because it needs to be said louder.

[acroyear]

Dude! Joe's Jottings, Mostly Junk - is it just me?:

Keep in mind, 40 years ago I would not have been allowed to marry my wife.

She's not white.

No argument has yet to be presented that doesn't smack of hiding bigotry under the pretext of "tradition". No argument has been presented that actually demonstrates how current relationships and marriages "lose their value" under the new policies of gay marriage (particularly given the rediculous divorce rates already taking place).

Exactly as it was for every other ancient tradition that has passed beyond its time, like interracial marriage and slavery.

I have to fight this bigotry, or else my own marriage is pointless and those who fought to make it happen fought in vain.

My marriage LOSES value if those who wish to marry can't.

Comments

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

*applause*

:*

[dawntreader]

well said.

[wench18.livejournal.com]

Excellently said.

[squire-liz.livejournal.com]

Can I link to this? I have a couple of things I want to say about the situation in my journal.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

public is public. this i refuse to hide.

[eac.livejournal.com]

In addition to agreeing with you about this political position*, I respect you immensely for stating this so plainly.

*I agree with you about the intelligent design debate, too. I just don't CARE as much. ;)

Never thought of it that way

[kowari.livejournal.com]

Damn bloody good point!

[cozit.livejournal.com]

It's been more than 40 years now...

And much longer some places. (thankfully)

But, yeah... it's a good point. Unfortunately, a lot (but far from all) of the people who have issues with "gay marriage" also still have issues with the idea of interracial marriage as well.

Bigotry still exists... even in many who *swear* they aren't bigotted... how many strangers have asked or informed you that they were trying to figure out "where you come from" lately? Wanna guess how often it still happens to me, even here? Or how many times comments have been made in my hearing that are racially derrogative within my hearing.... both about me, or about other people nearby?

And that's here in an area that's "racially tolerant".

(BTW, I'm one of those who have always thought that the British idea of having a state union/marriage... separate from a religious marriage (though sometimes done at the same time, if the religion was right), made a lot of sense. Then you can have government recognized unions (and no one should be shut out of that declaration) and religious (hey, it's their religion, they should worry about it and what they believe)... and no one *should* have the right to complain about it then.... not that that'd ever happen in this country in my lifetime... probably..... oh, and when I say separate... I mean *everyone* has to register their state-recognized union with the local government, not "just" those who are in less usual unions... separate from the religious thing completely. Only reason the British ended up with a double-system for a while was because they have a State religion.)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The supreme court decision, Loving vs. Virginia, was final in 1967. Until then, appeals kept the situation illegal in Virginia.

it hasn't yet been 40 years.

[cozit.livejournal.com]

Didn't realize it took *that* long to finish with the Crow Laws. But it really was much longer in some places.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

She's not white.

Um... no one is. There are no "white people". Never have been.

Even the term "caucasian" only refers to a particular tribe of people originally from the Caucuses.

Doc

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

don't get into the semantics argument about how science views it today.

at the time there were legal definitions, definitions which in spite of everything still exist today - kids still put down "caucasian", "african-american" (even though australian natives are also "black"), "hispanic", "asian" (even though people from India are not people from China/Japan and in detail, the Chinese and Japanese couldn't be more different).

until governments get rid of those kinds of forms entirely (which they claim to keep because the minorities ask for them in order to get a fair share), then I am "white" and Cyd is "not", and our future kids can put down whatever they want.

human is human to humans, but people belong to a race to this government and until that changes, it makes a difference.

[hitchhiker-309.livejournal.com]

Actually, the very last anti-misegenation law on the books in the U.S. of A. wasn't repealed until--brace yourself--NOVEMBER 2000:

At the time that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interethnic marriage. Those laws were not completely repealed until November 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law. According to Salon.com:

...after a statewide vote in a special election, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law that was an ugly reminder of America's past, a ban on interracial marriage (sic). The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed -- 40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban -- many people still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

[mighty-rontor.livejournal.com]

Absolutely eloquent. Bravo!