meekie,
credo avunculus_jim mortuus est.
(drat... what is the Latin for "james"?)Uh, would it be ? .....
He's dead, Jim.
(Click here or on the pic).
Posted on 05/09/2004 2:15:05 PM PDT by MegaSilver
After a shocking and unexpected court decision, much of the nation finds itself stunned at the fast pace of social change that appears to be on the horizon. There is talk of civil disobedience, of the protection of historical values and the need for a constitutional amendment to stop "activist courts" from redefining American society.
This scenario could be drawn from the current headlines about the issue of gay marriage, but actually refers to the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education 50 years ago where, in striking down public school segregation by race, the court announced that "separate but equal" had no place in our society.
A revered decision in our constitutional jurisprudence, Brown is rarely cited outside the context of racial discrimination. But both the majority and dissent in the recent Massachusetts gay marriage case cite Brown -- the dissent for the proposition that state-sanctioned racial differences are unique and the majority for the proposition that any separate legal system for gay relationships is "separate and unequal." Both are right, and 50 years after this seminal decision, the underlying story of Brown can shed light on what is really going on in the gay marriage debate.
Though racial segregation in schools and gay marriage are superficially about different issues, they share an important feature. Neither is primarily a legal issue.
The real issue in both cases is social equality.
In announcing that "separate but equal" was always nequal, the court in Brown made an important pronouncement about the role of law in social equality. The issue was not really about whether the black schools could be made equal to the white schools or, in today's marriage debate, whether we can provide benefits to gay couples that are similar to marriage. The issue is state-sponsored inequality.
The courts in Brown and in Massachusetts recognized that any legal distinction between two otherwise similar groups can only exist to buttress the social belief that one group is better than another. The court in Brown recognized that it was not the role of law to perpetuate and support such a social norm.
Individuals, groups, politicians, churches and clubs may believe anything they want. No ruling on gay marriage or racial segregation can change that. But social conventions are delicate things. If based on a mere belief and not a truth, they must often be propped up by the law to survive. This was the fear in Brown and the fear today with gay marriage.
At the time of Brown, many whites worried that if the law says that black children are good enough to go to the same schools as our children, they might think they are good enough to have the same jobs, join our clubs or go to our churches. They might become social equals; they might even marry our white children. Black people were not inherently inferior to white people. A law was needed to keep them at bay.
Similarly, all evidence indicates that gay people have the same capabilities of functioning in our society and family life as do straight persons. They are citizens and parents and form stable, long-lasting relationships. They can also be bad parents, bad people and form bad relationships, just like straight persons. The only difference is how they are treated under the law. Thus, if we accept that gay couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples when it comes to state-sponsored marriage benefits, gay people might come to be accepted on a par with straight people in general. They might compete for the same jobs and live in our neighborhoods. Our churches might decide to perform a religiously sanctioned marriage for gay people. If seen as acceptable, our children themselves might become gay.
The issue in Brown and the issue in gay marriage is how far we will go to make the law support our social beliefs. In the aftermath of Brown, American society rejected a constitutional amendment to enshrine "separate but equal" forever. What will we do today?
Victor B. Flatt is the A.L. O'Quinn Chair in Environmental Law at the University of Houston and a scholar of environmental and sexual orientation legal issues. He presented these ideas at the Houston Bar Association's joint faculty meeting on Brown v. Board of Education at 50, held Feb. 24, 2004.
and there is the point where the author slips into irredeemable error. Whereas Racial distinctions are BS, behavioral distinctions - based on, well, BEHAVIOR - are NOT.
Before someone tries to say that culture currently defines gays as less than human, let me point out that being gay is a behavior. Government can regulate behavior and culture can stigmatize behavior. Unless we as a civilization of free people choose to change what we value and assess as right and wrong, it should not be forced on us from on black-robed high. Homosexuals are not owed public recognition and approval any more than adulterers, polygamists, bigamists, fornicators, child molestors, etc... It is not a basic human right to have one's behavior receive public recognition and approval.
meekie,
credo avunculus_jim mortuus est.
(drat... what is the Latin for "james"?)Uh, would it be ? .....
He's dead, Jim.
(Click here or on the pic).
Male homosexuals are probably the most disease-ridden creatures on the planet, so they create plenty of work for those in the medical and social services fields. Some gays are also fashion designers, interior decorators, professional dancers and other creative occupations.
It provides the necessary self-righteous prigs of the next generation, of course.
There are a whole lot of false assumptions in the above paragraph. Gayness is FUNDAMENTALLY and BIOLOGICALLY different. Nature discriminates against homosexuality in regards to family. It discriminates in regards to sex, frankly. Women may want to have intercourse with each other, but they can't really. Men man want to, but they cannot actually unite in a sexual union, only in a perversion of that.
Courts should not force society to change their long held beliefs about right and wrong. The issue about race was entirely different, and as I stated above, the courts actually got in the way. Even the race issue, which was right to be changed, had to be changed by the will of the people. It was. Brown only enforced the full realization of that. The courts only got it right years after the people got it right. On gay issues, the people have been right all along, but division is rising because of the courts. If we cannot define our own culture for ourselves then what does freedom mean? If we are forced to allow and publically recognize every perversion any individual chooses then freedom is realized only by the lowest of us. It's not freedom, it's license, and it will destroy us. Forget consent of the governed. Forget patriotism and respect for govenment. It will be gone, at least in terms of being willingly given. The only patriotism left will be forced upon us by the same judges who took away our freedom to define our own government and culture. No more "We the people. Only "We the Judges.." Who is going to willingly fight and die for that?
Crediting the courts with great wisdom on the slavery issue just because the the Brown decision is giving them way too much credit.
During the 1850's in the United States, Southern support of slavery and Northern opposition to it collided more violently than ever before over the case of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the basis of seven years of residence in a free state and a free territory. When the predominately proslavery Supreme Court of the United States heard Scott's case and declared that not only was he still a slave but that the main law guaranteeing that slavery would not enter the new midwestern territories of the United States was unconstitutional, it sent America into convulsions. The turmoil would end only after a long and bloody civil war in which an important issue was the question of slavery and its extension into America's unorganized territories. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped hasten the arrival of the American Civil War, primarily by further polarizing the already tense relations between Northerners and Southerners. Crediting the courts with great wisdom on the race issue just because of the Brown decision is giving them way too much credit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.