Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas

[twa]

not simply marry people  .......to DETERMINE who can marry and which marriages will be RECOGNIZED

 

the power to determine conveys the ability to discriminate unless expressly forbidden ....it has not been expressly forbidden them to determine SSM will not be recognized nor allowed.(except in cases where STATE law determines so)

 

unless you have a federal definition of marriage counter to the states or a ruling specific to the SSM exclusion ya got nothing but hope

 

hope that has been stayed...for reasons you obviously wish to ignore

[Larry]

the power to determine conveys the ability to discriminate unless expressly forbidden ....(except in cases where STATE law determines so)

Wow. Let's count the untrue statements.

"The power to determine conveys the ability to discriminate unless expressly forbidden"

No, the power to legislate does not automatically grant the right to legislate discrimination. Any more than it automatically grants the right to legislate freedom of speech.

And yes, legislating discrimination HAS been expressly forbidden. Over 100 years ago. By the 14th Amendment. (Although I would assert that it was forbidden long before then, as well. But the 14th sure made it a lot more explicit).

"it has not been expressly forbidden them to determine SSM will not be recognized nor allowed."

Wow. That sure is a reversal from somebody who's probably claimed a dozen times that the SC has specifically ruled that states have the authority to issue discriminatory marriage laws.

We've gone from "the Supreme Court has ruled that I'm right", to "there has never been a ruling on this exact subject". (And, of course, the implied "there has never been a ruling on this exact subject, therefore the rulings that have been made on this subject don't count, and I can make up anything I want").

(And the implied "well, just because the Supreme Court has ruled that discriminatory marriage rules are unconstitutional, they haven't ruled that THIS EXACT KIND OF DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE LAW is unconstitutional").

But let's look at what they HAVE ruled.

On the subject of whether states have the power to refuse to recognize marriages based solely on discrimination, the Court has ruled that ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

On the subject of whether the 14th Amendment applies to marriage laws, the court has ruled that yes, it does.

On the subject of whether the 14th Amendment prohibits states from passing jaws designed strictly to target gays, the court has ruled that yes, it does. (The Texas sodomy ruling).

----------

But, in any case, this hijack began when I objected to the repeated assertion that the Supreme Court has ruled that states have the authority to deny marriage simply because if discrimination.

You've moved the goalposts all the way to "well, they've never actually ruled on this exact specific issue".

[twa]

Larry, is forbidding or restricting a group from marrying discrimination?

 

isn't it true any limit or exclusion is discrimination?

 

for some reason you seem to have added "based solely" ......was that in the original post that started this merry go round??

[Larry]

Larry, is forbidding or restricting a group from marrying discrimination?

No, passing legislation to create second class citizens, simply because you don't like them, is discrimination.

If there's a compelling societal reason WHY someone's freedom needs to be restricted, then it's "protecting society".

Guess which category forbidding gays from marrying falls into?

 

isn't it true any limit or exclusion is discrimination?

 

 

And, I see we're back to trying to claim that "legislating discrimination is perfectly fine, if we just pretend that all legislation is discrimination". 

 

for some reason you seem to have added "based solely" ......was that in the original post that started this merry go round??

 

 

Uh, the topic is, laws forbidding gays from marriage.  That is legislation based solely on discrimination. 

[twa]

You seem confused.....marriage is not a freedom,it is a legal status subject to qualifications

 

now if they based the qualifications solely with excluding gays as the reason ya would be right.....is that why you think the marriage qualifications were made?

 

Ya might note in Loving that race was used to exclude a otherwise qualified person.....did that matter?

 

no matter they will sort it out ......eventually

[Larry]

You seem confused.....marriage is not a freedom,it is a legal status subject to qualifications

1) I never said marriage is a freedom. (Or, certainly, not one enumerated in the constitution.)

Although I think the court in Loving seemed to think otherwise. That decision was about marriage, you know.

"Remember Alice? This is a song about Alice."

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Well, more technically, they didn't rule that marriage was a right. They ruled that not having the laws discriminate against you was a right.

 

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

 

 

(Both quotes from the Wiki page on Loving.) 

 

----------

 

Said page also includes this little gem: 

 

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, by removing a provision prohibiting mixed-race marriage from its state constitution through a ballot initiative. 60% of voters voted for the removal of the anti-miscegenation rule, and 40% against.

 

 

Yes, in the year 2000, 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep a law banning interracial marriage on the books. 

 

And I keep thinking that we've made progress. 

 

There's times I wish some hacker could publish the names of the people who voted for that. 

[twa]

You are certainly right that denying the right to marry to otherwise qualified people based on race was clear discrimination with no other real justification....even moreso in a day that cohabitation was forbidden to most

 

is the sex of the couple the same or fundamentally different than race though?

 

are the freedoms available to them?

 

to ignore why marriage has traditionally been between man and woman in favor of basing it on 'love', 'govt benefits','happiness' or 'equality' et al, ignores much .imo....like why it was described as fundamental to our very existence and survival.

 

perhaps we have advanced past that to a time it is something different....if so we need to open the doors wider than to just SSM to avoid discriminating for no good reason.

[twa]

Hello

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arizona-passes-law-allowing-discrimination

 

The Arizona legislature sent a bill to the Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk Thursday that would carve a massive hole into state law allowing business owners to turn away gay and lesbian customers, employers to deny equal pay to women, or individuals to renege on contract obligations–as long as they claim to be doing so in the name of religion. 

Brewer, a Republican who vetoed similar legislation last year, has not said whether she will sign the bill. Ann Dockendorff, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said in a statement that “It is the governor’s policy to not comment on legislation until she’s had a chance to review it. Monday would be the earliest she would take action, assuming it’s transmitted by the Senate by then. She’ll have five days to act once she receives it.”

[Larry]

And here I was suggesting that the GOP seemed to have wished up, and was telling it's more extreme whack jobs that they were gonna ruin it fir everybody, if they didn't shut up till after the election.

The article has a link to the summary page for the bill. What it claims to do, is to allow any entity to demand that any and all courts must apply strict scrutiny, simply by claiming that said entity is practicing religion.

The summary page does, at least, claim that the bill specifies that strict scrutiny must be applied, even if whatever practice is not mandated nor central to any organized religion.

I ASSUME that the legislature is assuming that the courts will selectively apply this standard only to people who are "exercising religion" that the GOP approves of.

[Larry]

Just wondering if the increasing attempts to justify bigotry by (falsely) claiming that "it's my religion" is going to cause the "Christianity brand" to become as toxic as they're making the Republican one.

[Burgold]

Just wondering if the increasing attempts to justify bigotry by (falsely) claiming that "it's my religion" is going to cause the "Christianity brand" to become as toxic as they're making the Republican one.

It does continue to surprise me how many so sincerely believe that there is a war against Christmas.  They truly think that they are under siege.

[twa]

Just wondering if the increasing attempts to justify bigotry by (falsely) claiming that "it's my religion" is going to cause the "Christianity brand" to become as toxic as they're making the Republican one.

just wondering where you get the authority to determine 'falsely'?

freedom for me but not for thee seems fine with you.

as to the brand?....let freedom reign and embrace choice

[Larry]

just wondering where you get the authority to determine 'falsely'?

freedom for me but not for thee seems fine with you.

 

Same place you get the authority to define "freedom", and to tell me what I think? 

 

I come to that conclusion, because "my religion tells me that it's immoral to hire gays for my plumbing business" is simply the line that people have run to, when their previous five attempts or so to justify bigotry haven't stood up. 

 

They tried "it's to protect the children from child molesters".  Didn't sell. 

They tried "Well, we've been doing it for a long time".  Survey says:  XX

They tried "Well, telling people that they can only marry the gender that I approve of is equal".    Strike three.

They tried "But they can't reproduce".  Nobody fell for it.

They tried "I'm just trying to defend the word".  Ain't buying it. 

They tried "All I want is separate but equal".  Nope.  Too many people noticed that they were forbidding 'separate', too. 

 

That's six attempts to justify "I don't like gays, and I want society, and the government, to actively endorse my position".  And not one of them was true.  They may have been true statements, but they were not the reasons they wanted to legislate bigotry.  They wanted to legislate bigotry, because they liked bigotry. 

 

(And I will point out, "they" absolutely includes you.  I'm willing to bet that you have tried every one of those dishonest claims.  Multiple times.) 

 

And now, they want me to believe that they were doing this because their deeply and sincerely held moral code tells them that it's immoral to allow a gay person to get his oil changed in your Jiff-e-lube? 

 

Come off it. 

 

This is the "let's build a taxpayer-ordered, mandated, and paid for monument to Christianity, in the middle of a taxpayer funded veteran's cemetery, and then when people point out that that's unconstitutional, let's sell the monument to a church for one dollar, and claim that it's not government endorsement of religion". 

 

This is "we need some way to ban abortion that can trump the Constitution.  I know!  Let's redefine personhood!  Then that will allow us to do what we wanted to do, in the first place." 

 

This is yet another in the long parade of rubbing the public's nose in the fact that "conservative values" means "willing to tell any lie if it will let us do what we want".  

[Burgold]

In fairness, and I'm not talking abut what twa believes or doesn't, just about the issue in general terms.  I think the deeply held religous or moral belief is the kernal of truth at the heart of the debate.  Their upbringing, philosophy and tradition makes them hugely uncomfortable with homosexuality and defines it as a moral wrong.

 

That doesn't make them right, it doesn't make this law wrong, but it is an honest law.  They honestly find homosexuality morally repugnant on religious grounds.  It's also an excuse to discriminate, but it has a religious basis.

[Jumbo]

Larry, to my best analysis (hardly being adventurous), it already has done real damage that many alert clergy have been, with some well ahead of others, scrambling to manage.

 

Certainly the more recent widespread adjustment (and hypocritical/phony for the most part with many Christians IME) is to emphasize a "hate the sin, not the sinner" theme. And then add the obviously farcical insistence that such a sin (same-sex sexual activity among consenting adults) is simply viewed being "just a sin like any other and that's how it's treated."

 

Again, for many wielding such platitudes, it's more of a falsehood beyond the lip-service and posturing...an attempt to lie (I'd refer to it as "posing") to self and others. I find this separate from allowing the claim being made is well-argued as legit according to scripture.

 

I pass on delving much into the fact that people can use any written text of sufficient complexity (many examples) to support widely divergent concepts, including ones that are in serious conflict with each other, or are even diametrically opposed.

 

 

And things do change---sometimes even things that are supposed to be "carved in stone."

 

I think it's fair to presume, if not "know", that there are also many Christians who, whether they can reconcile it with their faith or not, truly do not view such sexual activity with any more abhorrence than the repetitive liar or thief (sinful acts).

 

Or to put it back in the realm of sexual stuffs, we may reasonably assume that some really do see it as no "greater" than the sin of the unwed mother (and father I presume, though we don't have a well-used social designation of "unwed father" interestingly enough ---darn those naughty girls). Or those who have premarital sex. Or those (even married) who engage in heterosexual oral/anal sex.

 

I also presume (always risky, but I know more than a few myself) that are many Christians who do not truly believe those things are even really "wrong" at all within many contexts, even if their respected clergy were to show them clear, widely-held, long-standing, interpretations and teachings that such sex (even masturbation ) is a sin. 

 

But all those hetero activities, broadly and "loudly" taught in Christianity as serious sins for a very long time, even now generate nothing like the response to "homosexuality" (it's much more deviant and worse, ya know---bigotry and ignorance play no role, it's just the word of the lord).

 

To be fair to the consistent, more than a few of those other sinful hetero sexual behaviors are still prominent concerns at the pulpit in some of the (interestingly) large number of congregations that do their thing within the umbrella of Christianity.

 

I think this whole ball of yarn is among the more impacting matters that can erode at Christianity's credibility over time, depending on how the institution and its adherents adjust.

 

But to date, the Christian faith has survived the challenges it faced (just meaning its diverse role/diverse population in our sociocultural picture and globally) with matters like inquisitions and genocide and slavery, and other "hot topics", just as it has with other divisions among its adherents .

 

 

 

The desire of people (Christian or otherwise) to control/manage the sexual behaviors in particular (not just rape/violent acts), especially of other adults even beyond their household, goes far back across time and cultures and feeds from many drivers.

 

Males certainly are/have been a featured and dominant player in that interest, and many do consider what a reflection it is of man (males) that Christianity (or god if the story holds) sure didn't miss the opportunity to make god (or "he" make "himself") a male. And for most folks rooted in "western culture" origins, he's long depicted as a pretty dang white one. In the words or Mr. Zevon, "his hair was perfect." 

[Larry]

(Replying to Burgold.) 

 

Oh, I have no doubt that a whole lot of people find gays repugnant. 

 

I'm one of them. 

 

But to distinguish the difference between "my religion tells me to be that way" and "that's the way I was raised, by my parents, in school, that's what we made dirty jokes about, and all the rest"? 

 

It can be REAL hard to tell the difference between the cause for a feeling, and the rationalization or justification for a feeling. 

 

I'm prone to that, myself, too.  I try to be on guard for it, and I have to admit that I'm often still not sure whether my position came before my justification, or vice versa. 

 

But, when I factor in the fact that it's tough to tell the difference, and I observe a long-running pattern of trying anything, no matter how irrational or dishonest, to justify a position? 

 

It makes me a whole lot more reluctant to assume that their seventh attempt is actually honest. 

[twa]

 

This is "we need some way to ban abortion that can trump the Constitution.  I know!  Let's redefine personhood!  Then that will allow us to do what we wanted to do, in the first place." 

 

This is yet another in the long parade of rubbing the public's nose in the fact that "conservative values" means "willing to tell any lie if it will let us do what we want".  

 

redefining marriage is obviously fine though

 

still swinging at my nose and hoping to require me to move by law eh? 

 

 

I wonder where your support for equal under the law goes when it comes to level of scrutiny by the court?

[Burgold]

(Replying to Burgold.) 

 

Oh, I have no doubt that a whole lot of people find gays repugnant. 

 

I'm one of them. 

 

But to distinguish the difference between "my religion tells me to be that way" and "that's the way I was raised, by my parents, in school, that's what we made dirty jokes about, and all the rest"? 

 

It can be REAL hard to tell the difference between the cause for a feeling, and the rationalization or justification for a feeling. 

 

I'm prone to that, myself, too.  I try to be on guard for it, and I have to admit that I'm often still not sure whether my position came before my justification, or vice versa. 

 

But, when I factor in the fact that it's tough to tell the difference, and I observe a long-running pattern of trying anything, no matter how irrational or dishonest, to justify a position? 

 

It makes me a whole lot more reluctant to assume that their seventh attempt is actually honest. 

Fair, I also differentiate honest from right or correct.  I think these laws come from an honest, but ultimately misguided moral core.

[elkabong82]

Just wondering if the increasing attempts to justify bigotry by (falsely) claiming that "it's my religion" is going to cause the "Christianity brand" to become as toxic as they're making the Republican one.

 

For all the fear-mongering over Islam and sharia law done by a lot of Christians they sure do seem to like using the law as an excuse to discriminate as well.

[elkabong82]

Fair, I also differentiate honest from right or correct.  I think these laws come from an honest, but ultimately misguided moral core.

 

Given that most seem just fine with picking and choosing which religious beliefs to uphold and which to disregard, I don't think these laws come from an honest place. They come from a place of bigotry, misunderstanding, and hate that is sponsored by leaders of their religion and hence they use religion to reinforce their bigotry. Same thing used to happen, in some places it still does, like the Cheerios commercial, with interracial marriage.

 

Most Christians in this country are not as devout as they want you to believe when using their religion to persecute, harass, and/or exile other members of society.This is nothing new either. As long as these major religions have existed, people all over the world have killed others, shunned them, persecuted them, exiled them, denied them equal treatment using their religion as the scapegoat. That doesn't come from an honest place, but I agree it does come from a misguided place.

[twa]

Fair, I also differentiate honest from right or correct.  I think these laws come from an honest, but ultimately misguided moral core.

 

We will let you know what your morals are and how you may apply them citizen

[Burgold]

 

We will let you know what your morals are and how you may apply them citizen

 

I've heard that one before and it never comes from an honest place.

[twa]

I've heard that one before and it never comes from an honest place.

 

and a honest place is?

[mjah]

redefining marriage is obviously fine though

 

In the same way that voting was "redefined" in 1868, 1870, 1920, 1961, 1964, 1966, and 1971?    

 

Yes, then it's obviously fine to "redefine" marriage by eliminating discrimination in its legal sanctioning and recognition.

 

Honestly... The bleaker the fight against marriage equality gets, the more ridiculous the antics become.

[elkabong82]

 

We will let you know what your morals are and how you may apply them citizen

 

 

Government and religion both do this. Some governments at least have the ability to change laws. They do change things in religions too, usually out of desire to correct a perceived flaw, that's even how we got various denominations of Christianity. However when their religion is being used to defend an action/idea, then all of a sudden those religious beliefs are infallible. 

 

This country's economy thrives on violating the 10th Commandment, for example, and among those 10 homosexuality isn't even listed. So if one wanted to revert to "ranking" sins to justify overlooking some while strongly reinforcing others, then the one most of us choose to ignore could be viewed as much worse, biblically, than the one many view as very sinful and are seeking to outcast with such laws. 

 

 The proposed law says service can be denied based on religious beliefs, which means it can apply to unwed couples with children (since they obviously engaged in premarital sex), known adulterers, kids who talk back to their parents, someone who was overheard taking the Lord's name in vain, and since a specific religion is not mentioned, then Islamic folk can deny service to unescorted women and women not completely covered head to toe in clothing. See, when you actually look at the discrimination this law will uphold outside of just homosexuality you can see how ridiculous it is. But because some people are still bigoted towards homosexuals stupid crap like this finds it's way up to high levels of government.

 

All of a sudden Old Testament writings on homosexuality matter, but mention any of the very outdated ones about women and slavery, oh, well then it doesn't apply. Homosexuality, like those other things, is just another part where's man's interpretation of God's word failed. There is a reason so many "devout" are so loud about homosexuality and making laws against it yet so quiet on many other "sins," and IMO it's because they are bigoted, were likely raised such, and probably had religion reinforcing it and are simply doing the same. Their disdain from homosexuality IMO is not religious based.

 

Homosexuality until recently, historically, has been met with hostility, violence, and death, and in parts all across the globe still is. Russia, Iran, parts of Africa, etc. While some use religion, others do so as well without religion. Why? Because of societal norms and people's general fear of what they don't understand. It's a psychological issue that found it's way into religion. It's not simply based on religion, religion is simply used as a defense mechanism to justify terrible treatment and/or intolerance of other human beings.Cross dressers, transgenders, etc. that also defy the norm of sexuality and gender, receive similar treatment. It's because for so long so much of society was based on gender roles, and early on it had to be (hunter vs. gatherer for example).

 

Heck, in America women couldn't wear pants for a very long time. Tom boys were frowned upon, effeminite men even today are mocked and shunned to some degree. It's why homosexual men are often viewed as "weak," as "lady-like." It's why lesbians often get labeled as "butch." Men can't be with men. Women can't be with women. Women can't wear men's clothes. Men can't be sensitive or cry. Women can't play sports, men can't cook or do household chores, women can't work they must stay home and raise the children, etc. etc. All these things have slowly changed in America over time, homosexuality is a part of this with gender and sex roles. It is one of the biggest changes to the norms hence it meets the greatest resistance. 

 

Homosexuality is a part of this area, and the hatred and misunderstanding stems from the refusal to accept changes to societal norms. Religion is merely a tool to justify such sentiments. It is not the real cause for such disdain, IMO, though over time it has certainly become a major contributor, especially so now as defense for such bigotry doesn't have much place else to hide.

 

Long story short, I don't believe it is a religious thing coming from an honest but misguided place as Burgold stated. I think it is based on long accepted and upheld societal norms and gender and sex roles being challenged and people using and being misguided by religion to resist change to those norms. After all, if any one entity throughout man's history can be pointed to as being THE biggest opponent to societal change, to holding things back, it's religion.

 

Jesus' own actions show he would never have supported such laws.