Monday, February 8, 2010
I have watched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial about same-sex marriage in San Francisco with great interest. There are, as is usual with such debates, two sides to this coin. On one, individuals claim that the secular government is a guarantor of civil rights. On the other, individuals claim that the government has a responsibility to codify religious doctrines of the majority.
Which side is right? It may well be impossible to know. However, we should be mindful that, when it comes to the latter, we have heard this all before.
In the debate over slavery, personas like Reverend R. Furman and Jefferson Davis claimed that the right to own slaves was ordained by the bible.
In the debate over suffrage for women, individuals claimed that Eve’s creation subsequent to Adam indicated that God intended for only men to have a say in governance.
In the debate over segregation, laws including those that banned interracial marriage were based, and defended, upon the notion that God created the white race superior to (so-called) mongrel races and that He abhorred mutts and co-mingling.
Indeed, we’ve heard this all before. We’ve seen the face of the legal institution of religious discrimination; it was not right then, and it is not right now.
Whether this case comes down to the right to see religious intolerance enshrined in law, or the right to be safeguarded from oppression by government, we would do well to ask: in 20, 30 or 40 years, will our children see in us the same face of hatred that we have seen in previous generations?
And, perhaps more importantly, will that face be any less insidious because it is hidden behind a mask of religion?
Legalizing Love: the state of same-sex marriage ...
A look at the battle for marriage equality.
Castle: New York’s marriage equality symbol of ...
Politics is slowly catching up with cultural beliefs on marriage equality.
Gay marriage divides on religious lines
Castle: Anti-same-sex marriage debater ignores research
Same-sex parents should be given same rights as other-sex parents if the ...
California case with local significance
Debate about same-sex marriage has KU law students eager.
Cosby: California court case still carries weight ...
Debate on Proposition 8 is about more than gay rights.
Politically correct: same-sex marriage
Three political columnists share their thoughts on laws allowing same-sex marriage.
Castle: Same-sex weddings are economic boost
Kansas could, like Iowa, cash in on an influx of travelers buying ...
Bornstein: Second-class citizenship
Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for all U.S. citizens.
Letter to the Editor: Gay rights
Gay Marriage should not be left to the states to decide.
Abortion unalienable right
Gay rights debate rages on
This election could mean a new direction for gay rights
Free: Separation means politicians should keep beliefs ...
It's time our policy members realize the true meaning of separating church ...
Society screwing with sexuality
As advertising constantly bombards people with sex, religion and government laws try ...
Study reports on same-sex relationships in Kansas
Douglas County has the fifth highest total with 239 same-sex couples reported.
Castle: Marriage should be between a man ...
People seem to be focused on whether same-sex couples should be allowed ...
Free: Court ruling a victory for equal ...
The LGBT scored a major victory earlier this month in the overturning ...
Visiting attorneys debate gay marriage at School ...
Panelists at "Same-Sex Marriage: Diverging Perspectives" offered their opinions on whether same-sex ...
Panel discusses same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage discussion to take place with free Chipotle.
Gay marriage divides on religious lines
Compton: Liberalism versus conservatism
Political differences may arise from where parties believe rights originate.
Free: Those against equality share in deaths
Anyone who works against equality for LGBTQ youth shares responsibility for the ...
Castle: If sexuality is a choice, then ...
The origins of homosexuality may be a mystery, but what's good for ...
Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights
President Obama extended patient rights rights to gay men and women
Lavieri: Sports can succeed where legislation can't
Sports can help create acceptance of gay communities.
Blackmon: Religious tolerance on campus needs work
Struggles with religious tolerance still exist on campus
Ten Commandments should unite, not divide Americans
Cosby: Iowa Supreme Court judged on specific ...
Removal of Iowa judges is worriesome.
Letter to editor: Truth about the right
Conservatives' actions, beliefs often don’t match.
Editorial: Stand up for rights
Citizens must defend civil rights for gender identity.
Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think ...
Castle: Governor should repeal law against same-sex ...
Gov. Brownback should repeal law against sodomy, which bans sex between persons ...
Blackmon: Don't abuse relief efforts
Some groups take advantage of environment of goodwill.
Bond: Relationship with God should determine decision ...
Religious leaders have their opinions about premarital sex and so can you.
The more the merrier
After lengthy debate, Student Senate takes stance ...
Religions relate pre-marital sex with emotional emptiness
Islam, Catholicism and Judaism may have different doctrine, but all agree on ...
Blackmon: Hidden motives in crusade on social ...
By encouraging parishioners to leave churches, Glenn Beck is overstepping his role ...
Letter the the Editor: Standing up for ...
Refuting arguments based on fear and ignorance.
Scott: Bipartisanship is more than voting similarly
Disconnect between voters and congress has grown.
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
KUnited presidential candidate Libby Johnson and vice presidential ...
1 comment
Comments
Letter to the Editor: Religion as an excuse for injustice
You are comparing apples and oranges. The bible does not condone slavery but acknowledges it's existance. Slavery was not based on race but was usually the downside of battles. The slavery practised in the South was based on race (how did we get talking about race when the topic was gay marriage?) and practised by the Engish, Spanish, Dutch, and French before it was practised by Americans. Aristotle (here comes that Western Civ) admitted that some people were born to be slaves. Okay, what does that have to do with gay marriage...Nothing really, it is what is called a red herring. It is an attempt to get you to feel guilt about one subject and then transfer that feeling to another subject. Marriage in every religion, every nation, and every culture has been primarly between one man and one woman. There are some cultures where polygamy is practised but the man-woman concept is universal. That is what marriage is, period. For the gay lobby to be satisfied the definition of marriage would have to be changed but that still wouldn't change what we are talking about. In fact, gay people are allowed to be married just like everyone else in this country (the 14th admendment) as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex who is not a relative by one degree of separation, or two in some states. The argument about interracial marriage does not change the definition of man-woman only race and those restrictions were not universal. The constitution did not support the interracial marriage laws and they were struck down in 1981 when the Supreme Court got the case.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID