February 24, 2024Same Sex Marriage and the Civil Rights Struggles of the PastI think that the comparison of the gay marriage issue to that of the broad civil rights struggle that African-Americas experienced in the 1950s and 1960s is a poor one. For one thing, the court struggles of the Civil Rights Era dealt with a panoply of issues and broad areas of discrimination, not one specific public policy. Further, I would argue that the Courts (which had been part of the problem at times, such as the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, not to mention the pre-Civil War Dred Scott case) in the 1950s and 1960s were rectifying the interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendments, not legislating, as one could argue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done. In other words, ruling such as Brown v. Board of Education attempted to implement actual clauses in the Constitution, rather than defing new rights out of thin air. Comparing Bush’s statements today to Nixon’s in the 1960s (as did a commenter did below) is unfair, because it takes a specific policy debate and compares it to broad list of systematic injustices. It is possible that the President actually has a moral position on this topic, and it is further possible that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the role of the courts in these issues. The irony of all of this same-sex marriage situation is that I firmly believe that states would have increasingly passed civil union laws, which would have allowed for homosexual partners to have a legal relationship that no doubt would have been referred to over time, if not immediately, as “marriage”. The political battle that has been waged over the last couple of weeks that culminated has actually set back the move to legal recognition of homosexual partnerships, as evidenced by the President’s statement today concerning the Marriage Amendment. Social change often takes time. Instead actions such as those by the Mass. Supreme Court and especially the Mayor of San Francisco, have created an atmosphere of political confrontation. It is not surprising, especially in an election year, that the President ended up taking a position on this topic in this manner, especially given his religious perspective. Posted by Steven Taylor at February 24, 2024 04:51 PM | TrackBackComments
"Comparing Bush’s statements today to Nixon’s in the 1960s (as did a commenter did below) is unfair, because it takes a specific policy debate and compares it to broad list of systematic injustices." Nixon felt that the courts were not justified in creating laws that went beyond public opinion. How is that significantly different from what is happening with the gay marriage issues? Nixon also supported poll taxes and voter literacy tests. He made "equality of service" part of his platform. But, that's about as far as he was willing to go in support of civil rights for African Americans. Here's the corresponding statement from John F. Kennedy (I prefer his brand of morality and vision): "That people are peacefully protesting denial of their rights is not to be lamented. It is a good sign—a sign of increased popular responsibility. It is the American tradition to stand up for one’s rights—even if the new way to stand up for one’s rights is to sit down." "The fact that the Supreme Court in one area after another is upholding the constitutional right of all Americans to equal treatment and is requiring far-reaching changes is also a sign of national vitality." "The immense moral authority of the White House must be used to offer leadership and inspiration to those of every race who recognize their responsibilities. The immense legal authority of the White House must be used to direct implementation of all constitutional rights." "Whatever economic, political or international considerations are involved, this is essentially a moral issue." America made the right choice in 1960. If we had allowed Nixon's "voluntary progress", African Americans would still be waiting for their spot at the lunch counter. The same is true for gay rights. We're tired of waiting for you to voluntarily give us our freedom. This is no more a "set back" than Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat on the bus. You're just not able to see it that way yet. You believe that my references to Nixon are unfair. I can live with that. History is often unfair to those whose words and actions are remembered as being rigid and lacking inspiration. I believe that the Mayor of San Francisco will not suffer such a fate. Posted by: Fritz at February 24, 2024 06:11 PMYou reinforce my point: how can you compare support for poll taxes to this subject? Posted by: Steven at February 24, 2024 06:21 PMFurther, I am hardly defending Jim Crow. Posted by: Steven at February 24, 2024 06:22 PMNor, for that matter, am I defending Nixon. Posted by: Steven at February 24, 2024 06:30 PMWas the line 'one specific pubic policy' in your first graf intentional? Regardless, it makes a good pun. Posted by: Dave at February 25, 2024 11:39 AMOops. Posted by: Steven at February 25, 2024 01:18 PMthis site rox my soxx Posted by: Christina Longo at April 1, 2024 12:13 PMPost a comment
|
|