well, the plain and simple fact is there's racism EVERYWHERE. humanity has always been about tribes, boarders, etc. go to europe, go to asia, go to south america, go anywhere. to imply segregation is alive in the south is ignorant.

but that wasn't even my point.

 

After living in Petal Mississippi for several years, I'd disagree with this. LEGAL segregation may be nonexistent or nearly so, but segregation and racism are still very real in many of the smaller towns down South. It's really a pity. Fortunately, in larger cities racism is not nearly as common or in-your-face.

In small isolated towns in southern Utah there are still polygamists, and many of them marry people that are well under age--arguably children. We heard about some of that in Texas in the news recently.

If you go to the right small towns, you'll find that a lot of things that shouldn't happen, do.

______________________

And I see that the separation of Civil Unions and Marriages may not be possible due to all the red tape. But I still think that captures the core of the conflict for most people. Will and whoever else suggested it, I really like that idea.

This has been an intriguing, thought-provoking thread.

 

[QUOTE=Will,Nov 25 2008, 02:09 PM]Oh, come on.

 

was there seperate bathrooms? did the minorities still sit on the back of the bus? or are you confusion segregation with the disparity between the rich and the poor?

or maybe you're forgetting the fact that people of similar backgrounds (race, religion, gender, sexuality) are more likely to frequent places with like-minded and similar people? maybe in your small-town example, all the blacks would eat at resturant A and the whites in resturant B? or maybe they got their hair cut at different places? I don't know, I'm just guessing, but that is not segregation, that's freedom of choice.

a local example from san antonio (home of a majority hispanic population of around 55%): just because I don't go to a tejano club doesn't make me racist (I'm white). and just because you can go into a given tejano club and not find any white people there doesn't mean its segregated.

people getting upset over an interracial marriage is racism, not segregation. and racism will never go away. its been with us since the dawn of time, it will be with us at dusk.

but I digress....

-----------------------

gay marriage....

the reason you will have a problem with this in the south is due to the religious roots people in the south tend to have. thats not to say anything negative about the south, or religion. thats just how things are. people in the south, and in small towns everywhere in this country, are a little more traditional.

now then:

the easiest solution? let the people of each individual state decide what they want, and go from there. the same thing goes with gun laws, speed limits, drinking age, polygamy, or any other law you love or hate.

that way, if you perfer gay marriage, you can go to state A. if you don't like it, go to state B. if you want to smoke pot, move to state C. if you don't want your kid drinking under 21, move to state D. if you want an automatic rifle to hunt deer, move to state E.

does that make sense?

maybe it sounds familar, because thats what this country was originally founded on, and it's what we constantly allow to be trampled on: state's rights

the problem with our country has always been the central government taking too much control and ####ing everything up. we can't all be moral dictators in deciding whats right and wrong for the whole, and that goes beyond race and gay marriage.

 

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution empowers the National government to strike down any law in any state which violates the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

A situation in which "liberal" states allow same sex marriage while "conservative" states do not is both unworkable and wrong. States can and do control a great deal of their own affairs, including the vast majority of criminal law, insurance law, tort law, and even corporate law. But one of the motivations of the framers when they replaced the Articles of Confederation with a powerful federal government was to prevent individual states from infringing upon the fundamental rights of American citizens.

The constitution sets a baseline of protection for fundamental rights; the states may provide more, but never less.

 

So the natural question is whether the right to have your marriage to whomever recognized by the state falls under the rubric of fundamental freedoms.

 

The US Supreme Court has already found that Marriage is a fundamental right, even though it is not enumerated in the text of the Constitution or the Amendments. This was decided in the context of laws banning interracial marriage. One of the main reasons why the issue of same-sex marriage bans has not been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court is that plaintiffs have had a hard time establishing standing to sue, though that might be changed now that California is the first state to officially sanction, and then ban again, same-sex marriages.

 

we still have states that allow gay marriage. we still have states that recognize civil unions and domestic partners. we still have corporations that give benefits to same-sex couples (mine does, even here in texas).

the big thing here is we just simply haven't given it enough time. it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was still extremely taboo, and only recently has it truly become socially acceptable in most places. maybe in 20 years things will be different.

I just feel we should keep this at a state level. marriage law has been reserved to the states since the formation of the US. the federal government should not have the power to regulate marriage at all, whether its gay or straight.

 

then explain why my sister used to date men in high school, and now has a civil union in new hampshire.

 

I agree with you that the states ought to be able to determine which rights and obligations are attached to marriage within their borders. Today, I am sure (though I haven't looked into it more closely) that state family codes differ substantially about the rights afforded to married couples, or the rights they have upon the dissolution of marriage (California being a community-property state is the one which jumps to mind).

A lot of people think that Marriage is one of those things not mentioned in the constitution which is intended to be "reserved to the states" by the 10th amendment, and I don't see a problem with that. My only problem is when the states start discriminating in the provision of a defined fundamental right on the basis of Gender, Race, or sexual orientation.

By all means, let the states handle what rights and obligations flow from "marriage" - but don't exclude one group of citizens from enjoying those rights and obligations.