Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

Azadre

One more turn...
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
3,224
Published on Friday, February 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...
by Thom Hartmann


"It's never been tried before." "The Bible doesn't mention it." "Civilized people have never done things this way." "No society in the 6000 years of the history of civilization since Gilgamesh has suggested such a thing." "It'll create social chaos, ultimately destroying the nation." "It's just too radical an idea for people to accept."

Those were the arguments put forth in the 1760s and 1770s as the American colonies split - divisions that often tore apart families - on the issue of whether a free people could govern themselves in a democracy or should stay with England's king. They were trotted out in the 19th century over the issue of freeing America's slaves. They appeared again in the 20th century over whether women should be allowed to vote and fully participate in society. And these voices were heard again early in my lifetime when the Supreme Court forced public schools to allow white and black children to attend class together.

Gay marriage is simply the logical and appropriate extension of the idea that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic a vital function of government is to protect the rights of minorities. It's called "civil rights."

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."

American representative democracy was an experiment in 1776 that had never before been tried among "civilized" people. The world watched with curiosity and awe, and during the Civil War figured it was at an end.

Even by 1900 there were only a handful of democratic nations in the entire world, and if you define democracy to require the enfranchisement of all people, male and female, black and white, the first true democracy didn't appear until 1920 when we passed the 19th Amendment.

Since that time, liberal democracies have exploded across the world. Of the 191 member nations of the UN in 2003, 140 hold multi-party elections and 81 are considered "fully democratic" by the UN's standards. Through democratically elected representatives, citizens themselves rule nearly all of North and South America, Europe, Australia and most Pacific Islands, South Africa, and many parts of Asia.

This is all startlingly new - an eye blink in the history of what we call civilization. Democracy and civil rights are not "traditional values." The Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas sanction slavery. Women have been the property of men for nearly all of our history. And the idea that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of often-unpopular minorities so shocked Colonial conservatives that many took up arms against the revolutionaries, fled to Canada, or returned to England.

George Washington was speaking directly to the issue of civil rights when, in 1790, he said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

The history of America and the history of modern democracies is one of expanding civil rights. First we freed white males from the kings and queens. Then we freed those of us whose skin varied in color. Then we freed women. While none of us are yet completely free, the ancient kings are returning in the guise of multinational corporations, and the battles for civil rights continue against conservative forces, it's essential that we recognized that "We, the People" means all of us.

It's no coincidence that when the Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts recently looked at constitutions written in the 1700s, inspired by the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, they discovered therein the rights of gays and lesbians to civil unions and marriage.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple, and entirely in keeping with the egalitarian vision of this nation's Founders. It's time for us to honestly and frankly face and accept that fact, and act appropriately.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk show. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged.


Interesting article.
 
Ironically, gay relationships were a standard part of Greek culture, so blaming it all on Jefferson is not very appropriate. ;) :p
 
heh, all of our founding fathers were mean jerks. Jefferson was the meanest of them all.

The only two that were actually decent men were Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
 
It's pretty insulting to compare homosexuals getting married to our founding fathers' fighting colonial rule.
 
To add to the catalogue, Martin Luther used pretty much identical arguments in the 1520s when he railed against the evil, society-destroying, heretical practice of marrying whom you love, not whom your parents marry you to.
 
Strider said:
heh, all of our founding fathers were mean jerks. Jefferson was the meanest of them all.

The only two that were actually decent men were Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

LIES! GW was ok, but Benjamin Franklin was a TERRIBLE PERSON! He abandoned his family on multiple occasions, letting his eldest son languish in prison for a crime Benjamin encouraged him to do, leaving his wife and taking up with some woman France, and refusing to return to the US even when his DYING wife sent him a letter pleading for his return before she died. He only returned once he recieved word that she was good and dead. He is also estimated to have somewhere in the area of two dozen illegitimate children.
 
So what?

People don't often realize this, but one of the main reasons God destroyed Soddom and Gommora was because of Homosexuality.

The Bible states quite clearly:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
-Leviticus 18:22

Homosexuality is a sin, just like Sex outside marriage is a sin, and rape, murder and theft are sins. What the ancient Greeks thought does not matter.
 
I hate to quibble, but Leviticus also
-- permits owning of slaves from heathen lands (25:44)
-- encourages the sacrifice of bulls (1:9)
-- calls the eating of shellfish an abomination (1:10)
-- forbids the planting of two crops in the same field, or the wearing of two different textiles (19:19)
-- advocates burning (20:14) or stoning (24:16) of violators by the congregation
 
This sudden talk of religion is disquieting. Religion can not be legislated. In America you have the freedom to frown on, hate, or even wish to see the violent destruction of, any group you like, so I have no problem with the religious right condemning homosexuality as an abominable sin, but such feelings should not find their way into our legislation. A dedicated homosexual couple fills the same place in society as a heterosexual couple that does not wish to or cannot naturally concieve of children, yet marriage without children is certainly not legislated against. There is no possible valid legal argument against homosexual civil union. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry gay couples, thats fine. The government shouldn't be able to force the Catholics to accept people it doesn't want to. But the legal rights of marriage should be given to any consenting couple.
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
So what?

People don't often realize this, but one of the main reasons God destroyed Soddom and Gommora was because of Homosexuality.

The Bible states quite clearly:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
-Leviticus 18:22

Homosexuality is a sin, just like Sex outside marriage is a sin, and rape, murder and theft are sins. What the ancient Greeks thought does not matter.

You're comparing homosexuality with murder and rape?

What is so wrong with consenting adults marrying or being with the people they love? Hardly rape or murder if you ask me.
 
Moss said:
You're comparing homosexuality with murder and rape?

What is so wrong with consenting adults marrying or being with the people they love? Hardly rape or murder if you ask me.
Well thats why people are so frightened by these fundamentalists.
 
Actually, these "fundamentals" are not the ones comparing homosexuality with murder and rape. They are just echoing that God Himself compares homosexuality as sin, as He does murder, and as He does rape.
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
So what?

People don't often realize this, but one of the main reasons God destroyed Soddom and Gommora was because of Homosexuality.

The Bible states quite clearly:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
-Leviticus 18:22

Homosexuality is a sin, just like Sex outside marriage is a sin, and rape, murder and theft are sins. What the ancient Greeks thought does not matter.

this is what

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Mauer said:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

good you don't like gays don't talk to them I'm sure they'll be heartbroken that a christian fundy thinks they'll burn in hell. Fell free to be a bigot, but the US government is not supposed to make such laws.
 
Ah, leave Tommy alone, he's done plenty good. Maybe if he had a gay slave he'd be more inclined to see gay marriage as desirable.
Taliesin said:
I hate to quibble, but Leviticus also
-- permits owning of slaves from heathen lands (25:44)
-- encourages the sacrifice of bulls (1:9)
-- calls the eating of shellfish an abomination (1:10)
-- forbids the planting of two crops in the same field, or the wearing of two different textiles (19:19)
-- advocates burning (20:14) or stoning (24:16) of violators by the congregation
All of which I observe everyday thank you very much. Especially the last one. It seems I can't go to anymore than two congregations without those damn violators messing about.
 
Playing devils advocate a little... but isn't refusing to allow those churches who desire to marry gays the right to do so a violation of their religious freedom?
 
Back
Top Bottom