[Vision2020] The Persecution of Quakers: ShameOnOurPuritanForefathers

[Kai Eiselein, Editor]

Boy, that was a hell of a stretch to get all that from one statement.
None of us will know whether we were right or wrong about faith until we die. Period. That's why discussions about the "hereafter" can never come to a conclusion.
I've neither defended nor opposed gay marriage, I couldn't care less about it. To me it's a non-issue, a minor blip in a sea of other, more important problems. Like, say, the current state of our economy. Why we are so worried about sending aid to the rest of the world when we don't do a very good job of taking care of our own citizens. Why we can't seem to find a real alternative to fossil fuels so that we can cut off the flow of money to nations who sponsor terrorists. The list goes on and on.
In the great scheme of things, there are issues that are more important and more pressing that could benefit more people if addressed.
Here is the actual question you asked:
"What's your take on interracial marriage bans?  Good or bad?  If bad, why did these bans exist in the first place and are these the same reasons why gay marriages are banned?"
Cultural, racial, religious and personal biases are the reason these bans exist (still do in many cultures, hence the present tense use of "exist"). They are a double edged sword.
On one hand, they can preserve a culture, on the other they can create stronger bonds between peoples at the expense of a culture. (I can hear jaws hitting the floor, tongues flopping and gasping sounds coming from around town. Gaa! Gaa! Gaa!)
Take Indian tribes as an example, how many full-blooded native peoples are left? My ex-father in law is one of the last full blooded Coeur d'Alenes, my ex-wife is 50% since her mother was Latina, which makes my daughter 25% and the last in that lineage to qualify as a tribal member, leaving my grandson out. Multiply that by hundreds, if not thousands of marriages like mine. Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
My answer to your questions, "What's your take on interracial marriage bans?  Good or bad?" is, "it depends".
So my question to you is, "Do societies have the right to determine what is socially, culturally or morally acceptable to that society?" Yes or no?

All of this over my expressing concern over one sentence: "They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change."

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." 
"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." 

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." 
Thomas Jefferson 



From: Scott Dredge 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:06 PM
To: editor at lataheagle.com 
Cc: viz 
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Persecution of Quakers: ShameOnOurPuritanForefathers


> Kai wrote:
> 
> For each of us, the truth will be revealed at death.
> 

Kai,

And when the truth is revealed to you, how will you feel about things that you were wrong about and your actions or non-actions to perpetuate injustices against other persecuted groups like same sex couples?  Do you think that in the great beyond that you will be asked to defend your stated position that 'separate but equal' treatment of same sex couples as appropriate in lieu of total equality which has no adverse affects you or your friends and family members?  And if you don't think that you will be asked to defend your stated position in the hereafter, then I'll ask you to defend it in the here and now and we'll all see if you are up to the task.

Also, I never did see your response to my specific question of 'If such an egregious and obvious wrong, why did interracial marriage bans existed in American society?'.

You did state that you were in an an interracial marriage (which appears to me for whatever reasons which are completely none of my business has now ended).  What a victory for equal rights and both you and your partner that society (or more accurately the activists courts) had revoked interracial marriage which was a reprehensible and indefensible wrong perpetrated on God knows how many interracial couples.  However, had interracial marriage bans been in effect during the time you were together with your partner, this still would have not prevented the two of you from creating offspring.  Thus the only perhaps negative effect on your child who in your words 'is the product of [your interracial] marriage' would have been that you, your partner, and your child would have not received the same rights / benefits / protections that are allowed to couples who are not banned from marrying.  Since you think that this is a perfectly appropriate situation for families of same sex couples to endure, I have mixed feelings when I say that it's unfortunate that you and your family were not subjected to this same type of treatment so that you all could then have personally experienced this situation of being an unequal family and thus clearly now be able to see all the injustices of this inequality.

Sorry y'all for all the very personal scenarios in this email.  Marriage is a deeply personal union and people have many different reasons for getting married, but they only have one for banning a particular group marrying - and that is intense dislike of that group.  Fight on for equality for same couples and their families.

Happy Thanksgiving all,

-Scott  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081126/069079a0/attachment.html