MatthewLee
New Member
"he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Now, I will agree that that reductio ad absurdum was not my best work. I was in a rush (and also why I wrote won as one in that post ). However, I think my point is clear since three other people got it. As Collecemall said, "But one might wonder why the racism sticks out yet the bigotry it was derived from is tolerable to you?" In addition, the reason I used interracial marriage as interchangeable with gay marriage is because both were decided in the courts, thus both overturned state constitutions. That fact seemed to be a reason you were so upset about this, thus I thought it would be a good comparison.
[emphasis added]"
I see the distinction. Let me step this back and bit and try to answer to this less contentiously and see if I understand what you meant. I know you didn't call me a racist and my comments about the comparison between race and sexual orientation were obviously arguing to a point you didn't make. I need to make a few points clarifying some things.
I voted for marriage equality when it was put on the ballot in my state. It took a long time for the political arguments to finally reach me about why it was so important and it wasn't the rhetoric about love winning. I voted for it because I believe that the government has no reason to tell anyone anything about marriage. I do not agree with same-sex marriage in terms of my faith convictions... but I agree far less with allowing the government to represent a faith position by law, even one I agree with. That's a slippery slope to theocracy and who is to say your religion (not saying you have one) or my religion is the one that will win in the end? No one should impose their faith values on someone else by law. That's tyranny to me.
I am pro-choice... not because I believe in abortion... I revile it as murder on a faith conviction. However, I don't want the government having a say in the reproductive rights of citizens. Another slippery slope to theocracy and tyranny. I can't force other people to think like I do, rather, I have to try and make the best ethical arguments I can, the best defense of my position in the public space and hope that other people will see my point of view and agree. If they don't, making them live as I feel they should is monstrous. It creates animosity and resentment and these are counterproductive.
If we compare Loving V Virginia and Obergefell V Hodges your comparison holds in terms of both being decided by the courts. Here is a better elucidation of why I believe this was wrong on both counts. Morally, both decisions were correct from a political standpoint... pragmatically both lead to disaster. This is an opinion and I reserve the right to be proven wrong so let me lay out the best argument I can with respect to all involved...
I looked into this a bit and found some interesting facts about this.
Before Loving V Virginia most states were already having their racism based laws repealed by court action and government involvement. Only the southern states were left as holdouts at the end. If you look at a map of the states which had their laws repealed...
https://www.aclu.org/other/map-leadup-loving
Is the situation significantly better for African American's in those states now then in 1967? Sure, they have legal protections and that is great in the abstract but it means that prejudice didn't go away... it went into hiding. And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...
"In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation."
http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/
Prejudice didn't go away... in fact it may be worse now than it has even been because now its biased judges, and economic targeting through "red lining" which is pretty hard to prove. It is expressed by systematic denial of opportunity through processes that you can't see but that have real and lasting effects. The backlash of forcing something on America that it's racist heart didn't want wasn't equality... it was a far more pernicious and dishonest racism that is in the heart but never spoken out loud. Who brought crack into the black communities in the 80's? Was it the people in the communities themselves or maybe racist law enforcement that wanted to have an easy excuse to incarcerate them? The first Marijuana prohibitions were, in many places, to give an easy method of targeting Latinos and African Americans. African American's and Latinos are incarcerated for drug crime at a rate that is many times higher than their white counterparts today more than ever.
The laws couldn't create morality, laws aren't morals... they are laws. Assassinating MLK was illegal but that man still did it. You can't force someone to abandon prejudice, only reason can do this. This is why democracy and free speech have to go hand in hand. You have to change peoples minds with reason not force them to act in a moral way because when given a choice when no one is looking or when there is no protection they act on their feelings and prejudices...
Most of the states who voted in amendments and legislation banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as only a man and a woman were either overturned by judges, courts, or Obergefell proper in the span of less than seven years.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-gay-marriage-chronology/
This graphic is so very telling. Watch the chronology in the graphic as it plays and notice that until about 2001 most states didn't even have really well developed laws forbidding same sex marriage or any laws at all. Something happened between 2001 and 2012 that made voters come out in droves and uniformly vote in amendments and strong laws to rigidly define marriage. It's stunning to watch the progression in the graphic over time. Then, between 2012 and 2015 many states voted to make same sex marriage legal but overwhelmingly it was action by federal judges, federal courts and the Supreme Court that roundly shot these laws down and forced legality of same sex marriage. The voters opinions though stated clearly in many, many states were completely ignored and overruled. This didn't change their minds... it only sent their prejudice into hiding.
Hidden prejudice is far more dangerous than displayed ignorance because at least one you can fight in the open.
The argument I was making when we started talking about this was that this secret prejudice may have been one of the factors that led to Trump. It certainly could have been that Hillary was just so bad that they voted for anyone but her. That is a reasonable conclusion supported by evidence. Or it could have been that American's still are everything Trump is and are simply no longer allowed to express it anywhere but in the voting booth.
"In what is surely a last-minute bid for more support among conservative Christians in Iowa, Donald Trump has suggested that he would seek to overturn last summer’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.S. Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump attacked the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, and confirmed he would “strongly consider” appointing new justices who would overturn the ruling, since he believes it should have been a states’-rights issue[.]"
"WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?
TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes."
https://www.snopes.com/trump-plans-reverse-marriage-equality-elected-president/
Loving V Virginia didn't make anyone less racist and Obergefell didn't change anyone's opinion on same sex marriage equality. It just scared the hell out of them. Scared people do strange things. It also made them very, very angry.
"In September 2016, Donald Trump vowed to sign the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA), if passed by Congress, a bill that aims to prevent the federal government from enforcing marriage equality by taking punitive action against individuals, corporations, or organizations who discriminate against same-sex married couples. Critics say the bill would effectively legalize such discrimination.
Trump was elected President of the United States on 8 November 2016. Neither he nor Pence had significantly modified their stances on same-sex marriage between the primaries and the general election. While the president does not have the Constitutional power to overturn a Supreme Court decision, he does have the ability to appoint justices who would. Based on past statements of both the president- and vice president-elect, it seems likely that this will come to pass should any vacancies in the Supreme Court occur."
I believe America is deeply racist even today. I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority. These court decisions didn't change minds about LGBT issues... they made people feel threatened and backed into a corner and severely deepened already cavernous divisions. The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.
Alabama, in fact, didn't repeal it's last interracial marriage laws until 2000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/alabama-was-a-final-holdout-on-desegregation-and-interracial-marriage-it-could-happen-again-on-gay-marriage/?utm_term=.72f67ec7dc72