There has always been a racist undercurrent in government marriage licensing.
Throughout the overwhelming majority of history, marriage was largely a
sectarian practice, recognized (but not licensed) by the government only
insofar as it affected the rights of inheritance. Indeed, until the end of the
19th century government interference with a ritual that some religions hold in
sacramental status was unthinkable.
But the government started issuing marriage licenses before women had
sufferage and before the introduction of the welfare state. And so why did
government do it?
This country saw a substantial increase in immigration after the Civil War,
as well as a significant level of intermarriage with Blacks, Hispanics and
American Indians during the westward expansion of the 1870s and 1880s. Simply
put, when these laws came about there was no public health, safety or general
welfare reason for the government to regulate marriageexcept one, to
perpetrate a racist policy against the common law practices of marriage and
inheritance.
Now, 120 years later, the very concept of marriage has lost its sectarian
foundation in the public mind, because the bigger issue is not what God thinks
about the relationship but whether a LGBT partner can get insurance coverage or
inherit.
If the religious right really wanted to solve the problem it would abolish
government involvement in marriage altogether, return the ritual of marriage to
its sectarian roots and recognize civil unions for what they are, ordinary
contracts. But they won't do it because they hate gays more than they love
their own heritage. The DOMA is the new racism. Pure and simple.
Richard Shepard
hrearden_hr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [email protected], "gclark809" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "What happened to the separation of church and state?" he said. "The
> phonies and hypocrites in office talk about the sanctity of marriage
> and can't see the love in this room." [snip]
That is a good question. Why should the state define marriage? For
many people but not all people marriage is something that is
sanctioned and recognized abd defined by their church. The state
should not be involved and thus it is not something that should be
subject to a vote on whether or not the state should be empowered to
define a particular relationship between people as a state sanctioned
and recognized marriage. I would vote no and my decision would not be
based on hate, it would be based on my support of individual liberty.
The state should not define any relationship as a marriage. A yes vote
on this issue would give more power to the state.
$ Boston Tea Party member.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
