Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[HomerJS]

Just to pick a nit, "separate but equal" can quite often be truly equal. Often in US history "separate but equal" was used to refer to things that were separate and unequal. For example, "separate but equal" schools for blacks and whites were often not close at all to being equal. Yes, there was equity in that both were schools, but there was not true equity in the service provided.

However, take some Crow-era 'blacks only' water fountains. If they used the same municipal water supply and there was equal access to them, they were truly separate but equal.

The same could be true for gay marriage. Many states have civil union laws which afford most of the same benefits as marriage. This is not equal, though, as most civil unions don't get all the benefits of marriage. But, if civil unions were given identical benefits and access as marriage they would be "separate but equal".

I have heard the argument that civil unions, even if identical to marriage in all operations save name, are not equal to marriage because of the name difference. That's bullshit. At that point there is no oppression and no material difference, just an inferiority complex that "Your chocolate ice cream is better than my chocolate cream". Fine, rename civil unions 'super-marriage' then.

I am pro-gay marriage. Earlier in this thread I voiced an opinion supporting the "homophobic bigots" not because I agreed with their underlying position but because I felt that their legal argument had some validity. After a thoughtful conversation I changed my position on the legal argument.

But I just felt the need to say that the time-worn cliche of "separate but equal is never equal" is wrong. "Separate but equal" can be equal but people don't think so because it has been applied to so many things that were never equal to begin with.

This post is completly wothless. It tries to codify Plessey v Furgeuson. That was overturned by Brown v Board of Education.

 

[Craig234]

This post is completly wothless. It tries to codify Plessey v Furgeuson. That was overturned by Brown v Board of Education.

I think what Sactoking is arguing is that it's possible to have physically 'equal' separate things.

Sometimes, separate things are unequal, like, say, a poorly funded school for blacks, but having identical drinking fountains or bathrooms can be 'equal'.

I think he misses the point. The very act of saying 'you blacks are not allowed to drink from the same fountain and there are separate ones' is an act of inequality.

There's no other reason to have the separate items except to say 'we desire to not have blacks use our fountains', which is a discriminatory, bigoted sentiment.

It's a bit like calling gay marriage 'civil unions' - the only reason is bigotry.

 

[werepossum]

I think what Sactoking is arguing is that it's possible to have physically 'equal' separate things.

Sometimes, separate things are unequal, like, say, a poorly funded school for blacks, but having identical drinking fountains or bathrooms can be 'equal'.

I think he misses the point. The very act of saying 'you blacks are not allowed to drink from the same fountain and there are separate ones' is an act of inequality.

There's no other reason to have the separate items except to say 'we desire to not have blacks use our fountains', which is a discriminatory, bigoted sentiment.

It's a bit like calling gay marriage 'civil unions' - the only reason is bigotry.

I agree. The only point is having "separate but equal" would be to keep things unequal. Otherwise it's just a duplication of effort and a waste of resources.

The same people who push to keep blacks segregated of gays from being allowed to marry will also fight to keep black-only facilities of less quality and gay civil unions from having all the benefits of "real" marriage. Government should never be allowed to discriminate except where it can demonstrate a clear and compelling societal need that can be fulfilled in no other way.