![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gay Marriage/ Domestic Partnership
Feb. 28th, 2009 09:37 amI was catching the first few minutes of the news one night while they were running a story about domestic partnerships. The piece of legislation they were trying to pass in favor was defeated. The station interviewed a few people for and against the idea. Naturally the lesbian couple they interviewed was heartbroken, and the Christian family they interviewed (a husband, wife, child) were happy that it didn't pass, it would have been an abomination to God. In any case, what caught my attention was that the husband of the Christian family then went on to say that if gay people want to get married, then they should move to a place that already allows it instead of trying to spread. This sounded oddly familiar.
I've been in school since I was a little kid, and in American schools since third grade. I've heard a few things about American history. However, as if by fate, I heard for the first time this past week something about the woman's Suffrage movement. You see, much like gays now, women were campaigning for change that few wanted to support (at first). The specific tie, the one I heard this past week, just before the news broadcast, was that voting rights were granted to women on a state-by-state basis before it was granted in an amendment years later, making it national law. If you don't see the parallel yet, that's what is happening with domestic partnership/ gay marriage. There are a few cities and states which allow a legal union for same sex couples already. I don't have much of a problem believing that when women were campaigning for a right to vote in national elections that their opponents would say, "go to the states where you can already vote, if you really want to, but don't expect it to spread." That should sound familiar. Mr. Christian Husband up there said the same thing for same sex marriage.
The states that allowed women to vote earliest were the northern west states, such as Wyoming and Idaho. Of course they had good reason, what with their population not being all that high at this point in time. Although curiously, New Mexico (also a sparsely populated western state) was the last to catch on, in the whole country. I guess the Catholic population over-rode the idea of having more population represented.
Another American historical parallel, Black Rights. Most people do recall learning in their history classes that even after blacks were freed of slavery and supposed to have been given the same rights as white men (remember, woman's suffrage has not happened yet) in the South their rights were restricted with loopholes again. Imagine the white plantation owner: "you're free, isn't that enough? If you want to galavanting around town like you're worth something, go North." There were national laws and the a couple of amendments that were put into place to help equalize black men to white men, but the South was great at creating loopholes. That's one of the reasons the fifteenth amendment was put into place, to try and eliminate loopholes left by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. And again, a historical parallel to the situation we now face with domestic partnerships and gay marriage.
People so love to explain that history repeats itself. If this is true, we probably all know what to expect to happen with the gay marriage debate. Probably a lot of debating and years of failed legislation and then the inevitable allowance of the practice. I suppose that it would come full circle with a lot of the discriminations we categorize. The beginning of the end of racial discrimination on a legal level (with the freed blacks), the end of sex discrimination (with the equalization of women) on a legal level, and now the end of legal sexual orientation discrimination.
Of course, another historical precedent is important to remember. Even after these pieces of legislation were passed, the people were still highly torn on how to treat the members of these movements. The black population did not gain equality for many decades due to the "separate but equal" ruling, and that lasted well into the sixties and seventies. For other races, the war still continues in the country to be considered equal. Women were kept in traditional roles well into the seventies and eighties (and even nowadays find themselves in a precarious position). Now, that's not to say that these fights will ever be over. Even Martin Luther King Jr. had been quoted as saying that everyone is racist, and probably always will be. I believe that's true. There are still people who make black jokes, there are still people who make Asian jokes, there are still people who believe that a woman's place is and always will be for everyone at home, constantly pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. But history tells us that at least these people can be granted the legal rights of every person, and eventually probably will.
I've been in school since I was a little kid, and in American schools since third grade. I've heard a few things about American history. However, as if by fate, I heard for the first time this past week something about the woman's Suffrage movement. You see, much like gays now, women were campaigning for change that few wanted to support (at first). The specific tie, the one I heard this past week, just before the news broadcast, was that voting rights were granted to women on a state-by-state basis before it was granted in an amendment years later, making it national law. If you don't see the parallel yet, that's what is happening with domestic partnership/ gay marriage. There are a few cities and states which allow a legal union for same sex couples already. I don't have much of a problem believing that when women were campaigning for a right to vote in national elections that their opponents would say, "go to the states where you can already vote, if you really want to, but don't expect it to spread." That should sound familiar. Mr. Christian Husband up there said the same thing for same sex marriage.
The states that allowed women to vote earliest were the northern west states, such as Wyoming and Idaho. Of course they had good reason, what with their population not being all that high at this point in time. Although curiously, New Mexico (also a sparsely populated western state) was the last to catch on, in the whole country. I guess the Catholic population over-rode the idea of having more population represented.
Another American historical parallel, Black Rights. Most people do recall learning in their history classes that even after blacks were freed of slavery and supposed to have been given the same rights as white men (remember, woman's suffrage has not happened yet) in the South their rights were restricted with loopholes again. Imagine the white plantation owner: "you're free, isn't that enough? If you want to galavanting around town like you're worth something, go North." There were national laws and the a couple of amendments that were put into place to help equalize black men to white men, but the South was great at creating loopholes. That's one of the reasons the fifteenth amendment was put into place, to try and eliminate loopholes left by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. And again, a historical parallel to the situation we now face with domestic partnerships and gay marriage.
People so love to explain that history repeats itself. If this is true, we probably all know what to expect to happen with the gay marriage debate. Probably a lot of debating and years of failed legislation and then the inevitable allowance of the practice. I suppose that it would come full circle with a lot of the discriminations we categorize. The beginning of the end of racial discrimination on a legal level (with the freed blacks), the end of sex discrimination (with the equalization of women) on a legal level, and now the end of legal sexual orientation discrimination.
Of course, another historical precedent is important to remember. Even after these pieces of legislation were passed, the people were still highly torn on how to treat the members of these movements. The black population did not gain equality for many decades due to the "separate but equal" ruling, and that lasted well into the sixties and seventies. For other races, the war still continues in the country to be considered equal. Women were kept in traditional roles well into the seventies and eighties (and even nowadays find themselves in a precarious position). Now, that's not to say that these fights will ever be over. Even Martin Luther King Jr. had been quoted as saying that everyone is racist, and probably always will be. I believe that's true. There are still people who make black jokes, there are still people who make Asian jokes, there are still people who believe that a woman's place is and always will be for everyone at home, constantly pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. But history tells us that at least these people can be granted the legal rights of every person, and eventually probably will.
