AMERICA I'M PUTTING MY QUEER SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL
I just wanted to quickly express my unhappiness with yesterday's court decisions in New York and Georgia barring the rights of homosexual couples to marry. The New York case is particularly troubling. Not only is this an unexpected and disappointing decision, coming from where it comes from and using some of the retrograde rationale and language that it does, but it complicates things for the coming election cycle(s).
One would have hoped, based optimistically on the recent stall of anti-equality legislation, that this issue had finally been recognized as the red herring it is, and that America would do what it always does and kick and scream into socially inclusive progress. Unfortunately, it looks like good politicians who might prefer to talk about education, health care and the like will have to waste precious airtime defending equal rights from the mouth-breathing and slack-jawed. More divisive navel-gazing...
Anyway, enough of that. What I really wanted to comment on is this particular passage:
Specifically, Mr. Stewart praised Judge Robert S. Smith for refusing to use the racist legacy of miscegenation laws as a justification for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. Too often, Mr. Stewart said, trial court judges and politicians are cowed by the premise that barring their unions would be the same as barring people of different races to marry.
This is a new trend in the anti-equality camps, to claim that miscegenation laws are somehow distinct from anti-marriage laws. I guess this is an effort to head-off those who would point out that the two sets of laws actually are the same. This has been neatly demonstrated here in Massachusetts, where an anti-miscegenation law written in 1913 was used to challenge the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.
I am sorry that this idea would have any traction at all.
One would have hoped, based optimistically on the recent stall of anti-equality legislation, that this issue had finally been recognized as the red herring it is, and that America would do what it always does and kick and scream into socially inclusive progress. Unfortunately, it looks like good politicians who might prefer to talk about education, health care and the like will have to waste precious airtime defending equal rights from the mouth-breathing and slack-jawed. More divisive navel-gazing...
Anyway, enough of that. What I really wanted to comment on is this particular passage:
Specifically, Mr. Stewart praised Judge Robert S. Smith for refusing to use the racist legacy of miscegenation laws as a justification for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. Too often, Mr. Stewart said, trial court judges and politicians are cowed by the premise that barring their unions would be the same as barring people of different races to marry.
This is a new trend in the anti-equality camps, to claim that miscegenation laws are somehow distinct from anti-marriage laws. I guess this is an effort to head-off those who would point out that the two sets of laws actually are the same. This has been neatly demonstrated here in Massachusetts, where an anti-miscegenation law written in 1913 was used to challenge the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.I am sorry that this idea would have any traction at all.
posted by Mike | 6:40 AM
1 Comments:
I'm glad to see consideration brought to the disturbing rulings in New York and Georgia.
I agree that the gay marriage issue is largely being used by the right as a "red herring," meant to act upon the squeamish feeling in the Midwest's gut and distract them from political issues that would actually require thought and not just reaction on their part. They keep feeding them yes/no issues, don't they?
I'm getting off track. What really interested me in your post was the attention brought to how judges and politicians are avoiding the miscegenation laws when considering this issue.
For me, it highlights how officials on the right are trying to prevent people from seeing that gay rights and civil rights are inseparable. Is the ability for two consenting people to marry, not a liberty?
Post a Comment
<< Home