Before 1967, interracial marriage in certain states in the U.S. was illegal. Yes, you read that correctly. Whites and blacks weren’t permitted to marry each other. From Wikipedia:
“Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia‘s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924“, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.”
Now here we are in 2012, with another civil rights issue – the right for gay people to legally marry. Legal marriage means you’re able to partake of the same benefits that married heterosexuals do in terms of tax benefits, health insurance, Social Security, raising families and all the rest of it. It’s not just legal recognition, but the emotional and spiritual acceptance that comes from such a union.
On May 8, North Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment that declares marriage is only between a man and a woman. It’s the 30th state with this kind of constitutional provision. The amendment states that such a marriage is the only “domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by the state.”
It essentially writes discrimination into the state’s constitution.
Two days later, President Obama gave an interview to ABC News in which he stated that he personally believes gays should have the right to legally marry. He’s the first president to ever support gay marriage. Never mind that he should have done it long before now; at least he took the calculated political risk and came out in favor of it.
For opponents of gay marriage, the issue is all mixed up and entangled with religion. In the U.S. Congress, amendments about gay marriage were actually tacked on to a defense bill at 11:30 at night. Someone cited Leviticus in the Old Testament, which considers homosexuality an abomination punishable by stoning.
Really?
One day my neighbor and I were talking about this very issue and she cited the same chapter and verse in Leviticus that Congresswoman Scott did. I just stood there, mute with shock that I was hearing this from a woman in the 21st century. And this comes from he woman who takes care of our dog and cats when we’re out of town. I burst out laughing, I couldn’t help it.
“Tell me you’re kidding,” I said. “Tell me you don’t really believe this.”
“It’s in the Bible, Trish.”
In other words, it’s written in stone and if I don’t get with the agenda, I’m part of the problem.
As a lapsed Catholic of many, many years, I vaguely recall the Old Testament, which we were taught in Catechism – i.e., Brainwashing 101 for children. I remember listening to a nun talking about a fiery, angry god who “punished” his children when they “sinned.” And wow, there was a long list of sins, everything from disobeying your parents, lying, not attending church on Sundays, and saying goddamn.
As a practicing Catholic, I was expected to confess periodically so I could receive communion. So the priest would ask, “What sins do you need to confess?”And my mind would empty, a kind of panic would sweep through me. Hey, I was ten or eleven years old. I couldn’t think of anything, so I would make up sins – thus committing another sin! – and then dutifully say the 5,000 prayers to compensate for my evil life.
But here are members of Congress citing the Old testament while discussing legislation. Big disconnect. Whatever happened to the separation between church and state? What’s the deal, anyway? Why should anyone give a damn about who marries whom? How do gay couples who marry and raise families present any “danger” to heterosexuals and their families?
I’m reminded of Shirley Jackson’s brilliant short story, The Lottery, first published by The New Yorker in 1948. The plot is simple. In a small town of about 300 people, an annual ritual ensues to “ensure a good harvest.” One adult is stoned to death by the rest of the townspeople. People don’t like doing it, but they feel compelled to do so because it’s what you do if you live in this town. This same idea is used in slightly different ways in Hunger Games, The Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, The Matrix, Majority Report.
In much the same way, the Republican party has turned into an extremist bunch who seem to believe they are the country’s moral compass when it comes to gay marriage, women’s health, a woman’s right to choose, and a host of other privacy issues. They cite the Old Testament and extoll the virtues of family life while dismantling the very foundation of what a family means – love, tolerance, acceptance.
They tear apart food programs for the poor, medical care for the poor and the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable, because they refuse to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of earners. These issues fall under civil rights. The constitution, after all, says that we are all created equal. That should mean that we have the right to marry whoever we love.
Now here’s the twisted synchro, a glaring trickster: before North Carolina voted to ban same-sex marriages, the Democrats had chosen Charlotte, North Carolina as the site of the Democratic National Convention of 2012, where Obama and the VP will be officially nominated. And despite the state’s ban and Obama’s much publicized proclamation about his support of gay marriage, the convention will still be held there.It’s as if the universe is inviting us to recognize that the new paradigm needs an enemy in order to evolve. In the Fifties, we needed the Russians and the Berlin Wall. Now we apparently need discrimination against blacks, women, and gays before we can reach the ideal – acceptance.
Go figure.
Gay people can have a ceremony of sorts in the UK which gives them the same equal rights as with marriage i.e. tax, property, health, having a family etc. etc. The difference being that it still isn’t a ‘marriage.’ Our Prime Minister Cameron (like Obama) says he supports gay marriage but there is a lot of opposition to this, especially from sections of the church who don’t want to be forced into carrying out traditional marriage ceremonies for gays.
We had recent local elections in the UK and Cameron’s party lost hundreds of seats (this doesn’t effect our parliament though). One of the reasons given was because he wasn’t concentrating on the ‘important’ issues (finance, health etc) but kept talking about such ‘unimportant’ things such as gay marriage instead – which, supposedly, doesn’t interest the majority of voters.
Gay marriage will come – eventually.
T & R, in our FL county, the schools have removed from the vending machines all sugar sodas, candies, and such, and replaced them with all-natural fruit juices, fruits, crackers, cheeese, etc. The school lunches, (I read the weekly menus in the paper because of my grandkids) have drastically changed. They “offer” 1% milk, natural fruit juices, (unsweetened), vegetables such as carrot sticks and other healthy foods. So at least they’re making an effort here. Whoot, one problem I do see in this country is increasing lack of authority that parents are allowed under the law towards their children. There’s a huge difference between spanking a child and beating a child, and and lightly popping a child’s hand to get his attention if he keeps trying to put his fingers on a hoit stove, looking at you mischievously when you tell him “NO, that will hurt you”, and then continues to do it, is sometimes a necessary thing to do. I have much to say about discipline, having successfully raised three sons who were born so close together they’re like triplets, but will stop here. They remain extremely close to their Dad amd me, and have said more than once they’re grateful for every “spanking” they got. They were never beaten by any means. but an occasional quick not very hard slap on the butt, and they got the message.
so there CJ you say there is No confusion among these children,,, “can we be so sure”… and yes a child being around a situation with abusive parents one way or another is definitely problamatic.. As far as seperation of church and state,,,, well I tell’s ya,, well actually I’ll keep that to my self… will say this, am not sure why cause ain’t nobody seem to commment on bozos stuff,, but I know this person whose got law enforcemment relatives,, and this guy is in a position where he knwos he can not put his hands on his kid in a disiplinary fashion,, it seems (maybe only just when others are around) the kid doesn’t listen to a word he say’s….
“Predatory”, Whoot? I’m not being argumentative. Am attempting to comprehend your comment. Gay people are child predators? That has been proven repeatedly to NOT be the case. Often child predators prefer one gender or another, but child molestation among gay men and lesbians is virtually unknown. I don’t believe, either, that this is a political issue. It’s an issue of human rights and privileges and there are distinctions between the two, Liberal, repubs, democrats, conservatives, tea partiers, whtever, isn’t relevant in my book on this issue. Separation of church and state is the BIG issue here. Government, regardless of it’s color, red, blue, or chartreuse, hasn’t been given permission to dictate who can marry and who cannot based on ONE Holy Book. Who we love, and who we marry, is between the two persons involved. And we have friends who are gay couples with children. These children are well-balanced and normal and secure, in a safe environment. Two Mothers or Two Fathers doesn’t make one whit of a difference if the child is loved, honored, and respected. There is no confusion in a child who receives such devotion. Heck of a lot better than having a (male) father who aduses his (female) wife, etc, or the children themselves. Pretty soon the gov’t will try to mandate that GRANDPARENTS won’t be allowed to raise children. What a ruckus that will cause! Leave the moral issues to individuals, and the government/political issues to the government. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
RACISM is WRONG,, homophobia is wrong, unless blah blah blah, gay commitments (is that word OK) should be afforded equal level legal rights as a joining between a man and woman,, BUT DON’T call it a wedding or a marriage…. reason being, children SHOULD be given, from SOCIETY the information to differentiate. Groups in general like to increase their enrollment, so therefore by definition there becomes a certain amount of predatorary action in these areas and the young well………… for comfirmation R+T “like no other”… maybe that validates, since ain’t none of you can comment, actually point being, just cause a person is a liberal does not mean it makes sense to carry that flag through all issues, in fact running the party line surely means your making some mistakes….
Whoot – it doesn’t have much to do with being liberal. It’s what I believe, based on my experiences. Simple.
Regardless of who made these comments, or what document in which the articles were written, the message remains the same: PREJUDICE IS HURTFUL AND WRONG-MINDED AND MEAN-SPIRITED, no matter the nature of the prejudice or the recipient(s) of the prejudice. Great post. Great reminder to be loving and tolerant of all the differences in each of us.
exactly, cj!
OK, liberals, here comes a tricky question. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? It’s not just about social life of such a child, but also it would be like having a single parent duplicated.
A good question, Aleksandar. My answer, though, is why not?
tricky???
FIRST of all i cannot imagine that such a question is even ASKED – let alone referred to as “tricky” – secondly, in light of having just read such a powerfully oriented post on the status of love being love being love, i cannot further imagine such a question even being asked – here –
but that’s just this liberal single parent who would have done anything to know that my children were loved wanted and cherished by two parents, regardless their gender and/or racial identity and/or marital status – oh, and please don’t trouble yourself with a response – none is required –
and just in case there is anything not clear in my comment above, it was not a “trick” anything –
I’m all for equality (I know at the moment two real-life examples of gay husbands leaving their wives and children) and have nothing against single biological parents (especially mothers). But, as a man, I think that men without wives (including couples) should be, if not forbidden, then definitely lower on the list for adoption. I’ve read somewhere that black children living in America who have typical “black” names have statistically less chances (perhaps some of them, like Obama, for the same reason go to the opposite side) to succeed in school and legal jobs mostly because gangs on the streets perceive them as their “brothers” (I hope you won’t call me a racist after this comment). I just can’t imagine the first generation of children being raised by the first ever legalized gay couples becoming usual or average persons (accountants for example).
I don’t think you’re racist, Aleksandar. I honestly don’t know enough about street gangs in large cities. But I’ve read stories and seen documentaries that address what you’re talking about.
I am very much in agreement with your article.
Two minor corrections, though:
1) You have the exchange in the U.S. Congress mixed up — there’s no Congresswoman Scott. There is a man, Austin Scott, who unfortunately represents my state of Georgia. He got into an exchange with Loretta Sanchez, Democrat form California. It was Sanchez who read the passage from Leviticus — not because she agreed with what was there — but because she was trying to show how vile and frightening passage like that are. Scott tried to dismiss it by saying that was the “Old Testament,” somehow implying that religious bigotry against gays had no basis in Leviticus, which of course is nonsense, since many people who are bigoted against gays quote that passage quite a lot.
2) It’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that has the phrase about everyone being created equal. (Although it’s a very common error to mix up the two documents.)
Thanks for the corrections, Aaron. I should know by now not to write these posts when I’m tired!
Hullo Trish:
I grew up in a small city in New Brunswick, Canada (Saint John) by the Bay of Fundy.
We did not even know the word prejudice or really what it meant as kids. Everyone played and worked together in our community and when I say community – it was well rounded. Its so sad that even as time marches on some things just do not change and I cannot even begin to understand it. My parents were excellant teachers and we were taught to respect everyone and so that just was the way we always were. Love and respect does not come in a colour – it comes within your being, your very soul. I am so fortunate to be where I am in this life and loved.
Thank you so much for stopping by my Blog and leaving me a lovely note. Your comments were so much appreciated. I will be back to see you and hope you might do the same sometime, even though you are a very busy woman. I love the way you put words together and I hope to read more. Take care and thanks – you made my day.
Cheers, Lilly
Hey Lilly, thanks for dropping by! We’ll put a link up to your blog. I love those photos on your blog, especially that beautiful house and the view!
As I’ve mentioned here previously, I was born in the Deep South and raised in Montgomery, Alabama from the mid-1940s to the late 1950s. Those were the days of Martin Luther King, the segregation/integration race riots, the open KKK rallies, the hangings of blacks and burnings of crosses in yards of white folks. My parents were both born in small South Georgia towns, were devout southern baptists, and my Mother was a sophisticated southern “lady”, but oddly, neither of them was a racist. When I was thirteen, an avid reader, my Mom gave me a novel to read entitled THE OTHER ROOM. I’d give the U.S. mint to have a copy of that book now, but haven’t even a clue who the author was. It was the story of a black man and a white woman who loved each other dearly, a forbidden love, an impossible situation, and the horrors they suffered. That story engraved itself in my heart.
My Mom told me, “Never forget this. Let it be your guide in your attitudes towards all people”. That’s probably the most important thing she ever taught me, and I’ve never forgotten. Much later, I realized that it is within our SOULS, not our hearts, where love dwells, and Souls recognize soulmates and kindred souls, no matter what kinds of physical clothes of skin the soul may be wearing and no matter the gender the Soul may have chosen in a current life experience. Souls choose, and to deny the individual soul the rights to express its love for another is inhuman and inhumane. In my not-so-humble opinion, if someone wants to talk “religion”, prejudice and intolerance fly against everything that is holy and of God….by whatever Name we choose to call that Creative Force. Good for Obama. One other matter that the government is now attempting to monitor, and that is, they are attempting to select and force for us the foods we may and may not eat due to the issue of obesity in this country. These are very personal choices, and NO ONE is going to tell me who I can love, marry, or what I can eat. That is government domination and interfering at its worst. Unthinkable.
I vaguely recall this book, math. Thanks for mentioning!
>>One other matter that the government is now attempting to monitor, and that is, they are attempting to select and force for us the foods we may and may not eat due to the issue of obesity in this country. These are very personal choices, and NO ONE is going to tell me who I can love, marry, or what I can eat.
Actually, the government promotes sugar and milk through subsidies, and for decades wrongly put milk n the essential food pyramid. Public school meals historically have fed kids crap. I’m all for the government waking up in the food department and promoting healthy diets for kids.
My sister lives in Florida too, and she is reminded daily that it is a red state. Not as red as North Carolina, perhaps, but everywhere it is assumed she is a Republican just because she’s old, I guess. In NC, not only gay marriage is banned, but civil unions and domestic partnerships by ANYBODY, not just same sex but all partnerships. What a step backwards. Thanks for this post, Trish. It reflects everything I’m thinking.
We live in a republican bastion, so I can sympathize with your sister!