be to do away
with the marriage license altogether.
After all, what business does our government have
"licensing" an institution of religion? What else
should it license? Communion? Baptisms? Baby
Christenings?
Furthermore, what business does this government
have "licensing" ministers? And, what is the
penalty for solemnizing a wedding without the
benefit of a marriage "license"? Is it the loss
of a minister's license? License to do what?
To practice religion?
Our founding fathers of our nation did not have
marriage licenses. I have been told that these
licenses came about to regulate interracial
marriages, and because they served as a source of
income and people became accustomed to accepting
these licenses as a necessary part of making a
marriage "official", the marriage license stuck.
I find it very queer that this government has a
problem with performing a "marriage" without a
license, but no problem with living together
outside marriage. In fact, in some places it is
mandatory for companies to provide "domestic
partner" benefits to those who live together
without being married whether homosexual or
heterosexual.
So, if two roommates live together just as
friends without any sexual activity between them,
they are not considered entitled to domestic
benefits, but once they start having a sexual
relationship, then suddenly, they become entitled
to "benefits" from an employer who may have strong
religious beliefs against supporting such things.
Today, religious people are hamstrung. If we do
not have money to pay for our children's education
twice, first through taxes and second through
private school tuition, we cannot send our
children to a school consistent with our religious
beliefs. Freedom of religion costs extra money
if you are not a secular humanist.
Today, the IRS is empowered to revoke tax exempt
status from pastors and churches based on what
they say in their churches if it can be said to be
political in nature. So, many pastors, having
financial responsibilities are deprived of their
right to speak freely according to the beliefs of
their religion.
Today, there is concern over thought-crime legislation, sometimes called "hate crime".
Should a person be protected from "hate crimes"
only if they are homosexual? Or if they are a
member of some minority? Shouldn't *everyone*
be protected from rape, murder, torture, and
abuse?
The fact that there are hate crimes committed
is no excuse for hindering the free speech of
those who oppose certain kinds of behavior as
sin. The person who supports this kind of
"thought crime" legislation and pretends to be
in favor of free speech or freedom of religion
is not only a liar, but a rather bold one at that
to assume that everyone around them is obligated
to be stupid enough to believe such a lie or
intimidated enough to pretend to believe it.
Now, if you want to throw someone into jail for
saying that all homosexuals should be burned at
the stake, you would have my full support. This
is not free speech. But, to fine someone or
incarcerate someone for saying that homosexual
behavior is harmful or sinful is nothing but an
unjust deprivation of freedom of thought and
freedom of speech.
One thing I can say in favor of the homosexual
community and others that might stand for things
I do not agree with is that they have shown
boldness and courage when others have tried
to hold them down and deprive them of certain
freedoms and they were not conviced this was
right. They pressed in and demanded their freedom
anyway.
Perhaps it is time that we who are Christians stand up *together* and fight for our rights
vigorously defending and supporting those on the
front lines. File for civil divorces and tear up
our marriage licenses and get marriage back into
the church where it belongs. And, when the
government objects, fight back and do it anyway.
And, where the government closes our churches,
have underground churches anyway, and plan marches
to protest the violation of our religious freedoms. When the IRS interferes, pressure every
politician with public protests and cut down the
taxes and weaken this IRS until it can no longer
stand.
When the highest justices of the land legislate,
pressure Congress to impeach them. Start voting
for legislation to strip away their immunity.
But, the improvements can only begin here with a dream. To realize the dream, we have to hear it, feel it, see it in our mind, visualize it, taste it, hear the cries of victory and emancipation in our souls. We will need to talk about it, plan for it, pray for it, gather people for it. The dream must live in our hearts and souls, and we must envision our day of victory while celebrating every little victory along the way.
If we let the dream die, the worst will worsen.
There is no room for stagnation. Things will get
better, or they will get worse, and the decision
is up to us.
OK, here is my opinion on gay marriage:
I think that religion has no place in deciding whether or not a marriage is legal or not. The first line of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This line guarantees separation of church and state and equality of religion (including atheism). The Bible clearly condemns gay marriage, but this is irrelevant since the Bible holds no legal weight and passing a law "just because it says so in the bible" would violate the first amendment.
Secondly, the idea of banning gay marriage to "protect the sanctity of marriage" is just plain wrong. The divorce rate in straight marriages is through the roof (I think it's around 50%). There really is no sanctity of marriage and preventing the 8%-10% of people that are gay from getting married to each other is not going to help restore marriage. Banning divorce would be a much better way to improve the sanctity of marriage, not preventing gays from getting married to each other. By the way, if it isn't obvious, I think banning divorce would be very bad.
Finally, the slippery slopes argument that once you allow gays to marry, you will allow pedophelia, polygamy, marriage to animals, etc., is also a load of crap. Pedophelia and marriage to animals is illegal because children nor animals have the legal right to give consent for sex. Pedophelia often causes emotional damage to underage people. Sex with animals is pretty much an abuse of the animals too, since it can't give consent. However, a homosexual marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults. Furthermore, this relationship rarely hurts anyone (whereas pedophelia and animals marriage could both easily be abuse). To tell the truth, however, I don't know the statistics on polygamy. I'm pretty sure, however, that polygamy often leads to abusive relationships (if anyone has any statistics for this, I would like to hear).
Also, I think that the anti-miscegenation amendment is very similar to the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment. Both discriminate against a minority and attempt to reduce that minority to the status of second-class citizens.
As far as civil unions, I think that they are AT BEST separate but equal. In fact, civil unions are currently blatantly unequal because they do not guarantee the federal marriage benefits (which include tax breaks and inheritance stuff). Civil unions only guarantee state benefits of marriage. Furthermore, civil unions don't even have to be recognized in other states (DOMA).
You can't argue that marriage is solely a state power. That would contradict making an amendment that bans completely equal gay marriage on a federal level. Even if the 10th amendment states that marriage is a state power, the fact that most marriage benefits are given through the federal government means that the federal government has some control over marriage.
With all of this said, I don't see how anyone can rationally argue against equal gay marriage and I know this is a pushing it a bit:
I think there should be an amendment guaranteeing legal gay marriage in every state.
Finally, I would also like to add the fact that most gays are the way they are because of biological reasons. Why would they randomly choose a lifestyle that pisses a bunch of people off and doesn't have an advantage over being straight?
I am not going to be politically correct here, but I am going to be honest. People always use the 'interracial marriages used to be banned just like gay marriage is banned today, and that was changed so this should be too' argument, and they think that this will convince people that if one is okay, so should the other be. But, I for one, have come to believe that interracial marriage isn't such a good idea, and gay marriage isn't either, so two wrongs don't make a right, right?
I can't help it if I have come to feel this way, and it was in large part due to the whole OJ SIMPSON fiasco and it's aftermath. First, we have a black man, OJ, who was raised to so hate his people and the African looking women in his family, that he messed around with mostly white ladies in college, married a black woman because she was pregnant, then proceeded to cheat on her with white ladies the entire time, eventually dumping her for the bleached blonde teenager he date raped and then had as a mistress until he divorced the mother of his 2 children for her. He was quoted as saying "I just am not into black women". When he murdered Nicole and her Jewish boyfriend, Ron Goldman, brutally by slitting their throats, and then took advantage of the black communities distrust of police and need for black heroes, as well as white folks love of him, to walk for their murders, it really shook my core. I went from a person totally for any and every kind of folks dating and marrying, to one who thinks that they should just stay with their own and show some racial pride. I, like Nicole, had been raised with cute black guys crooning love songs to us, and black adonis athletes dominating the sports industry, and plenty of black actors starring in films. We were conditioned to see these men as the ideal male form that we should look for, really. Unlike her, I never indulged my 'jungle fever' and I am glad I didn't. Funny how the whole OJ thing did a 180 on me and I no longer found them attractive at all, and now think it is sort of a spell that comes over you if you allow yourself to be put under it.
I just think it is unnecessary and wrong to look for a spouse outside your race. Why stir up the nice 'salad bowl' of the races that we have into a big overheated melting pot in which eventually everybody looks alike, a sort of mocha, and nobody can be proud of their races? No more Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, just a bunch of people who don't remember who or where they came from. Very boring if everybody looked the same!
It just is a horrible thing for the black community to be honest. Black women are miserable about too many of their men going after the white woman, especially if they make something of themselves, they have to reward themselves with a white lady. This is so offensive that black gals aren't good enough, but also, that wealthy black man now leaves the black neighborhood in every way and so does his money. The black ladies are left to raise the kids by themselves, sharing the less acheiving black guys that remain available to them. This is disastrous to the black family and the whole community at large.
Many times, these black males would be perfectly happy with a lovely black gal, of which there are many, BUT, they are made to feel that they should want a nonblack wife, and since they CAN mate and marry them, WHY would they not, so off they go.
As for gay marriage, marriage WAS designed for a man and woman to enter into so that A. she would be supported and cared for, and B. so that they could have children. No children wanted, no wedding wanted, really. So, why would 2 of the same sex need to be in this relationship of breeding and servitude, more importantly, WHY would any homosexual couple be stupid enough to go and have babies when nature saved them from the whole deal, so they could save the trouble, expense and ingratitude of the whole mess? lol!
Tracked on February 27, 2004 06:37 AM
Defending marriage since 1912 from The McWetlog It's déjà vu all over again. In 1912, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced that would ban interracial marriage. Not that that has any bearing on current events, oh no. (via Matt)... [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 01:10 PM
History repeats itself from Right is Wrong via More Like This WebLog: Yipes, in 1911 there was an attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban interracial* marriages. In 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to ... [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 03:19 PM
Bad Faggot from apostropher Here's a tangent, but an interesting one. Looking at historical parallels to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, this post at Corante explains how a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage, proposed in 1912, arose in part as a reactio... [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 04:29 PM
historical similarities? from jenett.radio The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment. "In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage..." [via [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 04:35 PM
The Importance of...: The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment from eXtremities The Importance of...: The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 05:05 PM
In the Defense of Marriage from DeCloah Blog You all remember Wil Wheaton, right? Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: TNG? He was also in Stand by Me with River Phoenix and Keifer Sutherland. You remember now... Well this past Wednesday, Wil wrote a really great article on President... [Read More]Tracked on February 27, 2004 05:50 PM
The More Things Change... from The Luney Bin: H. Wade Minter Found out something I didn't know today. According to a post on The Importance of..., there was, in 1911, a Constitutional amendment was proposed to ban interracial marriage. I thought I was joking when I said that even at the... [Read More]Tracked on February 29, 2004 02:21 AM
History Repating Itself? from Rantings and Ravings 2.0 In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage: Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited. The Importance of...:... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 02:15 AM
Yo from I Do What I Can Firstly, yay Portland! And by the way, did you know that there was a constitutional amendment proposed in 1912 that would have banned interracial marriage? Will Dubya learn his lesson from history? Probaby not. And if you’re interested in some... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 03:44 AM
it's about hate from sassyfrass i'm gratified that cities across the nation are standing up against the president and the right and taking on the homophobic laws that they are trying to enact. at first, i was worried that this was going to be used... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 04:04 AM
it's about hate from sassyfrass i'm gratified that cities across the nation are standing up against the president and the right and taking on the homophobic laws that they are trying to enact. at first, i was worried that this was going to be used... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 04:06 AM
The Importance of...: The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment from Adventures of Egoboy The Importance of…: The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 01:16 PM
The more things change ... from ***Dave Does the Blog In 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment to the US Constitution, banning interracial marriages. Similar bills were... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 02:18 PM
Marriage is only as sacred as wearing polyester from The Idea Salon 12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong, Like Eating Lobster or Shaving Your Beard With a Razor (Quick update: I forgot to mention I got this from elsewhere. Thank you, Chris Darin) Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester,... [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 10:48 PM
Marriage is only as sacred as wearing polyester from The Idea Salon: Weblogue Wes attacks opponents of gay marriage as being on the wrong side of history, and exhibits a sense of humor, too. Yes, really. No, it's not that funny. [Read More]Tracked on March 5, 2004 10:51 PM
All Kinds of Crazy Laws from Cool/Lame some failed constitutional amendments [Read More]Tracked on March 6, 2004 02:03 AM
Gay Marriage vs. Interracial Marriage from Democrats.NET There is an old saying, something about ignoring the past and then repeating it. When you look at a controversial issue, sometimes it's educational to look back and see what's happened before in similar situations. In U.S. history, is there [Read More]Tracked on March 7, 2004 10:39 PM
Majority rules from GayAmerican.org If we have a look back at very recent history of marriage issues in this country, we should study Anti-Miscegenation laws. A site called Corante, provides an excellent introduction. The author relates a state representative's reaction to a famous black... [Read More]Tracked on May 10, 2004 11:20 PM
About Us |
Contact Us |
RSS |
Advertise |
© Copyright 2000-2006 Corante. All rights reserved.
