When, pray tell, will Alabama ever be on the right side of a civil rights issue?

[TigerD]

From slavery to segregation to gay marriage, Alabama seems determined to step forward as America's brown eye.

TD

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

For those of us who think same partner sex is fine, but marriage can only be between a man and a woman, they are fighting the last frontier for the sanctity of marriage.

 

[single317dad]

From slavery to segregation to gay marriage, Alabama seems determined to step forward as America's brown eye.

TD

Wasn't every state at one time on the "wrong" side of all these issues? Even that staunch progressive bastion, California, took a popular vote recently and was decidedly against gay marriage. The notable lack of a slavery clause in California's state constitution was merely a business decision made to protect the miners who feared slave owners would overrun the gold claims. In fact, the CA constitution once charged the legislature with "protecting the state from the burdens and evils arising from the Chinese population." That one passed nearly unanimously in a popular vote.

 

[TheGeekess]

From slavery to segregation to gay marriage, Alabama seems determined to step forward as America's brown eye.

TD

Let's not forget Jim Crow, shall we? Oh, wait, Jim Crow laws were not just in Alabama, they even had them in California and Missouri.
http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

Hmm... Missouri's constitutional ban against gay marriage that had been in place for ten years was nullified by the Feds on November 7, 2014. Just a couple of months ago, yes?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-usa-gaymarriage-missouri-idUSKBN0IR1QO20141107

 

[TigerD]

Let's not forget Jim Crow, shall we? Oh, wait, Jim Crow laws were not just in Alabama, they even had them in California and Missouri.
http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

Hmm... Missouri's constitutional ban against gay marriage that had been in place for ten years was nullified by the Feds on November 7, 2014. Just a couple of months ago, yes?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-usa-gaymarriage-missouri-idUSKBN0IR1QO20141107

I would counter that Missouri's ban on gay marriage was never valid. And I'm a transplant to Missouri from Mass.

I love the issue of gay marriage for several reasons. First, we are Lutherans -- which pretty much answers the gay marriage question in terms of our faith. My brother-in-law and his husband are very happy and we love them both. My wife and I could not stand for them in a religious ceremony but we sure could in a secular one.

That said, marriage isn't a sacrament anymore. The Christians surrendered many years ago when they acquiesced to government licensing of a purely religious ceremony. Since marriage itself is far from sacred in modern America and is, in all actuality, a key requirement in collecting government benefits, the act of licensing marriage must be secular - and not discriminate against participants on the basis of sex.

Ironically, both Christians and proponents of gay marriage missed a golden opportunity to work together to eliminate the government infringement on religion by eliminating the licensing of marriage, rather than forcing people to accept licensing of things that violate their faith.

TD

 

[Proserpina]

Ironically, both Christians and proponents of gay marriage missed a golden opportunity to work together to eliminate the government infringement on religion by eliminating the licensing of marriage, rather than forcing people to accept licensing of things that violate their faith.

TD

If marriage is to be a religious matter, the government has no business deciding who may or may not be married. If marriage is a secular matter, the government has no business... etc., etc.

In my admittedly simplistic point of view, we can't have it both ways.

 

[FlyingRon]

A friend of mine from Alabama points out they have their own timezone down there: 1933.

 

[cbg]

both Christians and proponents of gay marriage

The two are not exclusionary. It is possible to be both.

 

[>Charlotte<]

both Christians and proponents of gay marriage

The two are not exclusionary. It is possible to be both.

Christian, proponent of gay marriage, and a registered Republican.

It's possible to be all three.

 

[TheGeekess]

I don't care what they call it; they could call it 'Fred' and it would not matter to me.

Would it be better if they called it 'civil unions' rather than 'marriage'? It'd probably make more people who squirm at the word 'marriage' more accepting of it, for sure. I think that's one of the sticking points; that, and people thinking the government is going to force their church to perform same-sex marriages when the faithful of that church have a problem with it.

I told my cousin that I would be glad to perform a ceremony for her and her girlfriend 20 years ago. Still haven't changed my mind, though I'm sure she's changed girlfriends at least a time or two.

Sign me non-registered to anyone's party (we don't have to declare political party in Bama to vote), politically conservative, personally liberal.

 

[RRevak]

For those of us who think same partner sex is fine, but marriage can only be between a man and a woman, they are fighting the last frontier for the sanctity of marriage.

Psst: aren't you in an open marriage? Seems a tad contradictory to the bolded

Btw: I am not judging your marital choices in the slightest. What may be a negative for one may be a positive for another. I'm just thinking that to place limits on traditional marriage while engaging in the removal of other limits which tend to be equally traditional seems like cherry picking details.

 

[Proserpina]

Just to note.

Not registered anything (hard to do that if you're an LPR), liberally conservative at times but live-and-let-live for the most part.

Oh I'm also a henna-head who bleeds black and gold.

(That just about covers it, right?)

Now before someone jumps on me for perhaps trivializing the point, stop a second. There's a reason why I said what I said.