Thursday, November 06, 2008

A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren

As a caveat, I'll reiterate for the billionth time my opposition to civil marriage in general, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a porpoise and a Komodo dragon, a turtle and a senator . . . whatever. Why assumed regular fuckery should confer additional civil rights and civic protections escapes me entirely.

That said, I am so fucking tired of black preachers denigrating the clear parallel between their own past civil rights struggles, in particular the effort to overturn miscegenation laws, and the current same-sex marriage brouhaha. When I hear an African-American divine explain that the Bible lays out a clear "definition of marriage," I am so like, curse you, child of Ham.

11 comments:

Cüneyt said...

Perfectly said. The Bible ain't too friendly to the blacks. Or women, either. Fuck, does anyone make it out of that thing okay?

Marriage is an absurdity, but if it's an absurdity with benefits, then it ought to be for everyone.

I don't even know any gay people who've settled down. A few older acquaintances are halves of hetero domestic partnerships, however. All of a sudden, those people are screwed. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

In the Post Mortems on Prop 8, I've been reading that the one group to vote solidly against it was African-Americans.

This surprises me because you don't gotta be a genius to see the obvious parallels between gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws.

I just read in Nixonland, how in 1964, the same election that brought Johnson to the White House also saw California vote in a anti-miscegenation law by 2-1. The Supremes didn't decide that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional until 1967 w/ Loving v. VA. Short term memory loss maybe.

In discussions with African-American friends about the issue of discrimination against gays, there is a point in the conversation where they make sure you are aware that there is not any kind of equivalency between the horrors suffered by African-Americans during and after slavery and discrimination faced by homos.

As if giving rights to gays will somehow diminish the rights that their forebearers fought so hard to get.

PRof.

Mr.Fundamental said...

permit me to wade into the shallow end, or out on the limb, as it were.

I wouldn't necessarily say that marriage conferred additional civil rights. . .it made certain private rights available to general society. no? well, it made them easier and available to the masses. marriage as recognized by the state became a vehicle for those who could not afford to enforce bequeathment, the opportunity to do so. it's cheaper and easier to get a marriage license, along with all it's associated rights and priveleges, than it is to suss out with a lawyer the proper language of a will or trust and so on. it just so happened that these same folks, for which marriage is supposed to help, are a bigoted, fearful lot. I'm sure I'm off on some of this, but that's just my stab.

but yeah, why we need the state, yada yada, good intentions gone awry, and so on amen, brotha.

it's fucking tough being an anarchist these days.

MR Bill said...

I wish someone would ask the African-American divines I've been hearing on the news, denying the analogy betweeen the struggle for Gay Civil rights and Civil rights, about those parts of the Bible that allow selling one's daughters into slavery, concubinage and plural marriages...

chiggins said...

Aw man, you know it ain't about the fucking, regular or otherwise. It's not about the church. It's not about the wedding, or the eyes of the community, or any of that stuff, delightful though those things may be.

It's about me being able to say: "I don't trust a single person in the family I was born to, they're all a buncha no good shits. This here person is the one person that has agreed to be my family and share my credit rating, which means a fuck of a lot more to me than the accidental ones, so that's who I pick to be my family."

Which makes CA Prop 8 that much more evil, right? The rights it denies people are financial, legal, medical, and typically come up when people are already suffering, and their partners are trying to do everything they can to help them. It is astonishing to me how easy it is for people to be so cruel.

But "regular fuckery"? Shit. Toddlers don't let you spend time together, nor do they allow you to store up enough energy to git-it-ohn. If that were a qualifier, my wife and I would already be legally split.

NutellaonToast said...

Send a clue to anony over there and let him know that being AGAINST 8 meant being FOR gay marriage.

steveb said...

If there's one thing our government hates more than gay weddings, it's Afghan weddings.

Anonymous said...

It's not the fuckery, it's the kids and property. Just because I tire of my wifes pussy, do I then lose all obligation to her kids? Many men think so, and would act on that were it not for law. And starve her, into the bargain?

Our marriage laws are mis-named. They are divorce laws. If you want to think they have something to do with marriage, go right ahead.

Aaron said...

I found this article interesting (especially the last paragraphs. Preachers get thumbs-down as you say, but apparently the Urban League, NAACP and other civil rights organizations were out in front against prop 8 and did talk about it in civil rights terms. Sounds like a split is developing on this question and unclear who's going to win the day.

Cuneyt: "The Bible" says nothing about blacks. Interpreting that Sons of Ham business in Genesis as applying to Africans is just multum ex post facto segregationist crap. All we know from the Bible is that Canaan (Ham's son) is cursed by Noah with servitude, not black people. Thus it appears to be legitimating conquest/colonialism, not prejudice about skin color.

In an interesting passage of the Mishna (written ca. 200 AD), incidentally, a particular religious obligation of Jews is described in terms that slightly differentiates the rules for "Germans" - whose skin is white - "Ethiopians" - whose skin is dark - and "The House of Israel" - who are in between light and dark. So even assuming the Bible's authors did have nasty opinions on this question the commentators felt free to ignore it.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the good writeup. It in truth was a amusement account it.
Glance advanced to far added agreeable from you!
By the way, how could we be in contact?

my blog post natox scam

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the good writeup. It in truth was a amusement account it.
Glance advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how could we be in contact?


Feel free to surf to my homepage; natox scam