Same-Sex Marriage Update

iamkeri1 · 06-24-2011, 02:47 PM

In 1967, when I was a sophomore in college, the State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was overturned by the US Supreme Court in Virginia v Loving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

This case overturned centuries US law and custom forbidding white people from marrying people of another race or mix of races. Though many states had already overturned this practice, this Federal decision brought an end to this practise throughout the entire USA.

In February 1961, when President Obama's white mother married his Kenyan father, there were many states in which this union would not only have been illegal, but criminal. (remember when homosexuality was illegal?)

State by State solutions did not work for inter-racial couples There will always be some states who will hold to a ----ist law because it supports local prejudice or perhaps strong business interests.

This is where I get angry with the president. He has lived through this shit. He has faced discrimination. He has seen the laws change in his favor and has accomplished much as a result of these legal changes. It has been well established over decades that civil rights are just that, rights. They are not subject to legislation or a vote of the people.
Why is be falling back on that old !@#$% of State by State solution? It didn't work for poc. It didn't work for women. It isn't going to work for queer folk. Also it is angry-fying that he has backtracked on his position since he ran for office.

A logical outgrowth of the opinion he currently holds would be to promote a policy that has been under discussion for some time.

1) ALL joinings of couples/groups; homo, hetero, inter-species, whatever, should take place in a legal setting like a courthouse or justice of the peace. We should pick a name for them ... union, committment ceremony, hand-fasting, etc. A contract should be drawn up stating the terms of the joining which will form the legal basis for the couples relationship. All legal rights should accrue from THIS contract.
2) "Marriage" should be the province of religious groups. They can marry or not marry whom they wish. If people wish to continue to fight with their churches to be able to marry, that would be fine. Meanwhile they will have legal rights.

And yah, it sucks that there is no other choice for voting purposes. What we have now is a choice between lukewarm, packpeddaling, support, and the utter outrage of the current republican party.
Smooches,
Keri

06-24-2011, 02:47 PM	#29
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 905 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 302 Thanked 2,153 Times in 659 Posts Rep Power: 16642920	In 1967, when I was a sophomore in college, the State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was overturned by the US Supreme Court in Virginia v Loving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia This case overturned centuries US law and custom forbidding white people from marrying people of another race or mix of races. Though many states had already overturned this practice, this Federal decision brought an end to this practise throughout the entire USA. In February 1961, when President Obama's white mother married his Kenyan father, there were many states in which this union would not only have been illegal, but criminal. (remember when homosexuality was illegal?) State by State solutions did not work for inter-racial couples There will always be some states who will hold to a ----ist law because it supports local prejudice or perhaps strong business interests. This is where I get angry with the president. He has lived through this shit. He has faced discrimination. He has seen the laws change in his favor and has accomplished much as a result of these legal changes. It has been well established over decades that civil rights are just that, rights. They are not subject to legislation or a vote of the people. Why is be falling back on that old !@#$% of State by State solution? It didn't work for poc. It didn't work for women. It isn't going to work for queer folk. Also it is angry-fying that he has backtracked on his position since he ran for office. A logical outgrowth of the opinion he currently holds would be to promote a policy that has been under discussion for some time. 1) ALL joinings of couples/groups; homo, hetero, inter-species, whatever, should take place in a legal setting like a courthouse or justice of the peace. We should pick a name for them ... union, committment ceremony, hand-fasting, etc. A contract should be drawn up stating the terms of the joining which will form the legal basis for the couples relationship. All legal rights should accrue from THIS contract. 2) "Marriage" should be the province of religious groups. They can marry or not marry whom they wish. If people wish to continue to fight with their churches to be able to marry, that would be fine. Meanwhile they will have legal rights. And yah, it sucks that there is no other choice for voting purposes. What we have now is a choice between lukewarm, packpeddaling, support, and the utter outrage of the current republican party. Smooches, Keri