History question

[vicarz]

Has this country ever actually taken to time to create laws to deny rights to people? I always thought that racism rather than being codified by law was simply covered by determining that it didn't apply to certain people. I'm amazed at how many legislatures are actively creating anti-gay-rights drafts right now, and of course dubya. I'm more thrilled that these leaders will probably be rewarded by the American public who also is anti-gay rights, marriage, and the whole 9 yards. Again, if you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay?

Comments

[citizen-ken.livejournal.com]

Yes, we have created LAWS to deny rights to people. I don't have time to cite/argue specifics. What is freaky to me is that anyone could seriously suggest that we amend the BILL OF RIGHTS to block, rather than extend, a right to any citizen of the u.s.

What about...

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

The whole slew of Jim Crow laws in the last century? Slavery regulations? Laws preventing 3 or more unrelated women from living in the same house together?

Re: What about...

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Jim Crow, that's true, though I'd argue it was more of a definition issue - but the same can be said of the marriage thingy. Slavery was a case where they simply said they weren't human. 3 or more women was probably more brothel related.

Good points though.

Me no history good.

Re: What about...

[anarcha.livejournal.com]

"3 or more women was probably more brothel related."

Definitely. However, couldn't one also argue that legislation prohibiting gays from marrying is more morality related than a discrimination issue?

The above is definitely NOT my view on the subject, just making a point on just how flexible definitions can be.

In both cases, public morality is used as an alter-ego for discrimination.

As long as marriage exists, then I'm for gay marriage, but in point of fact, I don't think ANY MARRIAGE should be recognized by the government at all -- it's a vestige of the last century, when you had a division of labor where one stayed home and the other worked. The world has changed tremendously since then.

Marriage should be a religious institution only, in the same way as being born-again or confirmed or going through a bar mitzvah (i.e. you get nuttin from the gubmint just cuz you were born again). Everyone should have to file individual taxes, etc. regardless of whether you have a ring on your finger or not.

Re: What about...

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Ah - many good points. The only problem is I've seen your place, and yes...your views on brothels are VERY apparent. Harumph!

Wait a minute...there may be an angle here. I could be born-again, and erase all my criminal convictions! They want christianity in government? Well she-it, lets give it to them!

Re: What about...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

The only real legal purpose I see in marriage is in establishing guardianship of and responsibility for children. Granted, that whole issue is a quagmire anyway, but it is convenient to have some sort of automatic designation of who is responsible for minor members of a family.

The other issue is similar, inasmuch as it has to do with establishing a kinship relationship between unrelated people. There are an awful lot of things in our society that are specific to families or next-of-kin, and adoption and marriage are the only ways we've got to include someone by default into a family.

Maybe that's the solution. Gays should ADOPT their partners...

[n8-zilla.livejournal.com]

prohibition was the only constitutional change
designed to limit freedom. there were plenty of
laws regarding race, but they were never put into
the constitution.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Well, there is the whole bit in the Constitution that counts Blacks as 3/5 of a person and Indians as 1/2.

[grymnir.livejournal.com]

The Constitution ORIGINALLY cast blacks and Indians as less than a "whole person" when defining the number of representatives for congress; whole people = white male of legal age.

The Federal laws also inhibit polygamy, in specific to counter the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - Mormons. (Actually - I may need to verify that this is Federal and not just Utah.)

Now- that said - there have been a number of laws passed in many states over the past 200 years to add "conditions" to several rights (or assumed rights) including: sodomy, cohabitation, voting, and probably others. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass, of course - though several of its measures were of contentious value and effect.

I don't know if it is still on the books today, but Fairfax County, for instance, has several laws about cohabitation. For that matter, Mongomery County still has - we hear about them in the context of large immigrant families overstuffing a structure, but the same "legal language" prohibits more than "x" number of unmarried adults of mixed gender living together.

There are also the number of laws that have never been cleared from the books - these probably include restrictions, though we hear more about the "walking on the right when a woman and man are on the sidewalk" or "must have a sword when in public" (VA) or "must carry a rifle when the family goes to church" (MD).