Marriage Protection Amendment: Any Lessons from Kansas-Nebraska?
I don’t have much new to say about the conservative anti-gay mania in the Senate that will continue through tomorrow. My previous post chains are, if I may say so, exhaustive on the subject.
Just a quick epilogue, courtesy of President Bush:
And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Remind me again what Republicans like to call themselves when they’re particularly energized?
Oh yes: “The Party of Lincoln.”
In 1854 Congress, reflecting the “will of the people,” passed a law that today seems inconceivable. That law, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, stated that slavery would be put to a popular vote in Midwestern territories.
The result was the Civil War.
One wonders what kind of a world we would live in today if it had been Lincoln, rather than Stephen Douglas, who had said, even after the Kansas-Nebraska Act and after Fort Sumter, that slavery was indeed — like it or not — a centuries-old “fundamental social institution,” that it was sanctioned by God as demonstrated in the Bible, that foreign law was irrelevant (e.g., the fact that Europe had long before abolished slavery), that “the will of the majority” should be allowed to trump individual rights, and that to the extent the issue should be debated at all, it should be “left up to the states.”
What kind of world indeed.
—
I’d also like to acknowledge, albeit without links, all the libertarian bloggers — most of whom are of course straight — who have spoken out against this pathetic Senate grandstanding and against anti-gay bigot amendments generally. Give yourselves a nice round of applause!
Similar Posts:
- Law Professor Quote of the Day
- Cheney the Teddy Bear?
- Gay Marriage Update
- Who Has the Gay Marriage Momentum?
- Does “Traditional Marriage” Include Spousal Rape?
Filed under: Uncategorized
All I can say is I am scared to death that my marriage is threatened if this gay marriage ban doesn’t pass. If it doesn’t some gay couple is going to come into my house and demand that we separate and marry someone of the same sex or whatever the conservatives are saying will happen.
I wonder if all the illegal aliens are feeling left out now that Gays are the villains of the week?
I might have to disagree, however, with comparing slavery and gay marriage. While denying Gays the ability to share their lives with someone is certainly a gross encroachment upon individual rights, I think designating an individual as property with zero rights might be the greater of the two evils.
I was of course, referring to the process, not the particular subject matter.
Point well taken
Keep Him Busy
So what does the "leader" of the free world do when he gets bored? Beat up on gays to make his backers on the religious right feel better about themselves.
Sharing Post
I'd like to be this concise, but I usually end up being more the rambling type.