Happy Loving Day

[Russell Nash]

I just wanted to take a moment  to recognize today as Loving Day, The 41st Anniversary of the the decision in the case Loving v. Virginia.  All Americans who have married someone, who didn't look like the rest of their family, owe their right to get married to the Lovings.

Mildred Loving died earlier in May this year.

[Heradel]

I just wanted to take a moment  to recognize today as Loving Day, The 41st Anniversary of the the decision in the case Loving v. Virginia.  All Americans who have married someone, who didn't look like the rest of their family, owe their right to get married to the Lovings.

Mildred Loving died earlier in May this year.

And, albeit recently and only in MA and CA (counts in NY, though you can't do it there), if you married someone with the same sex chromosomes that you have, Loving v. Virginia provided the case law for that as well.

[Darwinist]

Thanks for pointing that out.  I wasn't familiar at all with that case and it was an interesting read.  It is amazing how backwards some people were just 41 years ago.  The quote in the wikipedia article makes me want to barf.  But, it's 2008 and people still explain things using the supernatural so the ignorance of humans will never surprise me. 

[wintermute]

It does amaze me that this happened less than 10 years before I was born.

In fact, I'm continually astounded that there were ever any anti-miscegenation laws in America. Especially after the abolition of slavery.

[Troo]

Fascinating read. Cheers, and happy Loving day!

[stePH]

It does amaze me that this happened less than 10 years before I was born.

In fact, I'm continually astounded that there were ever any anti-miscegenation laws in America. Especially after the abolition of slavery.

I don't find it surprising at all.  Slavery was abolished in the 19th century, but overt racial discrimination continued at least into the 1960s.

[Windup]

It does amaze me that this happened less than 10 years before I was born.

In fact, I'm continually astounded that there were ever any anti-miscegenation laws in America. Especially after the abolition of slavery.

Actually, miscegenation was one of the big fears surrounding the end to slavery.  McClellan used it as a big issue when he ran against Lincoln for the presidency, asserting that the dreaded "mixing of the races" was Lincoln's actual aim. 

Even many (maybe most) ardent abolitionists couldn't see their way clear to full social equality for non-whites -- they just thought slavery was too oppressive a structure. John Brown was apparently a notable exception in that regard.

[wintermute]

Humans depress me, sometimes.

[Windup]

Humans depress me, sometimes.

Me, too.  Though they're all we've got to work with...

[Russell Nash]

Humans depress me, sometimes.

Me, too.  Though they're all we've got to work with...

I'm for letting dogs run things, but then when you meet people, you have to smell their butts.  Everything has it's price, I guess

[Ocicat]

I'm for letting dogs run things, but then when you meet people, you have to smell their butts.  Everything has it's price, I guess

I'd be for letting cats run things, but they don't want to.  They're smart that way.

[CammoBlammo]

I'd be for letting cats run things, but they don't want to.  They're smart that way.

Nice try, Ocicat. We know the truth. Cats are smart enough alright --- smart enough to run the place yet still find 16 hours a day in which to nap.

You don't fool us.

[Thaurismunths]

Thanks for pointing that out.  I wasn't familiar at all with that case and it was an interesting read.  It is amazing how backwards some people were just 41 years ago.  The quote in the wikipedia article makes me want to barf.  But, it's 2008 and people still explain things using the supernatural so the ignorance of humans will never surprise me. 

I'm amazed at how backward people are 41 years later; at least they had genetics to blame their prejudice on. We're still arguing over whether or not the government has any right to decide which two people can sign a civil contract!

[stePH]

I'm amazed at how backward people are 41 years later; at least they had genetics to blame their prejudice on. We're still arguing over whether or not the government has any right to decide which two people can sign a civil contract!

Separation of church and state seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.  At least, I haven't yet heard any arguments against homosexual marriage that aren't based in religious beliefs.

[Thaurismunths]

I'm amazed at how backward people are 41 years later; at least they had genetics to blame their prejudice on. We're still arguing over whether or not the government has any right to decide which two people can sign a civil contract!

Separation of church and state seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.  At least, I haven't yet heard any arguments against homosexual marriage that aren't based in religious beliefs.

Actually, as I understand it, there never was a proper separation of church and state. That's always been more of a good intention than anything else.

As far as secular reasons for denying homosexuals the rights of civil union there's reasonable concern that platonic same-sex partners will be 'married' in order to reap the financial benefits until a suitable partner of their preferred gender come along.
I'd add the concern that same-sex civil unions might damage the moral fiber of America, but those morals are non-secularly based.

edit: secularity

[wintermute]

As far as non-secular reasons for denying homosexuals the rights of civil union there's reasonable concern that platonic same-sex partners will be 'married' in order to reap the financial benefits until a suitable partner of their preferred gender come along.

But they could do that now, with a platonic opposite-sex friend. Why does it suddenly become a problem just because you have twice as many people to sham-marry?

[stePH]

I'd add the concern that same-sex civil unions might damage the moral fiber of America, but those morals are secularly based.

Let me ask a stupid question: What does moral fiber look like?

[edit]
Oh, and reviewing your post, it seems you're using "non-secular" to mean "secular" and vice-versa.  "Secular" is the opposite of "religious".

[Thaurismunths]

I'd add the concern that same-sex civil unions might damage the moral fiber of America, but those morals are secularly based.

Let me ask a stupid question: What does moral fiber look like?

[edit]
Oh, and reviewing your post, it seems you're using "non-secular" to mean "secular" and vice-versa.  "Secular" is the opposite of "religious".

Moral fiber... I think it's in Muslix.
Also, thank you for the secular thing. I had it right, but doubted myself before posting and forgot to double check.

[Thaurismunths]

As far as non-secular reasons for denying homosexuals the rights of civil union there's reasonable concern that platonic same-sex partners will be 'married' in order to reap the financial benefits until a suitable partner of their preferred gender come along.

But they could do that now, with a platonic opposite-sex friend. Why does it suddenly become a problem just because you have twice as many people to sham-marry?

That should be obvious: Homosexuals are all, by nature of being homosexual, evil, deceitful, hateful, baby-eaters.

[Windup]

I'm amazed at how backward people are 41 years later; at least they had genetics to blame their prejudice on. We're still arguing over whether or not the government has any right to decide which two people can sign a civil contract!

It's not the civil-contract part that seems to cause most of the trouble, it seems to be the calling-it-marriage part.  

I think the real answer is that governments never should have been in the marriage business, they should have simply registered civil unions.  Civil union meaning, essentially, "The social and financial affairs of these people will very closely intwined for an indefinite period, and if they ever do go their seperate ways, they'll need a referee."

A marriage, which is asking for divine support for this union, is something you do with the assistance of the pastor/priest/shaman/spirit channeler of your choice.

But at this stage, I doubt we'll do anything that practical...

[stePH]

It's not the civil-contract part that seems to cause most of the trouble, it seems to be the calling-it-marriage part.  

I think the real answer is that governments never should have been in the marriage business, they should have simply registered civil unions.  Civil union meaning, essentially, "The social and financial affairs of these people will very closely intwined for an indefinite period, and if they ever do go their seperate ways, they'll need a referee."

A marriage, which is asking for divine support for this union, is something you do with the assistance of the pastor/priest/shaman/spirit channeler of your choice.

But at this stage, I doubt we'll do anything that practical...

Exactly.  I've said exactly the same thing in other discussions.  It's a practical, rational, and desirable solution to the "problem". 

So of course the Powers That Be will denounce it as unworkable, fantastic, and absurd.

[Thaurismunths]

It's not the civil-contract part that seems to cause most of the trouble, it seems to be the calling-it-marriage part. 

I totally agree, but politicians and the media like to confuse the issue.
I can't really argue against people opposing gay marriage, because marriage is religiously based, religion is opinion, and you can't argue opinion... you can just say people are stupid and close minded. I can and will argue against outlawing civil unions because, as you said, the government shouldn't have any rights in the area.

Why do politicians believe they have power over everything? There are just some things they have no right to even comment on.

[wintermute]

I'm amazed at how backward people are 41 years later; at least they had genetics to blame their prejudice on. We're still arguing over whether or not the government has any right to decide which two people can sign a civil contract!

It's not the civil-contract part that seems to cause most of the trouble, it seems to be the calling-it-marriage part.  

I think the real answer is that governments never should have been in the marriage business, they should have simply registered civil unions.  Civil union meaning, essentially, "The social and financial affairs of these people will very closely intwined for an indefinite period, and if they ever do go their seperate ways, they'll need a referee."


A marriage, which is asking for divine support for this union, is something you do with the assistance of the pastor/priest/shaman/spirit channeler of your choice.

But at this stage, I doubt we'll do anything that practical...

Yeah, the problem is that we already have a '[c]ivil union meaning, essentially, "The social and financial affairs of these people will very closely intwined for an indefinite period, and if they ever do go their seperate ways, they'll need a referee."'; the only difference is that we call it "marriage". Go to a courthouse, get married by a judge with no religious aspect or affiliation, and you don't call it a "civil union", but a "marriage".

If, on the other hand, two people of the same sex who go to their local Unitarian church (or progressive Anglican church, or Wiccan coven, or whatever) to gain divine support for their union don't get to call it a "marriage", unless they live in one of a handful of states.

And if a religious official of any stripe performs a wedding ceremony between a man and a woman but doesn't file the paperwork with the government they're not married, no matter how many gods have personally turned up to bless their union.

All in all, the religious ceremony is completely orthogonal to the legal aspects of marriage.

Sure, we could go through the thousands of laws that make reference to "marriage" and change them all to "civil union", but I really don't see the point. Why can't we just accept that marriage is a civil institution? The alternative is that someone has to tell something like a quarter of married couples that, because the person performing the ceremony wasn't wearing a funny hat, they aren't actually married and have to refer to each other as civil partners, rather than husband and wife. And meanwhile, gay couples all over the country are getting blessed-by-an-authorised-religious-functionary, capital-M marriages performed by dozens of denominations (plus hundreds of new ones formed the day that law gets passed).

I don't see how that solution keeps anyone happy...

[Russell Nash]

Today is the 42nd anniversary. 

This last year has shown a faltering, maybe, but onward march in the fight for fully equal rights.  Who would have thought that Iowa would be out in the lead.