![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tired of descrimination...
Mar. 4th, 2004 09:36 amIt occurs to me that just by replacing certain terms that are being used regarding same-sex marriages, we can go back in time!
Just think. Just by changing "same-sex" to "mixed-race" or "interracial", we could go back to the 1950's and early 1960's! I mean, it wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriages were legalized. With Bush's comments about protecting the "sanctity of marriage", I'd like to take us back to a younger, more... innocent time.
Here is a quote by Bush from his speech on February 24th in which he speaks of the need for a constitutional amendment. I replaced the phrase "a man and a woman" with "racially unmixed couple", which was as neutral a term as I could come up with. Original transcript here Changes have been boldfaced to specify where changes were made.
"The union of a racially unmixed couple is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a racially unmixed couple to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
And this was in a statement designed to be as non-offensive as possible, so as to make sure that no one could call him descrimanatory. What frustrates me the most about the whole argument about same-sex marriage is that descrimination is what it comes down to, no holds barred. Opponents of same-sex marriage are saying that it's ok to keep gays and lesbians from getting married, because they aren't like everyone else. So, it must have been the same type of arguments back in the 60's that were being used by bigots to say that it was ok to keep interracial couples from getting married. There are more. Here's a quote from Orson Scott Card, with certain terms replaced to reflect the changes in year... Again, changes have been boldfaced to specify where the changes were made, but the original column is here
"Any black man who can persuade a black woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many black men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with black women. Many have married black men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that interracial couples are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all interracial couples have to do is find someone of the same race willing to join them in marriage."
The times have changed. The victims have changed. The arguments haven't. Here's hoping that the outcome will be the same as it was in 1967.
Just think. Just by changing "same-sex" to "mixed-race" or "interracial", we could go back to the 1950's and early 1960's! I mean, it wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriages were legalized. With Bush's comments about protecting the "sanctity of marriage", I'd like to take us back to a younger, more... innocent time.
Here is a quote by Bush from his speech on February 24th in which he speaks of the need for a constitutional amendment. I replaced the phrase "a man and a woman" with "racially unmixed couple", which was as neutral a term as I could come up with. Original transcript here Changes have been boldfaced to specify where changes were made.
"The union of a racially unmixed couple is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a racially unmixed couple to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
And this was in a statement designed to be as non-offensive as possible, so as to make sure that no one could call him descrimanatory. What frustrates me the most about the whole argument about same-sex marriage is that descrimination is what it comes down to, no holds barred. Opponents of same-sex marriage are saying that it's ok to keep gays and lesbians from getting married, because they aren't like everyone else. So, it must have been the same type of arguments back in the 60's that were being used by bigots to say that it was ok to keep interracial couples from getting married. There are more. Here's a quote from Orson Scott Card, with certain terms replaced to reflect the changes in year... Again, changes have been boldfaced to specify where the changes were made, but the original column is here
"Any black man who can persuade a black woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many black men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with black women. Many have married black men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that interracial couples are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all interracial couples have to do is find someone of the same race willing to join them in marriage."
The times have changed. The victims have changed. The arguments haven't. Here's hoping that the outcome will be the same as it was in 1967.
