EXACTLY

[velessa]

Borrowed from ajslj:

In 1787, the majority of people in this country thought African Americans were worth only three fifths of a human being. In 1887, the majority of people in this country thought Interracial Marriage was an abomination. In 2008, the majority of Californians thought marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Just because the majority of people in this country agree with you doesn't mean that you are right, it just means that a lot of people are wrong.

Comments

[nicole-mk.livejournal.com]

I love this!

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Well then whose job is it to change the mind of those people? Someone must have done it before since we have free black people, and interracial marriage these days, and no one complains. Whoever was supposed to convince the country it was ok for gays to get married is falling down on the job.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

Uhh isn't that what we're aggressively working on right now, convincing the bigots that gay people are equal human beings just like everyone else? This whole civil rights/gay marriage fight? History shows us that doing the right thing and changing the status quo doesn't come quickly or easily.

[urox.livejournal.com]

Oh, there are still people complaining about interracial marriage. Trust me on that one.

And yes, the people trying to convince the country *did* fall down. I don't remember hearing *one single* anti-prop 8 commercial talking about two people *loving* each other.

And while I'm typing, it annoyed the *hell* out of me when some interracial people were pro-prop 8. Especially so since I'm bi-racial and they claimed to speak for all interracial people.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

It's been 30-ish years so far. How much longer you think it's going to take. I mean the whole black people having equal rights only took about 15-ish years from the time it started being a mainstream idea. The idea of the gays has been mainstream since sometime in the 80's.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

I saw and heard commercials and protests against it, but they were definitely overwhelmed the tidal wave of ads for it. But they didn't stand much of a chance with all the Mormon church money funding the "for" campaign and making it the most expensive one ever.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

TIME OF SLAVERY THROUGH FORCED INTEGRATION >>>>>>>>>>>> 15 years!

[velessa.livejournal.com]

It'll take as long as it takes. How long did it take the Jews to stop being a persecuted group of people? Oh wait...

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Yes I know some people still complain. But it's mainstream for interracial marriages to happen.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

The blacks themselves didn't start fighting for equal rights until sometime in the 50's.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

So are blacks if you go to the right part of the country. But my point was mainstream ideas. In the mainstream western world, people are ok with Jews.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

The Mormon and catholic churches were both involved in that fight and they both had every right to be.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

Right, because hundreds years of systematic oppression and physical and mental abuse and being made to believe they didn't even count as human beings, not to mention the fact that resistance or protest to the treatment they got would result in arrest at the least or more likely being beaten or even killed, TOTALLY had nothing to do with them not being able to stand up for themselves sooner.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

You miss the point. After ALL those years of oppression it only took 15 to win legislation in their favor. The gays have had longer and are still facing fierce rejection. They better hope this case doesn't make it to the supreme court anytime soon. If it does, they will be losing that case.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Although I do find it interesting that many people blame Obama for it even passing...

Essentially, he mobilized blacks and hispanics to get out and vote, which are two groups that have higher than average numbers of people who were anti-prop 8.

I find it a very interesting juxtaposition, personally. Ah, sleeping with the enemy...

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, that is why we have a republic, not a democracy. Our founding fathers were justifiably terrified of the idea of a majority deciding to disenfranchise a minority. Which is why we have courts that are supposed to say "um, no, sorry, you can't do that". Which is what happened. It's a fairly logical approach, really.

I loathe the comments I've read about people saying "if a judge can undo this, why do we even get to vote". Honestly, if you understand the US government that poorly, I really wish that you'd *stop* voting, as you have no idea as to why we have a constitution or a judicial system if you say something that idiotic.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

Um, if you're saying the fight for racial equality has been won I'd love to move to the dream world you're living in.

Besides, you're comparing apples to oranges; gays are facing a completley different kind of fight. The people who seek to oppress equal rights for gays have their reasons based in religion, which is supposed to be unequivocally kept out of our government. I don't know of the bible/their churches saying anything about hating people of different colors, but they're openly taught to hate homosexuals which then affects how they vote. It's a shame this country has such puritanical origins still affecting us today.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

I don't know what your definition of mainstream is. Gays are most certainly mainstream accepted pretty much in every forward thinking western country I can think of. That still doesn't matter, the point is that they are HUMAN BEINGS and therefore are entitled to the exact same rights as any other citizen. The majority cannot use laws to oppress a minority.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

So what exactly does separation of church and state mean to you? Individuals are allowed to contribute their funds as they see fit, entire religious organizations are prohibited from involvement in legislation. This particular one was a California matter that should have only involved us Californians, not money being poured in from religious groups in other states.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

I know, I find that mind boggling and disgusting...how could minority groups who've been through this crap choose to oppress yet another minority??

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Erm, you were the one who started up the comparison between blacks and gays. In the original post.

Not everyone bases their objection on religion either. I know plenty of non-religious people who want for the word marriage to only mean between a man and a woman. That's not to say there aren't a lot in the religious opposition to it. But the brush you are using is entirely too broad.

I'll also make the original point that I made a day or 2 ago that government should not even be involved in anyone's marriage. Nor should they be involved in anyone's religion. I think it's entirely ridiculous that our government has run amok the way it has the past 20 years. It needs to stop, and sooner rather than later, otherwise we're going to have another war of secession on our hands.

Then again it is our puritanical beginnings that make this country the great one that it is. The further we drift from it, the worse off we end up. In fact it is the puritanical beginnings that allow you and I to have this reasoned discourse online without fear of stormtroopers barging down our doors.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

And soon that will be the case for same sex marriage; it's already happening in other states and countries and society isn't collapsing on its face. So why all the resistance? It's going to happen whether you like it or not, just like integration and interracial marriage and every other fight for equal rights in history. People can either get with the times and get on board with progress or choose to continue living in the dark ages of their Leave it to Beaver fantasy worlds.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

On this point we can certainly agree. There are a lot of laws that the majority wanted (or at least the people the majority elected wanted) that are entirely dumb. That's the biggest problem I see in this country today. Too many laws. People aren't expected to take responsibility for themselves anymore. They want mother government to come in and do everything for them.

I mean, lets get down to the real point here, most Americans are idiots. The majority rule idea is a terrible one. People hate what congress does, yet they get re-elected 80%+ of the time. I mean to me, if I don't like what my elected leaders are doing, I do something to oppose them. Right now that something is at the ballot box. I pray to God it stays that way. But on the original point about congress, people don't like what congress does, therefore they don't do anything to change it.

I mean a few people got together and elected Obama. But it seems to me he is doing more of the same thing Bush did, or in some cases he's doing even worse than Bush did.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Ummm.. No, there was no law against it, therefore they had every right to be there. The churches themselves did not get involved in the electoral process, they just spent money on ads, and people. This is something political parties do all the time, despite the fact that they are private entities. Private entities have the right to spend money on whatever they choose, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal. You don't like the fact that the Catholic and LDS church's can spend money in your state on ad campaign's, get the laws changed. But while you are at it, make sure that the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention are also banned from spending money there too. After all, these are all private entities.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

I personally don't care if the gays do get married. I made a whole big other point on an earlier entry by velessa that marriage should be a contract between 2 people. If they want a ceremony, thats up to them. But there is no need for anyone in the government to be involved in it. As long as 2 people (or more really, we're all adults here) can come to some sort of agreement that they are going to live together, and not sleep with anyone else but their partner(s) they are living with, that's fine by me.