I wanted to watch this sooner, and it was totally worth going back for it.
I think that's what most angers me about the defenders of "traditional marriage", and the gall they have of plastering couples of different ethnicities on their website banners. They either don't know about the court cases that made their unions legal or, as I suspect, conveniently forget. SCOTUS cases are fascinating in that respect -- the decisions in their contemporary era are viewed as infringement of the "people's will", but decades later people (including these "traditionalists") go "Well, no DUH people from different backgrounds can marry! Except these gay people! They're the real problem!"
I'm impatient for the day when children wonder why their ancestors were so dumb, and why it took them so long to let their parents marry.
It's a nice little tactic to distract people from history as well as divide and conquer. It's funny, I'm catching up with one of my favorite shows of all time, All in the Family on YouTube which has I think almost every episode (for some reason, the copyright trolls haven't eaten them). I'm not sure how familiar you are with the show, but basically it centers around this bigot (who is made infinitely tolerable by the fact he is played by a civil rights activist and intellectual who was the utter antithesis of his character) and his interactions with 1970s America (largely through his liberal son-in-law). Anyway, the fall-out from integration is still strong and the crap the character claims about the Bible (which "justifies" segregation) is eerily similar to the crap spewed by the homophobes of today who twist the Bible for their own means. I particularly like priest Randall Balmer who puts it all the best perspective on TCR (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/252747/october-27-2009/holy-water-under-the-bridge---randall-balmer). The stuff about 150 years ago it was slavery, 50 years ago it was integration, and today it's GLBT rights that people are twisting the Bible to promote intolerance about.
I'm particularly delighted that civil rights pioneer Mildred Loving (of Loving vs Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)-- OH LOOK A WIKIPEDIA LINK-- JUST CALL ME SAILOR MAGDOLENE) was an activist for GLBT marriage rights as well:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
She issued that statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs Virginia (dude, the NAME-- irony again!).
I remember watching that show when I was maybe a little too young to be watching, or at the very least too young to grasp the intricacies. I do remember he and his wife adopting a Jewish girl at one point, and in one episode he gives her a Star of David pendant. I think it was moments like that is where the show really shined. From what I remember I just saw him as a crotchety old man who was afraid of change. I'm oversimplifying this, and now I might watch some on YouTube.
I also remember one episode where he gave his grandson a pistol for his 1st birthday. XD
That quote made me so misty-eyed, and that she's made gay marriage the equivalent of her own struggle is so wonderful.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 07:34 am (UTC)I think that's what most angers me about the defenders of "traditional marriage", and the gall they have of plastering couples of different ethnicities on their website banners. They either don't know about the court cases that made their unions legal or, as I suspect, conveniently forget. SCOTUS cases are fascinating in that respect -- the decisions in their contemporary era are viewed as infringement of the "people's will", but decades later people (including these "traditionalists") go "Well, no DUH people from different backgrounds can marry! Except these gay people! They're the real problem!"
I'm impatient for the day when children wonder why their ancestors were so dumb, and why it took them so long to let their parents marry.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 09:26 am (UTC)I'm particularly delighted that civil rights pioneer Mildred Loving (of Loving vs Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)-- OH LOOK A WIKIPEDIA LINK-- JUST CALL ME SAILOR MAGDOLENE) was an activist for GLBT marriage rights as well:
"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
She issued that statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs Virginia (dude, the NAME-- irony again!).
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 09:59 am (UTC)I also remember one episode where he gave his grandson a pistol for his 1st birthday. XD
That quote made me so misty-eyed, and that she's made gay marriage the equivalent of her own struggle is so wonderful.