Clean Sweep Against Gay Marriage in the South
Our friend Pam Spaulding has a rundown on “The State of Bigoted Marriage Amendments” newly added to state constitutions. The South is, to no one’s surprise, solid on the issue.
Five Southern states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage just last year: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi (plus, for good measure, border state Oklahoma). North Carolina has such an amendment under consideration.
Every other Southern state already had laws on the books prohibiting gay marriage (it’s just not in their constitutions): Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Five Southern states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage just last year: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi (plus, for good measure, border state Oklahoma). North Carolina has such an amendment under consideration.
Every other Southern state already had laws on the books prohibiting gay marriage (it’s just not in their constitutions): Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
11 Comments:
You know, I can remember when inter-racial marriage was illegal. I have heard sermons from the pulpit denouncing it as unnatural, perverted and sure to lead to a moral breakdown like the end of the Roman empire. There are the same criticisms being directed at gay marriage today.
I think it is unfair, and, from a political point of view, unwise, to label those who oppose the idea of gay marriage as "bigots"; indeed, such name calling is itself one of the hallmarks of bigotry, and is completely out of place on your site. What is needed, in my opinion at least, is more reason and less passion on this question. Issues of marriage and the family are too important to deserve less. Especially if Democrats expect to wind Congress and the White House again anytime soon.
thanks,
Luke Lea
BornAgainDemocrats.com
Luke,
In case you're curious, here's the definition of bigot:
"big·ot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"
The shoe fits. If that troubles you, perhaps you should examine your position on this topic more closely.
Examples of "less passion" on the bigoted anti-gay marriage side of the fence are legion and, if you're truly ignorant of them (as opposed to being an apologist for them), you can easily find many of them with Google.
Luke writes:
I think it is unfair, and, from a political point of view, unwise, to label those who oppose the idea of gay marriage as "bigots"; indeed, such name calling is itself one of the hallmarks of bigotry
I have a problem with this line of reasoning: so if you oppose someone else's prejudice, that makes you prejudiced yourself? That's such a red herring...
I may be totally wrong on this, but aside from a few progressive "enclaves," where in the South have gay people been pushing for legal marriage? In other words, these amendments that are being passed left & right aren't actually directed at any appreciable social movement on a regional/state level. They are largely if not purely "pre-emptive"--the way the war on Iraq was "pre-emptive," i.e. deeply cynical, or hysterical, or some weird combination thereof.
On a related note, I want to recommend
this article from the Nation on marriage. It raises important questions about the equitability of distributing health care & other social resources on the basis of marriage & the nuclear family structure alone.
Southern Yankee,
My point is that one can be tolerant of gays, and still be opposed to the idea of gay marriage. I myself, for example, have gay friends and family members, and and have no problems with domestic partnership rules for gays, to deal with the legal problems associated with community property, hospital visitation, and the like. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, as are most Americans, because it seems to ignore the role of marriage and the family, namely, to provide a culturally stable institution for the procreation and raising the next generation. And I am especially unhappy when this issue is allowed to trump other issues, such as national health insurance, which impact the welfare of a much bigger percentage of the populace.
follow up
If I didn't make myself clear, I resent being labeled a bigot or prejudiced because of my views as expressed above.
And I am especially unhappy when this issue is allowed to trump other issues, such as national health insurance, which impact the welfare of a much bigger percentage of the populace.
Luke: then you should find the article I recommended above very interesting--please check it out. By the way, the essay is not even "pro" gay marriage per se, but is concerned with social justice on a much broader scale. Here are a few excerpts that seem particularly relevant to the points you made:
...marriage is less stable and central to the organization of American life than ever. There are now more unmarried households than married ones, and a variety of formal and informal, permanent and transient, solemn and casual partnership and kinship arrangements have displaced any singular, static model of domestic life. Political responses to these changes have long been polarized between those who want to bring back Ozzie and Harriet and those who are fighting for the democratization of state recognition of households, along with equitable distribution of services and benefits to Americans, based on how we actually live rather than on some imagined, lost ideal...
***
It may be tempting to see this squabble [over gay marriage] as an example of symbolic politics, with the debate over the future of marriage potentially displacing bigger and more significant battles over war and peace, taxes and fairness, corporate greed and good government. But state regulation of households and partnerships does in fact affect the basic safety, prosperity, equality and welfare of all Americans--it determines who will make medical decisions for us in emergencies, who may share our pensions or Social Security benefits, who may legally co-parent our children and much more. It's just hard to sort out the real issues from the smokescreens as the rhetoric heats up this election year.
***
What if there were a way to separate the tax advantages of joint household recognition, or the responsibilities of joint parenting, from the next-of-kin recognition so that such rights might go to a non-co-resident relative, a friend or a lover? And what if many benefits, such as health insurance, could be available to all without regard for household or partnership status? The moral conservative's nightmare vision of a flexible menu of options might become a route to progressive equality! That could happen--if all statuses could be opened to all without exclusions, allowing different kinds of households to fit state benefits to their changing needs; if no status conferred any invidious privilege or advantage over any other, or over none at all; and if material benefits such as health insurance were detached from partnership or household form altogether (federally guaranteed universal healthcare, for instance, would be far more democratic and egalitarian than health insurance as a partnership benefit). Meanwhile, the "sanctity" of traditional marriages could be retained and honored by religious groups and families, according to their own values and definitions.
OK, Luke. I'll bite. Explain to me, using "more reason and less passion" how gay marriage "seems to ignore the role of marriage and the family, namely, to provide a culturally stable institution for the procreation and raising the next generation."
Please answer the following when you do.
1. Should marriage be denied childless couples? If not, why not.
2. Given the number of children awaiting adoption within and without the United States, most living in temporary circumstances or substandard environments, how would a gay couple adopting any of these children not be an improvement with respect to a culturally stable institution for raising the next generation?
3. Are you aware of the limitations of domestic partnerships? Specifically, are you aware that any arrangement they have with their home state is irrelevant if they visit or move to another?
I wonder if your gay friends and family realize how big you're being by willingly tolerating them.
Just out of curiosity, what's your take on miscegenation? If you're OK with it, try going through and substituting "mixed race" for "gay" in your comments and see how I, for one, come to the conclusion that your position is bigoted.
As far as gay marriage "trumping" other issues, you'll have to develop that idea further if you want a response.
I'm perfectly capable and willing to agitate for both at the same time.
I am sorry, guys, I was under the mis-apprehension that Facing South was , or wanted to be, a mainstream Democratic group with an interest in actually winning against guys like Bush and Rove. For it is only in that context that might remarks make sense.
In any event, you need to be careful, all of you, including the guy who asked about my racial views, not to presuppose that those who disagree with you on fundamental issues are probably ignorant and bad. A grassroots political organization, or one that aspires to be such, must have a better understanding and more sympathy with the feelings and emotional needs of ordinary working people, without regard to race, creed, or culture.
For those who agree with what I have just said, and understand why I felt compelled to say it, you can find more about my thinking over at BornAgainDemocrats.com, especially the blog, where I talk about all these controversial issues and more.
One parting comment. Karl Rove and company are really jerking your chains, polarizing the Democratic electorate, and splitting guys like you from the working class majority that should be the base of the Democratic Party. It grieves me to see the success he is having.
Man, you're determined to go with "all heat and no light", aren't you?
Comments on this blog are the responsibility of the folks making the comments. Your inane suggestion that the guys running this are responsible for everything anybody says in comments is ludicrous.
If I go over to your blog and post inanities, do you really think you should be held accountable for them?
And what part of "Blogging for a Progressive South" did you miss?
You're the one creating a false dichotomy. By and large, folks support gay rights, unless the questions are spun to make them sound threatening to heterosexual marriage. Even devout Christians.
You're posting conservative talking points and warning Democrats (this isn't a Democratic Party blog, either) to accept them.
And that whole " myself, for example, have gay friends and family members" bit sure sounds like "some of my best friends are black" to me.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page