Go judge moore!
3
I don't think it's as much about religion as it is isolation. People in the rural parts of most states have no contact with gay people unless the gay person happens to be a family member. The importance of finding ways to encourage interaction between these groups should be paramount. The single most powerful act any LGBT person can take is "coming out."
4
Yes, well, a lot of things are deeply unpopular in Alabama. Nullification apparently, is still a favorite.
5
Paradoxically a winning election issue for the Republicans.Left leaning population centers may provide a majority of people in polls and presidential elections but due to districting and other factors they failed to capture statehouses and control the federal legislator.Sexual ,gender and racial issues are the wedge that divides the left from the people they need to bring about reform in taxes ,banking and election financing.The interests of the majority will suffer as long as the media ,The political class and activists focus on these obfuscating issues rather then the needs of the nation as a whole.
5
I just wish we could prevent anyone who insits evolution is nonsense from using any antibiotic other than penicillin. Or the coming stem cell therapies developed using embryos.
That would accelerate the social justice changes we need, naturally.
That would accelerate the social justice changes we need, naturally.
5
I noticed a lot of comments here stating something along the lines of 'majority can't infringe on minority rights'. What right would they be referring to? The right to restrict and infringe upon some else's rights? Allowing homosexual marriage does nothing to the lives of those who oppose it, but dramatically changes the lives of advocates. Does the anti homosexual minority here really have a leg to stand on?
6
I'm shocked. Alabama? The epicenter of the Deep South? That great region that fought for slavery? Ranked alongside Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi and Texas as one of the top five states in lynching African Americans as recently as the 1960's? The 3rd poorest state in 2014? And one of the self-declared most religiously conservative states in the Union? Or should we just say psychologically repressed? These good ol' folks surely have among them some modern, educated, enlightened and progressive thinkers and citizens-- but they are vastly outnumbered by some of America's most backward and cruel bigots. The preacher from the Galilee whom these so-called Christians say they worship would have condemned them. Most especially their state's Chief Justice Roy Moore, who brings dishonor to his bitterly ironic title and the word "justice."
12
I'm trying to figure out why this story is important! I think we all realize that some people in this country will be against things that other people approve or are in favor of. We know that some people who feel that they are more "religious" or spiritual than others are first to condemn a more macro view of things than others. We realize that those who live in rural areas or with less education tend to be more conservative than some others. My point is this: No matter what issue you're putting forth, there will be some who are not in favor. If we had waited on popular opinion to make a difference on whether my ancestors were freed in this country, there is no doubt that black folks would still be in chains. So, let those who are still upset about the possibility of all same-sex marriage across the country remain upset. As long as I have modern day law to protect my rights, I'm ok with not being the most popular one because of my sexuality like I have been with my race for so many years.
4
In Alabama, the 21st-Century is highly unpopular.
10
My response to this op-ed: So what? The South supported slavery, that didn't make it right or legal. The South supported segregation., that didn't make it right or legal. The South supports homophobia along with the denial of equal rights to gays and lesbians. That doesn't make it right or legal. Just like the abolition of slavery and segregation, they'll just have to get used to treating all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.
8
I hate to break it to them, but the religious views of evangelical Christians, no matter how numerous they may be in places like North Carolina or Alabama, cannot be the basis for laws that abridge the rights of other citizens or deny them equal protection under the law. Dressing up those views as an expression of "states rights" or some other euphemistic justification doesn't change that fact.
16
Simple pieces of advice: If you don't care for, say, Ethiopian food, don't eat it. If trashy novels offend you, don't read them. If you're afraid of water, don't swim. If you don't like big cities, don't visit them. If lies bother you, don't tell them. Finally, if you disapprove of same-sex marriage, by all means be sure that you do not marry someone of your sex. In the meantime, please cease all the Christianist tactics you employ in your attempts to shove your beliefs down the collective throat of the country.
15
Many readers assume that, because same-sex marriage represents equal protection under the law, Alabama (and conservative Christians in general) will somehow eventually accept gay unions. They will not. If past history is an indicator, they will instead devise creative and ingenious ways to skirt around the law, as they did with "separate but equal" in the past century. We already see the begining of this effort in the "religious liberty" (free to discriminate) legislation in a number of states. Worse, such movements are hardly limited to the South. Indeed, they inform the mainstream of Republican party policy. Look no further than the group of potential 2016 presidential candidates--Jindal, Huckabee, Paul, and Bush attempting to out-do each other in prayer rallies or states' rights advocacy. For all their rhetoric about the nanny state small government, conservatives are only to happy to forcibly impose their medieval religious views through legislation.
8
Support for marriage equality for same sex couples today correlates pretty strongly with support for marriage equality for interracial couples historically- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/interracial-same-sex-marriage-equality
3
Here we have the oft repeated cliche that rural, southern, evangelicals are uneducated, backwards, and morally degenerate and that moral enlightenment comes with "education." This is a thinly veiled editorial with some statistics sprinkled in.
4
Those who vote for same sex marriage bans aren't even personally affected by the marriages that would take place. What they really dont like is that their bigotry is increasingly becoming socially unacceptable. Marriage has been one of their chips they held to impose their supremacy over lgbt community. The nation is waking up and removing that power from them.
15
The US Constitution that we all might be treated equally under the law, not to let a majority, even a vast majority, deprive a minority of fair treatment. I personally don't care what any voters in any state think about a particular practice if it runs counter to constitutional dictates or principles.
11
If rule by the majority (of those living in the Deep South) were allowed to be the law of the land, black people (and probably Hispanics) would be slaves still. We have courts to determine when what the majority has decided is constitutional. And I still think there's something about "justice for all" in our founding fathers' documents!
20
The words homophobia, bigotry, and worse have been rightfully used to describe a section of our troubled republic. Personally, I have been disgusted with a few southern classmates (graduate students in the 60s) who lied, slept with professors who favored giving them undeservedly high grades, and plagiarized my work.
Is corruption of this nature just part of the Dixie culture?
Of course, my personal experience is not the whole story. It never is. But what will it take for some decent southerners to stand up to the plate?
Is corruption of this nature just part of the Dixie culture?
Of course, my personal experience is not the whole story. It never is. But what will it take for some decent southerners to stand up to the plate?
6
The issue here is that rule by the majority does not mean at the expense of the minority... Those in the minority have the right to life, liberty and to seek happiness too, and whether one agrees with their lifestyle or not, the majority does not have the right to infringe on minority rights, when the exercise of those rights is not harming the majority.
19
Face it, in the states that committed treason against the United States, 1860-65, they probably oppose the 13 Amendment, too. They certainly don't support any of the Civil Rights Acts. Our problem is, we ended Reconstruction about a century too soon.
17
I beleive this problem is fabricated. Follow the law. Marriage definition is not a federal issue so is reserved to states to decide. But Democrats judicial activism is creating a major crisis based on imposing a sexual preference over the spirit of the law. On time, this will end bad. The moment will come when a some states will want to break from the Union. We will hear those words loud and clear again: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". What a gruesome legacy from a party that started figthing for the poor and discriminated for things impossible to change, and ended fighting for power and political support. Pitty indeed.
6
The rights of minorities are not subject to the will of the majority. It doesn't matter if that will is expressed by the legislature, by a state constitutional amendment or anything else. The rule if law you seek is embodied in the 14th amendment to the constitution, and the federal constitution trumps all state laws, no matter what.
States have the full right to define marriage any way they see fit, so long as they also fit that definition within the constitution. For example, they can set age and residency limits, but they cannot restrict marriage by race. What is happening now is that states are being limited to definitions that do not discriminate by gender, a principle accepted practically everywhere else in our society.
States have the full right to define marriage any way they see fit, so long as they also fit that definition within the constitution. For example, they can set age and residency limits, but they cannot restrict marriage by race. What is happening now is that states are being limited to definitions that do not discriminate by gender, a principle accepted practically everywhere else in our society.
15
Mr. Barrios,
Your partizan ignorance and incorrect information is stunning, as demonstrated by your clear desires to impose your politics and religious doctrine on others. You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the denial of others rights.
Allow me to help you with the facts.
1. The Constitution of the United States of America, guarantees freedom of religion, and in fact no religion. One's religion can be a known faiths, one no one ever heard of, and in fact can be not having any religion.
2. There is a well established constitutional separation of church and state.
3. The 14th Amendment to The Constitution clearly prohibits unfair treatment under the law. Section 1, The Equal Protection Clause, requires of every jurisdiction in the US equal protection under the law for everyone. The 5th Amendment also addresses this directly, and multiple court cases throughout US history do as well, including multiple Supreme Court cases.
4. The law is dictated and always accountable to the Federal Constitution, laws, and court decisions. Read also Article 6 paragraph 2, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your partizan ignorance and incorrect information is stunning, as demonstrated by your clear desires to impose your politics and religious doctrine on others. You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the denial of others rights.
Allow me to help you with the facts.
1. The Constitution of the United States of America, guarantees freedom of religion, and in fact no religion. One's religion can be a known faiths, one no one ever heard of, and in fact can be not having any religion.
2. There is a well established constitutional separation of church and state.
3. The 14th Amendment to The Constitution clearly prohibits unfair treatment under the law. Section 1, The Equal Protection Clause, requires of every jurisdiction in the US equal protection under the law for everyone. The 5th Amendment also addresses this directly, and multiple court cases throughout US history do as well, including multiple Supreme Court cases.
4. The law is dictated and always accountable to the Federal Constitution, laws, and court decisions. Read also Article 6 paragraph 2, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
14
I find it a violation that some people think they can impose their religious beliefs in a way that interferes with the happiness of others. In the end their victory would be for certain human beings were not allowed to marry the human beings they love. Who gave them that right to decide? They should just keep their beliefs from affecting others. Same goes for abortion. They insert their religious beliefs and demand others to live by it. The bottom line is that they are interfering with the decisions made by others based on their own beliefs. Who gives them the right to make choices for others? We are not servants to any one elses religion and our laws should not reflect such.
8
We're just now realizing this? Running such a "duh" piece screams how badly the Times is out of touch with politics and political coverage in the South. The national desk needs to get out of New York more. And I would posit that this has more to do with faith than with educational levels.
6
Amen!
The article's about the latest polling data if the region; and while I'm sure you're right about the coverage question, the article specifically says that this is a matter of fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
If Hobby Lobby can deny women contraceptives because of their faith, how can the same civil authority deny an ordained minister the right officiate at a marriage of a same sex couple?
Make civil unions the standard and the problem goes away!
Make civil unions the standard and the problem goes away!
5
Marriage = civil union, anyhow. Some people choose to have their ceremony done in a religious context, but that doesn't make marriage religious.
1
Civil Unions instead of plain old marriages smacks of "seperate but equal."
Nope, not here in The United States thank you very much....
Nope, not here in The United States thank you very much....
1
Marriages are already civil unions. That's what marriage already is.
civil unions with every last rights available for married couples, but no marriage. And no kids.
5
Sorry- I am married and no one will take that away from me now. And no one is going take kids from gay parents- where all studies show they get an better upbringing than their straight counterparts.
the battle is over in your state - NJ and it's time for you to just accept it or end up in the dustbin of history on the wrong side.
the battle is over in your state - NJ and it's time for you to just accept it or end up in the dustbin of history on the wrong side.
32
What is the difference, besides the name?
You do realize that you are hearkening back to the "separate but equal" days?
You do realize that you are hearkening back to the "separate but equal" days?
Sorry, Joe, but the Constitution's specific: "equal protection under the law," with no qualifications, ands or buts.
Oh, and the track record on raising healthy, happy kids by straight people in straight marriages is nothing I'd recommend bragging about.
Oh, and the track record on raising healthy, happy kids by straight people in straight marriages is nothing I'd recommend bragging about.
1
I think its time to call Justice Moore into a federal court, tell him to stop giving orders contrary to orders from higher courts and if he does not hold him in Contempt of Court and do what is done to poor people who are in contempt, LOCK HIM UP for as long as necessary.
15
Judge Roy being frog-marched to federal prison would be a solid demonstration of progress.
1
It seems to me the government should get out of marriages altogether. Everyone should have a civil ceremony, accepted by the government. Then, if you wish, you can have a religious ceremony of your choice somewhere else.
13
That is what we have- marriage is a civilly recognized union, and some couples choose to have a religious component. As long as the religious component contains or meets the civil requirement, I see no problem with religious people getting married in religious ceremonies.
1
All marriages in the US are technically civil ceremonies because the local authority issues the license to marry. You can take that license to a justice of the peace or a judge or to the clergy of your choice. The marriage is not legal until the officiant signs the certificate and returns it to local authority (the court) for the marriage to be registered by civil authorities.
3
There's no need whatsoever to reinvent the wheel. Marriage is a government institution. It's the religions that should get out of the marriage business.
3
Every time another ban on same sex marriage is defeated the gay community and their supporters celebrate these small victories that will eventually lead to marriage equality in all states.
I do not support gay marriage. Also, I do not oppose gay marriage. I don't care. As a true Republican I support my party's stance that we need to get big government out of peoples personal lives.
However, a larger constitutional issue is being overlooked. Those who oppose marriage equality use the bible, a work of fiction, and other religious arguments when opposing gay marriage. Any law based on religious beliefs is contrary to the constitution.
Every time a gay marriage ban is overturned it reinforces our constitutional right to not only freedom of religion but more importantly freedom from religion.
I do not support gay marriage. Also, I do not oppose gay marriage. I don't care. As a true Republican I support my party's stance that we need to get big government out of peoples personal lives.
However, a larger constitutional issue is being overlooked. Those who oppose marriage equality use the bible, a work of fiction, and other religious arguments when opposing gay marriage. Any law based on religious beliefs is contrary to the constitution.
Every time a gay marriage ban is overturned it reinforces our constitutional right to not only freedom of religion but more importantly freedom from religion.
27
As I recall, it was "true Republcans" who couldn't wait to inject the government into the tragic death of Ms. Terry Schaivo. I believe you are absolutely correct about the larger constitutional issues you raise -- thank you.
1
The ultra-religious are not swayed by arguments counter to their beliefs. Judicial action is needed to make same-sex marriage a universal right in the US.
10
I can think of a few other rights extended to folks in Alabama that the majority of Alabamians were against at the time (and probably at least a plurality is still against today).
Thankfully the United States is not now and never has been a purely majoritarian democracy. We are a constitutional republic, and one of the reasons that this is so is specifically to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority so aptly describe in the federalist papers #10.
Thankfully the United States is not now and never has been a purely majoritarian democracy. We are a constitutional republic, and one of the reasons that this is so is specifically to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority so aptly describe in the federalist papers #10.
16
Equal voting rights for blacks are still unpopular in Alabama; Selma is still Selma.
13
Why is the role of African American opposition to same sex marriage not extensively mentioned in an analaysis like this?
3
Because it's not the topic of the analysis?
2
Because it's not the topic of the analysis?
Well, beyond communist conspiracy, because its changed a lot, and because the determining factor seems ti be religion, not race?
Well, in the first place, when will Alabama and states near it finally surrender.? General Lee surrendered at Appomattox but not Alabama. States rights, nullification and all the rest of southern claptrap summoned to justify slavery and Jim Crow -- expressed most clearly in the more than 4,000 horrid criminal lynchings discussed today in another article in The Times -- and today employed to oppose social and economic progress -- all of that was settled in blood in the Civil War. So southland, get it through your collective head, it's over, it's done, give it up.
Secondly what this analysis exposes is that what the southland as a power collective relies on to impose its reactionary will is the profound lack of education and the ignorance of a broad strata of its white working class. Raised in fear and loathing of black people, indentured to a fundamentalist religious view based in 18th Century protestant theology, warped by 19th Century revivalism and politicized by 20th Century evangelists, the south is its own worst enemy and the enemy of progress in America. It has a stranglehold on the nation through the power it exerts in Congress through the Republicrats who have replaced the Dixiecrats.
Enough, long since enough of the south warping America.
Secondly what this analysis exposes is that what the southland as a power collective relies on to impose its reactionary will is the profound lack of education and the ignorance of a broad strata of its white working class. Raised in fear and loathing of black people, indentured to a fundamentalist religious view based in 18th Century protestant theology, warped by 19th Century revivalism and politicized by 20th Century evangelists, the south is its own worst enemy and the enemy of progress in America. It has a stranglehold on the nation through the power it exerts in Congress through the Republicrats who have replaced the Dixiecrats.
Enough, long since enough of the south warping America.
25
If these people feel that the institution is threatened, it would seem that they should start first with fighting divorce...not marriage.
15
The law is quite simple: A state Supreme Court justice cannot order probate judges and magistrates to ignore federal law, various and sundry opinions notwithstanding.
14
Mr Moore is nothing more than the new George Wallace of the south. What's next? Is he going to stand in the doorway of the local Court House obstructing people who want to be wed till Federal troops remove him? I guess we should expect nothing less from a man who has a Jefferson Davis, a traitor to the USA, photo in his office.
12
Heck, among some of them, abolition is still unpopular.
8
The citizens should never be permitted to vote on issues of civil rights. Because the majority will always claim to be entitled to deny the minority their rights.
And Judge Moore should be removed from the bench.
And Judge Moore should be removed from the bench.
21
In Alabama, equality and civil rights remain deeply unpopular. Don't they recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools ? Its conclusive statement " with liberty and justice for all ". is the hallmark of American idealism. How telling that one can mouth the words of freedom without truly embracing their meaning.
8
I am not white, poor, uneducated, and I do not live in a rural area of this state. I think that it is a shame that gay rights activists and their supporters have dressed their marriage rights campaign in the tattered garments of the Negro Civil Rights Movements. As a Negro in America, I am deeply offended. The same groups who want us to view this issue as a civil right, cannot tolerate dissent. Please stop waving the bloody shirt and let the merits of this movement go through the fire.
3
So good of you to pull up the ladder once you think you have reached the top. But you may find that if you get your way, there will be those perfectly happy to throw you off the mountain top, all in the name of "doing what the voters want." Rights can not be maintained by popular will, but by the rule of law, 'Majority rules' is not the way we establish justice in this country, but by sound laws that protect the rights of everyone.
18
We have no problem with dissent - you can SAY whatever you want about marriage equality, but you DO NOT have the right to deny us our rights.
And as far as the merits, I say it's on the side of those opposing basic civil rights to show the "merits" of their side - I shouldn't have to argue why I'm entitled to be treated the same as straight people.
And as far as the merits, I say it's on the side of those opposing basic civil rights to show the "merits" of their side - I shouldn't have to argue why I'm entitled to be treated the same as straight people.
22
All Americans enjoy civil rights, not just you.
2
No huge surprise by the revelation that Alabama ( and I suspect the other confederate states ) would still oppose gay marriage. They are the same folks who don't believe in evolution, climate change, voting rights for certain Americans; but they firmly believe that opposing gay marriage etc, trumps their economic well being,as they vote time and again for the very republican party that is intent on taking every safety net benefit possible from them.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
19
I agree that regarding one group of people as inferior and ignorant is indefensible. I wonder how many here see the irony in their own comments.
4
Anyone saying that the group of people are inferior is indeed indefensible. Name-calling and the like are childish and below the dignity of democratic conversation. However, arguing that evangelical Christians refuse to engage in rational discussion, and rely upon Biblical authority in discussions that specifically exclude it as an authority, and arguing that they are ignorant of both scientific research and the way in which the American Constitution and laws are organized, is perfectly legitimate. If you say that the American Constitution is explicitly Christian, or that humans lived with dinosaurs, my calling you ignorant is a judgment, not a prejudice.
2
Inferior,mcertainly not. But as for ignorant and hateful, there's a difference between thinking somebody's stupid based on what you think they think and what you think they are, and thinking that somebody's stupid based on what they say and what they do.
So, are we going to have to send in the national guard, again? What is it with the Confederate States?
...and before I'm told bigotry is everywhere, of course it is. There's something very, very special about the Confederacy, however, starting with slavery, moving on to Jim Crow.
...and before I'm told bigotry is everywhere, of course it is. There's something very, very special about the Confederacy, however, starting with slavery, moving on to Jim Crow.
11
Some below have suggested that the emphasis on education is a red herring. But I think Mr. Cohn is correct as he suggests that education has proven to be an essential way forward for a society: it forces one to broaden one's viewpoints, engage with people and ideas outside of one's narrow upbringing, and teach one to think critically about others.
Travel can do the same thing for us - it teaches us to break out of our own little narrow mindsets and realize that there are many more ways to think and live than we may have assumed. It's a great way to dispel myths and stereotypes and lower the walls we erect between ourselves and Others.
Travel can do the same thing for us - it teaches us to break out of our own little narrow mindsets and realize that there are many more ways to think and live than we may have assumed. It's a great way to dispel myths and stereotypes and lower the walls we erect between ourselves and Others.
8
so did a draft that resulted in young men of all different socioeconomic, educational, regional, and religious backgrounds interacting with one another. at least according to my late neighbor, who served in the military toward the end of WWII. it opened his eyes to other possibilities, he said, and changed his life -- for the better.
Whether or not a constitutional right is 'popular' (let us say for instance, 'voting' while black, highly unpopular in certain states in the 50's and the 60's..that is the 1950's and 60's, we all know about the 1850's and 60's...and apparently becoming unpopular again in Republican controlled states) does not matter. Refer to the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution which, if you will recall from your civics class, prevails over the Alabama state constitution. This is 2015 and nowhere in this great land can you vote away another citizen's civil rights. Judge Ray Moore, by the way, has the right to remain silent.
9
Just a note in regard to the predictable south-bashing projections - According to a Pew report, Alabama has the 7th highest rate of black-white marriages in the country. The same report notes that more than half of black-white marriages in the U.S. occur in the south.
Back on topic - yeah, it's a problem and no excuses. Atlanta metro has, by many reports, the second highest percentage of LGBT folks in the country. There are several same sex couples in my little neighborhood. Before I moved here thirty years ago I had never been around any significant number of openly gay people and would certainly have been at least a little uncomfortable about it. Now it's so familiar that it seems like no big deal.
Part of the problem down here is indeed religious in nature and that, as some have noted, crosses racial lines. But a huge part is simply familiarity. Metropolitan areas in the south, including Birmingham and Montgomery in Alabama, tend to have significant LGBT populations and I would assume that acceptance there is closer to national norms.
But if you're a gay person in rural Georgia or Alabama? My guess is that you either hide it or move to the city. At least there is a refuge of sorts for people in that category but in the meantime the same old prejudices, religious and otherwise, persist in those rural areas, because it still appears to be out of the ordinary. Maybe the same occurs in some northern areas as well. I don't know what the answer is, beyond time.
Back on topic - yeah, it's a problem and no excuses. Atlanta metro has, by many reports, the second highest percentage of LGBT folks in the country. There are several same sex couples in my little neighborhood. Before I moved here thirty years ago I had never been around any significant number of openly gay people and would certainly have been at least a little uncomfortable about it. Now it's so familiar that it seems like no big deal.
Part of the problem down here is indeed religious in nature and that, as some have noted, crosses racial lines. But a huge part is simply familiarity. Metropolitan areas in the south, including Birmingham and Montgomery in Alabama, tend to have significant LGBT populations and I would assume that acceptance there is closer to national norms.
But if you're a gay person in rural Georgia or Alabama? My guess is that you either hide it or move to the city. At least there is a refuge of sorts for people in that category but in the meantime the same old prejudices, religious and otherwise, persist in those rural areas, because it still appears to be out of the ordinary. Maybe the same occurs in some northern areas as well. I don't know what the answer is, beyond time.
25
Rich,
A thoughtful, sensible reply. Yes, it's happening, and for the good, and time will trump ignorance and bigotry.
A thoughtful, sensible reply. Yes, it's happening, and for the good, and time will trump ignorance and bigotry.
4
Well thought out, considered response. Don't you know this is the internet? Totally inappropriate!
I had always thought of the gay marriage "issue" as essentially economic, and therefore fairly easy to solve. My children opened my eyes to it being a civil rights issue and, unfortunately, the south still doesn't have a good record on civil rights issues.
I had always thought of the gay marriage "issue" as essentially economic, and therefore fairly easy to solve. My children opened my eyes to it being a civil rights issue and, unfortunately, the south still doesn't have a good record on civil rights issues.
7
Bigotry is not confined to the South. Hardly! However, that said, I am not "bashing" Alabama, they're doing a superb job it bashing themselves. They don't need my help.
4
Honestly, the miracle to me is that so many people have come around so quickly, not that there are still a few holdouts clinging to what they've been taught since early childhood by their families and their churches. What seems like basic fairness to most of us now was politically inconceivable even a few decades ago. Kudos to the heroes of our time who, against all odds, managed to help nearly a whole country walk away from long-held and often deeply ingrained prejudices. The holdouts will get there, too. Eventually.
38
I am kinda sick of the deep South's bigotry and sloth. All those states know how to do is produce football players and religious Neanderthals. But for blue state dollars, they would have staved to death by now.
80
How about your own bigotry in making this statement? I am "kinda sick" of people blaming all of America's cultural shortcomings on the South.
1
I believe the divide is between rural and urban, if I read the article correctly. I think it has more to do with education levels than geography.
1
Starved, not staved.
1
One could argue that Moore is the exception in Alabama, a retrograde and reactionary sycophant, but given the long fire-eating history history I think that would be wrong. He is willfully ignorant and proudly closed minded. The most striking image in the story is the marks still on the floor from removing his 5000 pound ego.
25
Perhaps these polls are wrong and the good people of Alabama thought that they were being asked about miscegeny laws, again? When will we accept as a nation that there is a strong religious strain in this country that is based in hate, control and exclusion. These enclaves are a divisive and backwards albatross that does a disservice to Christians everywhere and drags the functions of a free democracy into the mud.
If only we actually educated all of our children in this country.
If only we actually educated all of our children in this country.
36
I'm with you on everything but the Christian part. I'll give them credit for advances in morality up to maybe 700AD, but after that, and well into the present, their record is spotty at best.
Religion is way past it's sell by date. They don't have a "yikes, there is no God, what do we do now plan". No exit plan, so they keep doubling down. I hope I live to see it collapse, but who knows. In the mean time they will continue to do damage. On a biblical scale. As always.
Religion is way past it's sell by date. They don't have a "yikes, there is no God, what do we do now plan". No exit plan, so they keep doubling down. I hope I live to see it collapse, but who knows. In the mean time they will continue to do damage. On a biblical scale. As always.
Your opinion about same sex marriage is irrelevant. There's a well-tested process in our democracy for protecting each of our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The percentages don't matter, except perhaps on the Supreme Court, which ultimately has the last word. For those in minority groups that have been denied their rights for so long, change comes too slowly. For those who believed that the status quo was an affirmative endorsement of their beliefs and opinions, change comes too quickly.
And those who believe that their religions should dictate the laws of this country are simply out of luck. That's not the way this works. That's not the way any of this works. I unfriend you.
And those who believe that their religions should dictate the laws of this country are simply out of luck. That's not the way this works. That's not the way any of this works. I unfriend you.
55
I know that there are people in Alabama who deeply support the right of all to partake in the institution of marriage, and I know that there are others in Alabama who will begin to see things a little differently, perhaps with more clarity, when gay people in their families and communities begin to wed.
But still, all this keeps making me think of the Tom Lehrer lyric (c1965) : *"Try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb".
But still, all this keeps making me think of the Tom Lehrer lyric (c1965) : *"Try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb".
14
Mr. Cohn has correctly assessed the situation. The traditional understanding of marriage is still very strong in Alabama and other states where evangelical Christianity is strong, a vew to which a high percentage of certain minority groups also adhere. Mr. Cohn fails, however, as so many columnists do, to tell us why the educated people from more urban areas/states do not share the evangelical/less educated understanding. Do the more educated support gay marriage because they are better educated (smarter than, do better on the SATs, etcO) or is it because they simply no longer think traditional marriage is relevant to their lives and they feel the same about Christianity. It appears Mr. Cohan is saying, or certainly suggesting, that the more educated people are the more they simply don't care as much about marriage; how, by whom, etc; marriage is not all that important anymore; and Christianity is also in the same boat, not central to their lives and relationships of the better edcated. In other words, our "educated" in our society no longer believe steadfastly in marriage period, certainly not like in the past when church was more central to the society.. So, let everybody that wants to marry marry whomever they want; no big deal.
10
Actually the well educated are more likely to get married and stay married than the less educated. MUCH more likely. So no, it is not that marriage has lost value among the well educated.
I'm an urban Northeasterner in my mid-thirties with a graduate degree. All my friends except one are happily married. All my parents friends (again, with one exception) are in happy marriages. I only know of maybe two or three divorced couples off the top of my head. I don't personally know anyone who has had a child out of wedlock. I don't personally know anyone who has had a child before 30. All my friends who "cohabitated" did so while they were engaged and were married within a year or two of moving in.
It is because the well educated do value marriage, see it as an egalitarian partnership that is essential to their well being and basically "what you do" once you hit 30 or so, and tend to be so successful at it that they both want to extend the right to same sex couples and do not feel threatened by gays inclusion in marriage.
I think that the less educated are having such a disastrous experience right now with family breakdown that "gays and feminists and secularists" make great scapegoats, rather than the more likely culprits like poverty, joblessness, marrying too young, the evangelical protestant romantization of marriage, and lack of education.
I'm an urban Northeasterner in my mid-thirties with a graduate degree. All my friends except one are happily married. All my parents friends (again, with one exception) are in happy marriages. I only know of maybe two or three divorced couples off the top of my head. I don't personally know anyone who has had a child out of wedlock. I don't personally know anyone who has had a child before 30. All my friends who "cohabitated" did so while they were engaged and were married within a year or two of moving in.
It is because the well educated do value marriage, see it as an egalitarian partnership that is essential to their well being and basically "what you do" once you hit 30 or so, and tend to be so successful at it that they both want to extend the right to same sex couples and do not feel threatened by gays inclusion in marriage.
I think that the less educated are having such a disastrous experience right now with family breakdown that "gays and feminists and secularists" make great scapegoats, rather than the more likely culprits like poverty, joblessness, marrying too young, the evangelical protestant romantization of marriage, and lack of education.
57
I think a major difference is that the group that thinks same-sex marriages should be allowed understand that marriage is a civil function, and functions as part government, and that extending it to other forms of marriage is not a religious question.
Opponents have nothing beyond "my religion says this is bad." Why should that affect what government officials do?
The educated believe in marriage as much or more than the less educated, not less. They get married and stay married at higher rates. "Traditional" marriage is such a *good* thing that we ought to let same-sex couples have the same benefits. Extending that benefit isn't giving a religious approval to their union: that's something that happens inside the church doors. Rather it is allowing these couples to function within civil society on an equal basis.
Practically speaking, once you see that the only effect is to change the government paperwork from using words like "husband and wife" to "party A and party B" you see that it isn't such a big deal.
Opponents have nothing beyond "my religion says this is bad." Why should that affect what government officials do?
The educated believe in marriage as much or more than the less educated, not less. They get married and stay married at higher rates. "Traditional" marriage is such a *good* thing that we ought to let same-sex couples have the same benefits. Extending that benefit isn't giving a religious approval to their union: that's something that happens inside the church doors. Rather it is allowing these couples to function within civil society on an equal basis.
Practically speaking, once you see that the only effect is to change the government paperwork from using words like "husband and wife" to "party A and party B" you see that it isn't such a big deal.
8
As a gay christian, family and marriage are both important to me as well. I look forward to the day in which I have both in my life. If we no longer believed in marriage, we wouldn't be fighting for the enrichment that this right can bring to our lives. I understand different churches have different views on this issue, but the views of some people's faiths shouldn't limit the rights of others when the government is involved.
5
evangelical christians -- they got it wrong on evolution; they got it wrong on climate; they got it wrong on Copernicanism; they got it wrong on just about everything. So are we really to believe that they got religion right?
Just out of curiosity, did they get anything right?
Just out of curiosity, did they get anything right?
69
Well, Copernicus had a doctorate in canon law and Darwin originally studied to be a priest. Not sure what that does for your thesis, which appears to be that all religious people are your intellectual inferiors.
Are you kidding? Scary talk brings profits, power, control and status. God talk has been the most successful enterprise ever, hands down. They got that right.
3
Evangelical Christians got over slavery and they got over miscegenation. They managed to find ways to understand their faith and the Bible and to also stop supporting those things. I don't know if gay marriage will be similar -- I think people worry about gay marriage because they don't know how to save straight marriages, because they see that marriage is not the bedrock of family and society that it once was and it makes us all feel anxious. It's much easier to attack minorities and talk about the Devil than it is to look around the realize that people who can't support their families are likely to get divorced.
Evangelical Christianity is a dynamic force and very theologically creative. I have no doubt that they will weather this storm with their faith intact and creative new interpretations to make gay marriage much less of an issue.
Evangelical Christianity is a dynamic force and very theologically creative. I have no doubt that they will weather this storm with their faith intact and creative new interpretations to make gay marriage much less of an issue.
11
Yep, they'll come around. A few decades behind the rest of the nation, but they'll get there.
20
At the end of the day, it's not about them and therein lies their problem.
There's an interesting statistical fact that seemed to escape notice in this article. If the author is right, it seems that the majority of evangelical Christians are poor and poorly-educated rural people.
God help us if they are the ultimate decision-makers.
God help us if they are the ultimate decision-makers.
41
A hundred and fifty years ago, evangelical Christians took their sacred text and found "sincere" reasons to oppose freeing the slaves. I have no sympathy for bigotry masquerading as religious faith.
129
Evangelical Christians also spearheaded the Abolitionist movement.
"Nonetheless, a majority — and probably two-thirds — of Alabama voters most likely remain opposed." How many in Alabama remained opposed to inter-racial marriage? Neil Young had it right 40+ years ago, and it is still right today-
Alabama, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Alabama, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
29
Alabama, where voting rights remain deeply unpopular.
37
How I want to read such articles and not feel disdain for places like rural Alabama. The people there are just as human as anyone in NYC, they are probably good neighbors and friends, and they are likely kind and decent most of the time. We who live in large coastal cities are not inherently better. And yet....the people in this article seem to care more about same-sex marriage than about improving their horrible schools or increasing access to health care or other things I find far more important and fundamental. I am sure their opposition to same-sex marriage is genuine and heartfelt, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Especially because I know that among them are so many gay people who have learned to hate themselves because that's apparently what Jesus wants. So while I want to see the followers of Roy Moore as something more than stereotypes, I am very, very thankful that I am not a gay person in Alabama.
76
I live in Vermont, one of the most rural areas in the country. Same sex marriage is legal here and I've never met more caring people in my life. Vermonters manage to treat everyone equally, they also care about schools, health care etc. There's no excuse for the ignorance, bigotry and hatred in Alabama.
40
Gus, I agree with you up to the point where you state "for the life of me I cannot understand it" with regard to opposition to same-sex marriage. Might I suggest that you do not know, completely, what Jesus taught. Yes, he wants gays to love themselves (I content they actually hate their same-sex desires), just as he calls for other Christians to love them, as well. What Jesus does not want is for people to practice homosexuality. I am glad I am not a gay person, period, and I pray for those that struggle with deviant behaviors.
1
Oklahoma is right there with Alabama, and I struggle with it all the time. The professional, well-educated people I deal with think (and surprisingly say publicly) the most outrageous things here; the beliefs of the uneducated underbelly are absolutely appalling and abhorrent. And yet, if you're a regular middle-aged white guy, they're pretty decent folk.
2
If you took a public opinion poll of white folks in the benighted state of Alabama you'd probably find most support segregation as well. That's why we have a United States Constitution- to prevent the tyranny of the majority over discrete and insular portions of our citizenry.
105
It's Alabama burning. Freedom of religion, you say? Well, I suppose I could concoct a religion that taught that lefties and redheads are soldiers of the devil. Then as a public servants of this faith I could refuse to issue these heathens a driver's license, a property title, a voting card... God only knows what they'd do with these documents.
23
Equality of opportunity in marriage isn't popular in Alabama, eh? Who'd a thunk it?
SO WHAT? Time was (and probably still is, if truth were told) when lots of Alabamaites didn't like equal opportunity for black people either. Tough. I hate to say there's anything I'd rather "not know" than know, but in this case I'll make an exception. Or, if "rather not know" is a bit strong, at least in the case of whether or not lots of Alabamites disapprove of gay marriage, let's say "couldn't care less to know that, and hate to see the Times spending resources looking into a question of zero consequence."
Could it be that folks there can't figure out that when a legal system doesn't treat everyone equally, everyone is in danger of injustice--if not today, then tomorrow? 'Audemus jura nostra defendere' makes a great state motto for folks from Alabama--gays today, African Americans yesteryear, etc.
SO WHAT? Time was (and probably still is, if truth were told) when lots of Alabamaites didn't like equal opportunity for black people either. Tough. I hate to say there's anything I'd rather "not know" than know, but in this case I'll make an exception. Or, if "rather not know" is a bit strong, at least in the case of whether or not lots of Alabamites disapprove of gay marriage, let's say "couldn't care less to know that, and hate to see the Times spending resources looking into a question of zero consequence."
Could it be that folks there can't figure out that when a legal system doesn't treat everyone equally, everyone is in danger of injustice--if not today, then tomorrow? 'Audemus jura nostra defendere' makes a great state motto for folks from Alabama--gays today, African Americans yesteryear, etc.
27
Well, once again, Alabama tries to wrest the crown of stupidity from the joint custody of Louisiana and Mississippi. This might do it. Apparently, the Alabama judge who issued this has either never read or doesn't understand the constitution, and most certainly does not comprehend the supremacy clause, which clearly states that Federal law prevails over state law, no matter which state you are in, whether you like it or not. He should be made to stay after class and learn some civics. Maybe some law, as well.
58
I side on the rule of love. Love, in this case, as in most cases, rules. You cannot change the hearts of those who love, and if they want to marry, only fools and bigots can attempt to stand in the way. If God is love, and I believe that to be the truth, than I stand with love and those who love each other, in spite of, and defiance of religious proscriptions that are the relics of our intolerant past. I hold my cup high and toast all of you marrying in Alabama and elsewhere today and evermore.
14
You know something, I don't want to hear another word about "a mother's convenience." Men who neglect or refuse to wear condoms when having vaginal sex have no right to hold forth about abortion. The abortion rate would drop precipitously if men unfailingly accepted their responsibility to ensure that sexual activity does not result in pregnancy.
14
Thank you. It is so obvious that men could almost eliminate abortion by never having vaginal sex with a woman whom they didn't know well enough to be sure of her commitment to carrying an unintended pregnancy to term. Of course that would mean knowing the woman intimately, having conversations about the morality of abortion, and becoming thoroughly acquainted with her family, friends and lifestyle for as long as it took to assess her character and truthfulness before entrusting her with their sperm. It's just so much easier to rant about the right of the fetus resulting from their lack of impulse control to share the woman's body no matter what effect it has on her life.
6
we let old people marry despite the fact that their unique biological function is long past for them. Don't like abortions? don't have one , and let other people exercise their right of self determination.
3
"Where knowledge is, can ignorance endure? If there be ignorance, then knowledge must die "-- Kabir
4
Alabama has the third worst schools in the nation and the third worst divorce rate. Alabama get over the gay marriage thing. Gay marriage may just improve things in your state.
40
Obviously Alabama is a typical religious hypocrite when it comes to marriage and providing for children.
8
Gays often flee rural areas for urban ones once they get their high school diploma. At 17, I left for NYC from a conservative small town. Knowing a gay person is one of the best ways to have your views challenged. But gays need to live, why should we have the burden of "educating" people.
28
It is important to challenge the impression that very conservative regions of the country are monolithicaly so. According to a report by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, support for same-sex marriage has probably doubled in Alabama from 16% to 32% since 2008. It is fair to assume that the rate of support is even higher among younger Alabamans. Alabama may be behind the curve on gay rights the same way it was on the civil rights of African Americans, but even there the trend is clear. The hardened reactionary core that has held American politics hostage for so long is losing its grip.
30
If you do no believe in same sex marriage simply don't do it. Two people of the same sex being married will no impact you life in any way at all.
21
If evangelicals are opposing same sex marriage on religious grounds, they are perfectly welcome to their opinion. However, they do not have the right to impose their religious standards on others. What effect would allowing same sex marriages have on evangelicals? None, because they will not allow it in their church.
51
Separation of Church and State. If the state (federal gov't on down) sanctions civil marriages, I have no problem with that. It supersedes my personal beliefs (just as bigotry against minorities is against the law).
However, when same sex marriages crosses over to Church (religions), this is where a line should be drawn. Religions of all kinds should NOT be forced to recognize same sex marriages in the perimeters of that person's beliefs. In other words, one should freely be able to say that they do not support same sex marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs. It is as much as a civil right as the recent sanctioning of same sex marriages.
Here in the US, I find it ironic that people who are all for same sex marriages try to 'legitimize' their marriages in Christian churches. However, I've never seen any of these supporters try to 'legitimize' these same sex marriages in Orthodox Jewish Synagogues, Muslim Mosques (Shia or Sunni), 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religions that faithfully follow their doctrines.
Other than Catholics, it seems that 'Christianity' in its many forms are adapting the mantra of 'go along to get along', when it comes to Biblical doctrine and what that doctrine says about same sex marriage. Separation of Church and State should not be forgotten in this picture.
However, when same sex marriages crosses over to Church (religions), this is where a line should be drawn. Religions of all kinds should NOT be forced to recognize same sex marriages in the perimeters of that person's beliefs. In other words, one should freely be able to say that they do not support same sex marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs. It is as much as a civil right as the recent sanctioning of same sex marriages.
Here in the US, I find it ironic that people who are all for same sex marriages try to 'legitimize' their marriages in Christian churches. However, I've never seen any of these supporters try to 'legitimize' these same sex marriages in Orthodox Jewish Synagogues, Muslim Mosques (Shia or Sunni), 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religions that faithfully follow their doctrines.
Other than Catholics, it seems that 'Christianity' in its many forms are adapting the mantra of 'go along to get along', when it comes to Biblical doctrine and what that doctrine says about same sex marriage. Separation of Church and State should not be forgotten in this picture.
2
Please provide the slightest evidence that any church is being forced to perform same-sex weddings. The last lions left the Colosseum at least 1,500 ago, and Christians have pretty much been running things ever since. Time to get over the persecution complex.
20
The point is NOT that churches are being forced to perform same sex marriages. The point is that within the Christian doctrine, based on the Bible, homosexuality, along with murder, infidelity, and a host of other commandments, are deemed as 'sin', or to put more plainly, actions that are against Biblical teachings.
If one does not call themselves a Christian, then these beliefs are no concern to you. Why would a non-Christian care what a Christian believes? However, if one calls themselves 'Christian', then they are supposed to be following the doctrines of that faith.
I did not say that any church is being forced to perform same sex marriages. What I am saying that civil marriages are sanctioned by the government (man), whereas marriage within religious doctrine are sanctioned by God. That is a big difference. Separation of Church (higher calling) and State (earthly calling) should not be forgotten or thought of as the same in this picture.
If one does not call themselves a Christian, then these beliefs are no concern to you. Why would a non-Christian care what a Christian believes? However, if one calls themselves 'Christian', then they are supposed to be following the doctrines of that faith.
I did not say that any church is being forced to perform same sex marriages. What I am saying that civil marriages are sanctioned by the government (man), whereas marriage within religious doctrine are sanctioned by God. That is a big difference. Separation of Church (higher calling) and State (earthly calling) should not be forgotten or thought of as the same in this picture.
News flash marriage is a civil institution. People may wish to have a church recognize their marriage but there is no effort to force a church to do so
6
If you don't like it, nobody can make you do it. What do you do that might bother other people?
9
I'm a well educated, left wing big city guy and I oppose same-sex marriage and I'm not "evolving" on the issue. Sometimes people believe their own stuff a bit much.
3
Why the opposition?
22
Are you not also Chairman of the Atlanta Christian Foundation ?
2
Well there's something to brag about, you're claiming to be liberal and well educated but you're still willing to treat people like second class citizens for no good reason.
10
African Americans remain unpopular in Alabama, too. Fortunately, Alabama is not a country, but just a state to be dragged into the 21st century by the rest of us.
40
And sadly a high percentage of African Americans are against gay marriage. Indeed they largely lag the rest of the population in their support. Thankfully this too is changing. If there is one thing this debate has shown it's that familiarity does not breed contempt but rather greater acceptance. The more equal rights have been "imposed" by the federal courts, the more acceptance and tolerance we have witnessed. As was the case with civil rights in the 1950's, I am grateful to our federal courts for protecting our civil (and constitutional) rights.
13
Amazing... The state's population is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, yet readers here think that makes it even more important to overrule their wishes by using coercive federal tactics. Sick pups.
They don't want it. Get it? Really, really don't want it... an answer to that should be mutual respect, not 'Do it, or else we'll make you!' Bunch of Brown Shirts. Yuck. I'm going to bathe now.
They don't want it. Get it? Really, really don't want it... an answer to that should be mutual respect, not 'Do it, or else we'll make you!' Bunch of Brown Shirts. Yuck. I'm going to bathe now.
3
Their wishes don't get to override the rights of people wishing to get married(or vote, or sit on the front of the bus...).
40
Thankfully, the constitution protects people even if they find themselves in places where a majority of local population sees them unequal. #LongliveThe14th
20
They didn't want integrated schools or interracial marriage either. Quite a few of them would keep women from voting if they could. Should all that have been allowed as well?
8
I am always curious. What compels people so desperately wanting to be on the wrong side of history?
Yes, race discrimination still exists and will for another generation.Ttransformations of societies take time. I understand the emotional discomfort that people may have. I absolutely cannot comprehend opposition to something that we already know is history. Gay people will get their deserved right. The battle is fought and over.
Yes, race discrimination still exists and will for another generation.Ttransformations of societies take time. I understand the emotional discomfort that people may have. I absolutely cannot comprehend opposition to something that we already know is history. Gay people will get their deserved right. The battle is fought and over.
9
I am ashamed to admit, I also do not like to see men kissing in public.
This is a severe PERSONAL problem.
What is missing from all these conversation is that , at least in liberal democracies, the minorities need protection from abuse or coercion, from the majority.
I the case of the two guys kissing, I am in the majority (maybe) but respect their right to do as they please, the same right I exercise when kissing my wife in public.
The same applies to marriage. Dening them that right make their lives difficult (can not visit in ICU, can not inherit, etc,etc)
But what happens when I need to buy a bottle of red to accompany the meat I baked last Sunday and I could not get one till after high Noon?
I was in the minority then and had to bite the bullet.
The real problem is we live in a Judeo Christian culture, even the atheists feel disgust with many things that should be natural since it was ingrained in our young brains since an early age.
There is total freedom of religion here, but we must have SOME religion.
It is ok to refuse abortion or contraception for yourself but you have no right to deny these to me. If you do not like selling contraceptives, do not become a pharmacist!
I think it was Nabokov that said that a Homosexual, or African America or an atheist will never be able to be president of the US.
We prove him wrong once, two to go!
This is a severe PERSONAL problem.
What is missing from all these conversation is that , at least in liberal democracies, the minorities need protection from abuse or coercion, from the majority.
I the case of the two guys kissing, I am in the majority (maybe) but respect their right to do as they please, the same right I exercise when kissing my wife in public.
The same applies to marriage. Dening them that right make their lives difficult (can not visit in ICU, can not inherit, etc,etc)
But what happens when I need to buy a bottle of red to accompany the meat I baked last Sunday and I could not get one till after high Noon?
I was in the minority then and had to bite the bullet.
The real problem is we live in a Judeo Christian culture, even the atheists feel disgust with many things that should be natural since it was ingrained in our young brains since an early age.
There is total freedom of religion here, but we must have SOME religion.
It is ok to refuse abortion or contraception for yourself but you have no right to deny these to me. If you do not like selling contraceptives, do not become a pharmacist!
I think it was Nabokov that said that a Homosexual, or African America or an atheist will never be able to be president of the US.
We prove him wrong once, two to go!
8
There's no need to be ashamed of your discomfort with men kissing. It's clear you are too ethical to confuse your personal distaste with a moral imperative to dictate how others live their lives. Unfortunately, far too many people don't understand that distinction.
1
Alabama would still have segregation if allowed to do so at the ballot box. And I find it pathetic that black evangelicals would deny their fellow citizens equal rights under the law waving the same Bible that was used to justify denying them equal rights not that long ago.
40
In 100 years Alabama will join the 20th century.
17
I daresay that inter-racial marriage is also still unpopular in Alabama. What does Justice Thomas, who has a white spouse, have to say about that?
55
Wow, Nate. So your argument is that if one is well educated then one supports same-sex marriage. I happen to have a bachelors in Economics and according to the government am middle class and whole heartedly do not support same-sex marriage. Therefore I must be uneducated. How did this make it into the NY Times?
2
It's not an "argument," it's more like a statistical fact. Higher education is positively correlated with greater tolerance, of all types, including this.
That doesn't mean everyone – you're a case in point. But it does mean most people, and that's not an 'argument – it's a fact.
That doesn't mean everyone – you're a case in point. But it does mean most people, and that's not an 'argument – it's a fact.
27
How did you get a bachelors in economics yet fail to get a handle on statistics?
35
You are not typical. And please explain your opposition.
10
Roy Moore was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court by his colleagues from the Alabama bar. By pandering to right wing voters in a brazenly ideological way, he was reflected by the voters of Alabama. Judge Moore Is the Huey Long - Orville Faubus of our time.
11
Huey P. Long was actually more progressive on race than you might think.
Many blacks in rural Louisiana started "Share The Wealth" clubs after his election, and the KKK denounced Long at its Atlanta convention in 1934.
Many blacks in rural Louisiana started "Share The Wealth" clubs after his election, and the KKK denounced Long at its Atlanta convention in 1934.
May I suggest that those Alabamans who disapprove of marriage equality NOT marry someone of their own gender.
36
Most of those Alabama "Bubbas" are also against inter-racial marriage, so what else is new? Time for Alabama to abide by court rulings , step into the 21st Century, or secede from the union.. i would gladly let them secede if they don't like living in the 21st Century and continue on with their 19th Century mentality. Being anti-gay to them is just replacing being anti-communist, they need something/someone to blame for their troubles.
22
Agreed. Have you ever noticed that around the world, the most religiously conservative countries are frequently also the poorest and most backward in social and civil equalities? Alabama fits the pattern.
3
The Federal Court system is the only guarantee that all fifty states, while allowed some autonomy over laws that may be attuned to those states' citizens' beliefs (as long as they do not deviate from the US Constitution), have a universal set of laws that are recognized by the nation as a whole. Some of these, which have run into opposition in the past. would include a mandate against human slavery, and an institutional belief in racial and sexual equality. That is why we, with all our diversity of beliefs, are one nation, because there are core beliefs that hopefully define us as a country. The idea that one segment of one or more states aren't in favor of one side of a national issue is irrelevant.
15
When he was first nominated, the Pasco, WA, NAACP asked me to review Thomas' (scanty!) publications to see if they should oppose him. Thomas only real articulated jurisprudence was that the Declaration of Independence was a statement of ideal individualism and that the Constitution was a product of political compromise. Thomas stated that our history, and our court jurisprudence, was the gradual enactment of the ideal into the practical. Nothing wrong with that view. But I guess it was not his.
Instead, of course, we got a "mini-me" to Scalia's fascism. Thomas is an embarrassment to the Elder Bush who opposed affirmative action, yet nominated an unqualified black man (who has remained unqualified) to spite the liberals. Thomas is an embarrassment to those who support civil rights, who know that even though Thomas married a white woman, Thomas's current pattern of decision-making would not have struck down laws against marriage across the races. And Thomas is an embarrassment to the court as the most thoughtless and illiterate man to be on the bench in at least a century, and perhaps ever. And, finally, Thomas got a "pass" on his wife taking in $680,000 in right-wing money that he did not declare on his taxes until caught, at which time he (final arbiter of the tax code) said the rules were too complex to understand. Thomas is a shameless carbuncle on the Court.
Instead, of course, we got a "mini-me" to Scalia's fascism. Thomas is an embarrassment to the Elder Bush who opposed affirmative action, yet nominated an unqualified black man (who has remained unqualified) to spite the liberals. Thomas is an embarrassment to those who support civil rights, who know that even though Thomas married a white woman, Thomas's current pattern of decision-making would not have struck down laws against marriage across the races. And Thomas is an embarrassment to the court as the most thoughtless and illiterate man to be on the bench in at least a century, and perhaps ever. And, finally, Thomas got a "pass" on his wife taking in $680,000 in right-wing money that he did not declare on his taxes until caught, at which time he (final arbiter of the tax code) said the rules were too complex to understand. Thomas is a shameless carbuncle on the Court.
92
It's nice to finally see someone call out Clarence. He truly is an embarrassment to SCOTUS if ever there was one. He asks no questions, participates in no oral argument, and has he ever written any sort of judicially interesting opinion on some controversial topic, or does he just remain part of the woodwork? Scalia is not far behind, in terms of evolvement. Another Luddite.
20
I don't like Clarence Thomas, not one bit, and his presence on the court has been a baleful disgrace. I think his ideas and positions are dreadful. But it's a bridge too far to call him illiterate. The dissent he wrote yesterday is not the work of an illiterate person. He is a well-trained lawyer and, regrettably, a judge with decades of experience.
I don't think the elder Bush has ever shown embarrassment over nominating Thomas and that fact redounds to his ultimate shame.
3
Same sex marriage is not marriage. It is a perversion of the judicial process and ultimately destructive of the rule of law and of democracy for unelected judges to redefine such a fundamental institution in such a fundamental way by "finding" a "fundamental" constitutional right to it which has apparently lain hidden for hundreds of years.
8
I don't think you understand the meaning of "fundamental", or "Constituional", or "right".
If the state is going to let some -some- people marry, it has to have an extra-ordinary reason to not allow others to do the same.
The fact that you don't like it when it is people of the same sex, is not that extra-ordinary reason.
If the state is going to let some -some- people marry, it has to have an extra-ordinary reason to not allow others to do the same.
The fact that you don't like it when it is people of the same sex, is not that extra-ordinary reason.
15
Hope you enjoy your position on the wrong side of history.
18
I just don't understand why putatively straight people get so hot and bothered by legal recognition for the relationship I have with my love of the past 24 years. It's a fascinating question - why why why? Why does it get under your skin?
I have a confession to make: after years of listening to this type of bigoted hogwash, it makes me glad to see you and your ilk losing this war. Look up schadenfreude. : )
I have a confession to make: after years of listening to this type of bigoted hogwash, it makes me glad to see you and your ilk losing this war. Look up schadenfreude. : )
39
I find it amusing that people think slavery is akin to not allowing two men to marry. What a sick country we've become.
Also interracial marriage was legal in more states than it was ever outlawed. What gays seek is to redefine the institution of marriage that has held sway in the West for thousands of years.
The state sanctifying something that's considered an egregious sin in most religions in the world by judicial fiat is disgraceful.
Also interracial marriage was legal in more states than it was ever outlawed. What gays seek is to redefine the institution of marriage that has held sway in the West for thousands of years.
The state sanctifying something that's considered an egregious sin in most religions in the world by judicial fiat is disgraceful.
11
Interracial marriage was outlawed in the overwhelming majority of states. Only eight states never had laws banning interracial marriage, and two of those were only states for a short while before Loving v. Virginia answered the question constitutionally.
And missing from your comment is an explanation of why most religions in the world considering something a sin has any relation whatsoever to the laws of the United States in the first place.
And missing from your comment is an explanation of why most religions in the world considering something a sin has any relation whatsoever to the laws of the United States in the first place.
88
By that standard we need to outlaw bacon. It comes from port, and eating pork is prohibited by most religions in the world.
74
As black Christian with Ivy League degrees, I totally agree with ed. I also find it offensive. Dr king was a Christian minister and would have never agreed to this false equivalence! Thankful my education has not made me lose my common sense. Who knows what's next
1
Intolerance is actually holding those states back. Large companies with a workforce drawn from a national pool is less likely to relocate where employees are reluctant to go. If you are just hiring local blue collar workers, then this is not as issue, but I can't see Coca Cola or Nike for example, moving to Alabama.
26
Absolutely, why that would be as preposterous as Coca Cola having it's main offices in Atlanta, GA.
3
Coke is headquarted (and invented) in Atlanta, Ga. Not even federal judges in Georgia support gay marriage.
2
Dave and David, once gay marriage comes to Georgia, Atlanta will quickly revert to form as "the city too busy to hate."
Thankfully, the Court will not rule that such bans are constitutional because, in fact, they directly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Being black was also "unpopular" in the South (and still is, including other parts of America as well), but we have a republican constitution that does not permit uneducated and bigoted majorities to submit the constitutional rights of an "unpopular" minority to a popularity contest at the ballot box.
76
As a Black person I always get offended when I'm compared to gay people . Here's the thing though the rights of Blacks were explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. If same sex marriage is a fundamental right why didn't it become one in the 19th century when the 14th amendment was passed?
The Justices who will vote for this are doing this to be popular not following the law. The question of marriage should be left up to each state. The decadent values of the Northeast shouldn't be the law of the land because they host lite universities where are justices all went to school.
The Justices who will vote for this are doing this to be popular not following the law. The question of marriage should be left up to each state. The decadent values of the Northeast shouldn't be the law of the land because they host lite universities where are justices all went to school.
1
I think the libertarians are probably correct that government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage,but it also needs to get out of the business of violating religious liberty by compelling people to bake cakes or take photos of things that violate their moral and spiritual consciences.When it comes to the 14th Amendment,conservatives (using your legal regimen)ought to aggressively push for Constitutional recognition of the unborn against an ignorant,bigoted minority of Americans who keep them in brutal bondage...
2
Ed - The fundamental right is to equal treatment. You can't grant a right such as voting, marriage etc. to some of the population but deny it to others.
3
Alabama's collective view of same-sex marriage illustrates why it is so important that the Supreme Court establishes a national right to marriage this summer. Yes, many politicians and even judges will say that Justice Kennedy forced their state to accept something that runs counter to their religious beliefs. I continue to believe that opposition to same-sex marriage in regards to two women is largely philosophical if also ideological. These conservatives do not trust a child's well being in the custody of two loving mothers (no matter how much research shows that as complete bunk) and philosophically fear two-women households as inherently radical leftist ones (if only). I don't think it is nearly as personal, however, as their opposition to same-sex marriage in regards to two men. This idea, to put it bluntly, disgusts them. They might roll their eyes at two women kissing, but they positively recoil at two men doing likewise, or merely holding hands. Some of them also go so far as to say society has an obligation to help them protect their children from seeing such displays of affection! I cannot imagine what it is like to be a gay male in Alabama or a similar place, to be seen as something less than a real man. And he shouldn't have to leave his state to enjoy the freedom to marry and also feel welcome (though the latter is harder, even in tolerant areas, as Mr. Bruni's Sunday column informed us). The Judge Moores of this land are nearly past and thank goodness.
111
you mean thank goodness there are only a few people who will stand up to the steamroller of political correctness. I say thank God for people like Judge Moore. This country is based on a moral set that you might not agree with , but
at least there are people who will stand up for their constituents. Wish we had a congress full of Judge Moores. We might just get this country back on track.
Instead of everyone rolling over to a minute segment of our society who wish to re-write the moral code for the majority, The majority needs to take a stand.
at least there are people who will stand up for their constituents. Wish we had a congress full of Judge Moores. We might just get this country back on track.
Instead of everyone rolling over to a minute segment of our society who wish to re-write the moral code for the majority, The majority needs to take a stand.
1
The majority is taking a stand. Google the latest national stats on support for same sex marriage. I believe they are well above 50 percent now. And if we had a congress full of Judge Moores we would be the among the poorer nations on earth, not to mention a laughing stock. Just look at Alabama.
4
Make a stand for what. Intolerance? What moral code is it that you seem to think you are defending? Jesus ostensibly was a defender of the weakest and most reviled among all of us. I tend to think you would find yourself across the aisle from him on this issue, were he to cast his lot.
5
The more educated you become, the more arrogant you become. I'm educated and live in Maryland. I voted against same sex marriage and would do so again. I think it's unconscionable that judges from the Ivy League background can throw away thousands of years of civilization on a whim. It's frightening really.
18
Slavery also has thousands of years of precedent in civilization. Does that automatically make slavery right?
189
well, your second sentence supports the assertion of your first sentence
94
Ed, one could have uttered the same when state laws forbidding miscegenation were before the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Perhaps, Ed, education facilitates (in some people) not an increase of arrogance but rather a decrease in bigotry. Education obviously does not have this effect on all people. But the strange thing is that the bigots of 1967 would now, in all likelihood, oppose those anti-miscegenation laws they supported back then. Perhaps, the bigots of today will, forty years hence, similarly come to terms with legal same sex marriage.
63