Today in the office, we were passing around this video from the Campaign for Southern Equality. As part of their new We Do campaign, same-sex couples are planning to ask for marriage licenses in Southern states. The installment posted above shows couples asking to marry in the college town of Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
You should see this, if only because this kind of activism, repeated in states around the country, is someday going to win. My experience with blogging stuff like this from my native Mississippi, which a few years ago voted to ban same-sex marriage by 86 percent, is that folks not from there tend to hop all over the state. I think I understand why evidence of people trying to make a place more progressive would cause progressives to gloat about that same place being backward. My challenge to you is not to do that this time, or anymore.
(Video by Saving Daylight.)
Leave a Comment:
YES!!! This is an example of what WE can do. It is only through this kind of activism that things in this country can change!
Thoreau, you would be proud!!!
I wish them all the best. The heart loves whom the heart loves - as long as it's love does "gender" matter......Peace
"The heart loves whom the heart loves." If this is to be the new criteria for marriage, we must expect more changes. Polygamists love each other, so why not let people have more than one spouse? A brother and sister might love each other sexually, so why not remove the ban on incestuous marriage? And if an adult and child profess to love one another sexually, why not abandon the age limits on marriage? These ideas may seem ridiculous now, but gay marriage seemed ridiculous 30 years ago. As people with different definitions of marriage begin to organize, we can expect lots of different groups to demand their civil rights to love and marry whomever they choose.
Hmm except that's not the context of what was said.
The statement is about gender alone not love. Nothing else.
Polygamists have plural marriage now. So that wouldn't change anything. Our system of marriage is designed for two individuals and those rights that it entails is meant for two. Legally it would send things into chaos however polygamists will and do in fact have marriage ceremonies it's just that it isn't legally recognized. If our system had factored polygamy into account when it was being formed this may not have been the case. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not about whether or not it should happen it's about whether or not government has a right to not allow it.
What's stopping incestous relationships now? You are aware of that? Surely you realize whether or not there could be marriage changes nothing. It's like with drugs having laws doesn't make a difference people who want that will do it no matter what. Honestly do you really think if that were to happen people would go out and marry their siblings just because it would be legal? Really? And if the siblings are getting married they've already had a sick set of reations with one another. You're not stopping anything.
Naturally you equate pedophilia with homosexuality, it always goes there at some point with you people. That and beastiality. Well while you think you're so clever you're entire argument is undone with "two consenting adults". Boom. There goes you're entire chain of thought. Again if you think marriage law is stopping any pedophilia then you've got to be an idiot. It shouldn't be changed but would make no difference in the real world. In reality you have to deal with things as they are not how you think they should be in idealism land. No one proposes anything you imply.
There is no reason we can not ban that unless you have a real reason. And no don't even try the civil rights argument we can do what we want nothing would stop us. Again two consenting adults, very simple.
The question is what right does government have to not allow two people to marry because of their gender. Answer that. Do it. You want to play slippery slope yet you leave out or aren't informed enough to see that would go both ways. If government can say two gays can not marry why couldn't say two people of different races could not. In fact all the very same anti-marriage equality arguments are identical to the fight over interracial marriage.
Who cares? Show the reason constitutionally that says the government could ban same sex marriage. Don't try to deflect with pedophilia or incest, or any of your other bull@!$%# grievances. How and why does gov't have that power? What happened then or in the future does not matter. If it's unconstitutional it is unconstitutional no matter what, when or where so that's all irrelavent.
You really think the nation will accept pedophiia? Really? Some confidence and love you have for america if you think that's plausible. Marriage is a fundamental right of adults alone who consent. Once again what's the gov't constitutional power that allows them to decide that? It doesn't matter how you feel about it, it's either in constitution or it isn't
The question is also; "what right does the Gov't have to regulate a religious ceremony in the first place?"
Sue, the only people talking about polygamy and incest as the next step are people like you. Advocates of marriage equality never do. You may not be able to distinguish between one thing and another, and judge each thing on it's own merits, but most people can. Don't project your inability, or unwillingness, to properly think things through on the rest of us. It's insulting and it's childish.
The irony is there is less polygamy when there is more gender equality which also gives marriage equality traction.
I don't know that I really have a problem with people who choose polygamy, but historically it has usually been non-consensual and that's where the problem is. The gay marriage movement has not, and has never and never will, argue for non-consensual marriage.
Indeed, marriage equality is the antithesis of non-consensual marriage. So comparing gay marriage to non-consensual marriage is like comparing black and white, up and down, east and west. They are opposites.
I suppose from their point of view it makes sense to link marriage equality to non-consensual relationships such as polygamy and incest since they don't consent to living in a world where either is allowed to exist. I suspect that's the linkage. They feel the same about both, so they think that they are the same.
Or it's just the kitchen-sink approach and they don't give a monkey's about making sense.
Just remember that the clerks are not judging you ( unless they make a personal comment), they are bound by law.
Also take note that The South is rarely southerners only anymore. Florida may have more Yankees than New York(especially this time of year). Even here in South Carolina we have lots of retired northerners who came here to live cheaply after earning big money up North.
The real problem is that religious zealots undermine democracy at every turn using their own interpretations of scripture.
I'm a Floridian and you are correct, my clients are often astounded to find out my family has been here for generations. I live in Central Florida, it's mostly a mix of Northerners, out of state college kids who go to UCF or Full Sail, and a large Puerto Rican population, not to mention our other very diverse hispanic population. And our Snow Birds.
We did have gay marriage iniatitive on our ballot back some years ago and it failed. I say give another four years and it may pass, especially between my voting age group, the current crop of 18-30 year olds and our new emeging voter's by 2016. The kids coming out of our high school's in the area and who will be voting in 2014 and 2016 are pro-equality in very large numbers.
I disagree with you on a narrow point, Paul S. Campbell. True, religious zealots are the problem here (as they are in all of our "culture war" issues), but I wonder if they really undermine democracy. In many red states, the populace elects fanatics to do just what they're doing; use the laws to force their theology on everyone. We think this is a terrible thing to do, but Teahadists and Teavangelicals couldn't get elected without the support of a majority of the voters in their jurisdictions. While they may be doing a reprehensible (and I think unconstitutional) thing, I don't think they're undermining democracy. They'd be easier to stop if they were.
Dont they allow men to participate? This video is all women. I'm happy for them, but it hardly seems equal if it's all one gender and not the other.
The point, you missed it.
Campaign for Southern Equality (CSE) has been active in counties in North Carolina and South Carolina and has included male couples in those situations. That none took part in Mississippi is not intentional. I wouldn't presume to speak for CSE but would strongly expect that male couples would be welcomed at all stops for the campaign.
Male couples were absolutely given the opportunity to participate. It just so happens that none chose to do so.
What @MechTrek said.
No one ever said they couldn't marry.The state may not applaud and recognize the union but I guess the government has to OK everything in the eyes of a progressive.Liberal churches will bless the marriage, you can wear your ring, trumpet from the roof tops about your affection for one another and by law, no one can bother you.The hyperbole and exaggeration leveled towards the south is absurd.You'd think plantations were still in operation and everyone is goose stepping to Wagner.
If the marriage is not recognized by law then the couple lose normal rights associated with marriage i.e. insurance under a family plan,hospital visitation,transfer of real property in case of death,survivor benefits and the list goes on. The south worked hard to get their reputation.
You beat me to it Paul.
The State must recognize the marriage for it to be valid. I married my husband and it certainly didn't take place in a church and a pastor didn't perform the ceremony. I could care less if any church recognized it, but it was a matter of importance that the State did (and the Federal government, let's not let them off the hook) for a all the reasons Paul listed above.
I don't know the answer so I will toss this one out for a legal expert. What if a gay couple gets legally married in one state and moves to another? There is the issue of where a contract is entered into so that even raises more situations.
Article IV:
Section 1.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner is which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Section 2.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privilieges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
If one goes strictly by the Constitution, a marriage legal in Washington must be recognized as legal in Missouri.
The problem over same-sex marriages has developed because, while the Constitution allows the Federal government final say over all legal matters affecting the several states, and even though marriage in this country is a civil contract, the states have been allowed to set the criteria to be met to be married; ie, age, biological relationship, and until Love vs VA, race, or divorced.
It's only been with the development of benefits that are specifically attached to those who are "married" that the idea of not recognizing another state's marriage laws has had any bite to it. The other part of the problem is that too many people who are married by a religious figure don't know that the minister is serving in two capacities; one being the head of a religious congregation and, the most important one, a second being that as a deputy of the County Clerk/Registrar.
Going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, there is no legal reason for a couple married in Washington, DC not being able to file a joint state tax return in Indiana.
Well, except for the RWNJs' paranoia...
Under DOMA, if the state moved to does not recognize same-sex marriage as legitimate. you have no marital rights... That's why declaring DOMA in the courts is so critical...
That should read, "... declaring DOMA unconstitutional ..."
This is AWESOME. Truly part of a long tradition of civil rights demonstrations in the South. What brave and wonderful women! Thank you for posting this.
I was thinking the same thing. It's similar in spirit to lunch-counter sit-ins: barging into public spaces where one is not 'supposed' to be.
This made me teary eyed.
Given the unfortunate legacy of South-bashing here, that challenge may not be met, Laura.
Good for them. Not every GSM person wants to live in SF or NYC, nor should they have to to live free and with dignity.
This really, really touched me as well because I grew up in Hattiesburg but now live in Massachusetts.
I have a really hard time explaining the complexities of the deep South to people who have never spent time there. Yes, there are still plenty of problems, but the blanket stereotypes don't hold. There's much more diversity of thought and lifestyle than people outside the area realize, even if it comes with a really thick drawl.
Thanks so much for posting this.