Editorial: Standing up for equal rights
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Feb. 26, 2014, Miami Herald.
The rights of same-sex couples got another boost last week when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. offered a carefully worded piece of advice to his state counterparts on when they can choose not to defend gay-marriage bans. Holder didn’t suggest that state attorneys general can just disavow these laws based on politics or personal objections, but rather that, when these state laws relate to basic Constitutional issues such as the equal-protection clause, attorneys general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before deciding not to defend them on the grounds that they are discriminatory.
A finely calibrated distinction, to be sure. As an example of what he meant, Holder cited Brown v. Board of Education, which ordered public schools to integrate. “If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Holder said. The U.S. attorney general has quite rightly likened the quest for gay rights today as an extension of the era of the civil-rights movement. And there are plenty of people today who back him up.
Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas — Texas, y’all! — struck down that state’s gay-marriage ban, though it will not go into effect pending Attorney General Greg Abbott’s intent to appeal. Also last week, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed joined others in opening the Southerners for the Freedom to Marry campaign, a $1 million effort to overturn bans in 14 Southern states that have statutory or constitutional laws defining a legal marriage as between a man and a woman, period. This includes Florida, of course, where voters in 2008 approved a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I think these various laws will come and go, with the general long-term trend being to allow gay marriage, and elimination of at least ‘legal’ discrimination, at every level. I am all for this. It will take a very long time, and there will be problems with various religious institutions… and even, as has been seen, objections from ‘religious owners’ of restaurants, etc. It is a subject that is highly emotional for many. The States seemingly, on the surface, retain the “rights” for conditions to allow marriage, but the Federal Government has the responsibility to enforce the rights for all, as in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is possible for the Government to use laws and enforcement which might be seen as heavy-handed; just as it is also possible for a new Administration to come into the White House, and reverse or slow down the liberalization of marriage rights. In another hundred years, relatively few will care that same sex folks can marry; or that direct discrimination against them is totally gone. In the hearts of SOME, there will always be discrimination. There is also a basic human response involved, that “”They are not like us””. I suspect that these things will last for as long as humans are on this planet, particularly the last one. It is probably a combination of animal background, protection against village invaders from as long ago as the cave man days, and envy of a richer person….and other things. Meanwhile, I’d rather see the megabucks spent for lawyers, etc., in regards to “Gay Rights”, spent on something worthwhile, such as those in real need… instead of denying basic humane dignity and basic rights for such as my lesbian and gay friends.
“there will be problems with various religious institutions”
They are major part of the problem with the perception of homosexuals.
Separation of church and state. Their book has no place in policy. Their book doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t show up at their building on whatever day they get together.
well put, bob. discrimination is brought to bear on society by religions, which continue their attempt to define society and remains the lynchpin in the “they are not like us, protection from village invaders, need-to-belong, control of resources through fear and intimidation” cults that have sought to marginalize rational and contemplative thought throughout human history.
in 10 years you will be able to marry your Dog or Cat or Donkey.
the World is going to Hell in a Bucket.
when the Greatful Dead played that song the crowd went into a frenzy
Chief-
If someone wants to marry a dustmop or anything else, can you tell me how that interferes with your life?
If the world is going to hell in a bucket, it is not because same sex committed individuals want to have the recognized rights of opposite sex individuals.
We have far more serious problems than this. The right wing religious nutcases who want to blend their religion (and no others) into our government, and to tell the rest of us (especially women) what we can do and cannot do behind our own closed doors are one of the most serious problem we have today.
Do you need to find something reasonable to complain about?
Bob F. and Observer : I nearly passed on any comment here until I saw the thoughtful comments posted by both of you. Chief : I don’t think you’ve ever suffered a serious injustice. The reason I’m thinking this is because people who’ve suffered serious injustices know there are more important things to worry about than gay people choosing to marry. Ask Bernie Maddoff victims how they are doing without their retirement money. Each victim was robbed of money amounts that would dwarf a typical bank robbery. I doubt if any one of them is concerned about gay couples getting married. There are serious causes worth fighting for. Stopping gay marriage is not one of them.
Chief Snowroller: As a woman who recently married my beloved of 14 years (also a woman) I find your analogy deeply offensive. To suggest that the joining in marriage of two loving, committed, consenting adults is in any way comparable to bestiality or the marrying of humans with animals is simply outrageous and disrespectful.
baphomet wrote: discrimination is brought to bear on society by religions, which continue their attempt to define society and remains the lynchpin in the “they are not like us, protection from village invaders, need-to-belong, control of resources through fear and intimidation” cults that have sought to marginalize rational and contemplative thought throughout human history.
If that were the exclusive case then how do we explain the ultimate discrimination in the 20th century (by far the bloodiest century over all others combined) by atheists Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, who killed between 130-150 million people?
As a Christian I personally have no stake in Christianizing civilization. I do however believe I should Love the LORD God with all of who I am, and love my neighbor. I’ll let God deal with the world’s judgement.
First. Hey Chief. Tell me where exactly to get a marriage license for a Man or Woman and an animal? Your comment is rude, childish playground fodder.
Second. Dan. You left out the countless millions that have died over the past 2014 Anno Domini including: Christian conquests or crusades, Islam conquests, Protestants versus Catholics, Sunni versus Shiite, the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, Jewish conflicts, Hindu conflicts, Buddhist conflicts and more. It would seem that your “gods” judgement has already been dispensed.
We are all one under God,Get used to it,
Rock stay with the context.
I simply refuted baphomet’s contention that societies discriminations are purely religious in nature. That fact couldn’t be further from the truth.
Please don’t obfuscate, none of the religious battles cumulative blood spilling even comes close to what Mao, Stalin and Pol pot produced in the name of atheism. Not even close.
And for the record I make no defense for sectarian fights. Clearly Christ intended for his followers to serve another kingdom not of this world.
Kathy, the way I, and many Americans, see it is that we’re under NO gods!
Get used to that.
“Mao, Stalin and Pol pot produced in the name of atheism”
*in the name of atheism*
Are you sure that is an accurate phrase? Can you provide any historical validation for that? From scholars. I think you are full of it.
Kathy: Which god? There are a lot of them.
During my four years active duty in the military in the early sixties, all of it stateside, as a white man, anything but a minority, I saw constant descrimination against blacks, native Americans,and homosexuals, among others. I’m not going to launch into all the stories I have, and could share, but the one thing that all those experiences and observations had in common was that the proponents of bigotry, without any exception that I can recall, ascribed it to their Christian principles and beliefs.
I was, at the time, seriously sliding away (up) from my religious upbringing, and I’m extremely comfortable with my absence of faith today, but the idea that Jesus promoted bigotry is both prevalent among alleged Christians and complete nonsense to those of us who appreciate the philosophy wihout being drawn into what was eventually made of it.
So Dan, it is simply a numbers game? Since, your examples (Mao, Stalin, etc) discriminated against “religion” in “larger” numbers then say the Inquisition discriminated against non-believers (by death or torture), religion(s) were the net most discriminated faction? I am not sure “close” counts in this debate. Close counts in horse shoes.
c’mon dan: the bible is barely folklore. the concept of monotheism is at the root of the extreme positions adopted by both sides in this waste-of -time argument. let’s all just embrace the concept of “no dogma”, recognize the farce that is christianity, and move on.
Rock, reading comprehension 101, my quote:
“And for the record I make no defense for sectarian fights.”
They’re all wrong, but it’s not just religious world views that have wrecked havoc on societies, that was and is my point.
Cosa, Stalin Mao and Pol Pot sought to eradicate religion from their societies, this is common knowledge. They were communists that were atheists. Their murderous rampages were done in the name of their world views which were atheistic. Read any book on them by any scholar, this isn’t news to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history.
baphomet says -the bible is barely folklore.
Some heavyweight scholars throughout the centuries, and a billion adherents today would disagree.
the concept of monotheism is at the root of the extreme positions adopted by both sides in this waste-of -time argument. let’s all just embrace the concept of “no dogma”, recognize the farce that is christianity,
waste of time? Hardly. You make serious accusations, without any historical support. You write what appears to be a personal opinion as if it were a fact.
I for one disagree with your assertions, and felt obligated to weigh in against the attacks you made for the benefit of the readers who actually do use their critical thinking skills.
Cosa, Stalin Mao and Pol Pot sought to eradicate religion from their societies, this is common knowledge. They were communists that were atheists. Their murderous rampages were done in the name of their world views which were atheistic. Read any book on them by any scholar, this isn’t news to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history.”
That does not answer the question.
“in the name of atheism”. So they did all that bad stuff against religion, only for atheism?
It isn’t that simple. They did it because of power. Religion is a great mechanism of control. The people who they wanted to control had a religion that challenged the rulers goals.
Saying they did it ‘in the name of atheism’ is disingenuous.
The notion that they would not have done terrible things had they not been atheists is ludicrous.
As expected, you did not provide anything to back up your arguments.
“Read any book on them by any scholar, this isn’t news to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history.”
You might want to revisit your reading because your understanding of history is slanted and narrow minded.