Um, how is deciding that marriage must be between a male and a female a sign that they are "inbred hicks"?
Don't get carried away with your own rhetoric. That they are the heart of the Bible Belt was already known. But intolerance does not end in the hillbilly country. The measure passed even in New Orleans.
However, I think the lack of recognition of other state's binding contracts might fail in the federal arena.
I've been saying for a good while that the tactics being used to push gay marriage through could not have been better calculated to provoke this sort of backlash if eveyone in thr lobby had got together in a conference on the topic, "How Can We Push The Undecided Middle Into Opposition Today?"
(I mean, yes, shame it's happened, but I really cannot believe that no-one else saw this one coming. And what I strongly suspect will be the first of a flock.)
As for the double-Cassandra, I had a little private bet with myself that the reaction to this happening wouldn't be "well, perhaps we need to win a few more hearts and minds, and show a bit of respect for the democratic process", but rather "that's because X-group are evil and stupic/inbred hicks".
I'd rather not have won that one, but if I can't have a perfect world, I'll settle for having a self-validating one.
People tend to not rely so much on cold-hearted, hard-eyed logic when talking about things that affect their everyday lives (and in some cases, their identity, especially in a culture where Marriage and Family(tm) are for so many so much); and given the history of the past several centuries, waiting for a democratic push to enact civil liberties is generally unwise. I'd love to see you apply those same statements you just made to Jim Crow laws, miscegenation, and segregation. Perhaps you're unaware of the entire civil rights struggle in the entire United States history of the 20th Century?
In one of the most execrable ironies of this whole disgusting mess (which I predicted, though not with the glee that permeates your every pore with the delight of your rightness), a law in Massachussetts that originally was used to prevent miscegenation is being used to prevent out-of-stater gays from marrying in the state.
People tend to not rely so much on cold-hearted, hard-eyed logic when talking about things that affect their everyday lives (and in some cases, their identity, especially in a culture where Marriage and Family(tm) are for so many so much);
And this is the juncture at which ten-thousand root-cause analysis monkeys start leaping up and down and making "The problem's over here!" gestures...
and given the history of the past several centuries, waiting for a democratic push
I don't think I said or implied "waiting" there.
to enact civil liberties is generally unwise. I'd love to see you apply those same statements you just made to Jim Crow laws, miscegenation, and segregation. Perhaps you're unaware of the entire civil rights struggle in the entire United States history of the 20th Century?
Or perhaps I am familiar with the civil rights struggle and just happen to consider that it's a very strong argument *for* my position?
Do you honestly think that Alabama or Arkansas would ever, on their own, have ended segregation? Do you think that the blacks in that day should have simply waited on the American majority to get off its ass and implement change?
The American court system in the United States has no enforcement power. It relies on the executive to implement its decisions, and the very makeup of the court is predicated on the Judicial Acts. It is completely right and proper to use the court system in America to address wrongs that the American people, by will or by denial, will not address.
And when they do, yes, there is inevitable backlash. There was backlash to Brown v. Board of Education, and it was a man standing on the steps of a schoolhouse, daring the national guard to let the "Negros" in. It was in the Dixiecrat runs of George Wallace in the 1960s. And we eventually got over it, for the most part. Racism is at least stigmatized, now. But should the black community in America really have had to wait for 40 years for that to happen? No fuckin' way.
We need some sort of a governmental contract for relationships, damnit, or else people will run roughshod over others. Now, some people like that idea, but I think it's a pretty dangerous thing, myself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 10:43 am (UTC)Ah, who am I kidding? Half the state would have to go to prison...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 12:22 pm (UTC)Don't get carried away with your own rhetoric. That they are the heart of the Bible Belt was already known. But intolerance does not end in the hillbilly country. The measure passed even in New Orleans.
However, I think the lack of recognition of other state's binding contracts might fail in the federal arena.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 04:52 pm (UTC)> a female a sign that they are "inbred hicks"?
Because the only people who hold that opinion are inbred hicks.
Q.E.F'n.D.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 04:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 12:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 01:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 05:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 12:17 am (UTC)I've been saying for a good while that the tactics being used to push gay marriage through could not have been better calculated to provoke this sort of backlash if eveyone in thr lobby had got together in a conference on the topic, "How Can We Push The Undecided Middle Into Opposition Today?"
(I mean, yes, shame it's happened, but I really cannot believe that no-one else saw this one coming. And what I strongly suspect will be the first of a flock.)
As for the double-Cassandra, I had a little private bet with myself that the reaction to this happening wouldn't be "well, perhaps we need to win a few more hearts and minds, and show a bit of respect for the democratic process", but rather "that's because X-group are evil and stupic/inbred hicks".
I'd rather not have won that one, but if I can't have a perfect world, I'll settle for having a self-validating one.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 08:04 am (UTC)In one of the most execrable ironies of this whole disgusting mess (which I predicted, though not with the glee that permeates your every pore with the delight of your rightness), a law in Massachussetts that originally was used to prevent miscegenation is being used to prevent out-of-stater gays from marrying in the state.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 11:33 pm (UTC)And this is the juncture at which ten-thousand root-cause analysis monkeys start leaping up and down and making "The problem's over here!" gestures...
and given the history of the past several centuries, waiting for a democratic push
I don't think I said or implied "waiting" there.
to enact civil liberties is generally unwise. I'd love to see you apply those same statements you just made to Jim Crow laws, miscegenation, and segregation. Perhaps you're unaware of the entire civil rights struggle in the entire United States history of the 20th Century?
Or perhaps I am familiar with the civil rights struggle and just happen to consider that it's a very strong argument *for* my position?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-22 07:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-22 08:28 am (UTC)I promise to pick one of your choices should the future fail to bear me out, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-22 08:41 am (UTC)The American court system in the United States has no enforcement power. It relies on the executive to implement its decisions, and the very makeup of the court is predicated on the Judicial Acts. It is completely right and proper to use the court system in America to address wrongs that the American people, by will or by denial, will not address.
And when they do, yes, there is inevitable backlash. There was backlash to Brown v. Board of Education, and it was a man standing on the steps of a schoolhouse, daring the national guard to let the "Negros" in. It was in the Dixiecrat runs of George Wallace in the 1960s. And we eventually got over it, for the most part. Racism is at least stigmatized, now. But should the black community in America really have had to wait for 40 years for that to happen? No fuckin' way.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 11:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 12:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 12:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 01:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 01:34 pm (UTC)