Originally Posted By TiggerRulz >>Ever ask a black person if they think you can compare the two issues?<< Yes I have - Congressman John Lewis, an actual Civil Rights era activist. Have you?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Also, the American people are good people. They knew slavery was wrong so they got rid of it.>> This is the most revisionist rose-colored poppycock I’ve seen in a very long time. While liberals like us, you included Beau, may think that women and African Americans having the right to vote and live with equal protection is wonderful, things were quite a bit different in those days. The American populace, especially in the mid-Atlantic, Southern, and mid-western states, were definitely not in favor these ideals. But even farther back, there was even a time in America when there was heated debate about having only white, male landowners able to vote. We have obviously come a long way, and I have little doubt that this trend will continue as younger generations grow to adulthood and older generations pass on. This the way it has been for centuries. These anti-gay views, like those of the racist, chauvinist Victorian America will become antiquated as history has proved time and time again. You have only to see where we’ve been to see that coming, like it or not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The American populace, especially in the mid-Atlantic, Southern, and mid-western states, were definitely not in favor these ideals.> I'm pretty sure that, in 1860, the majority of Americans were opposed to slavery.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I'm pretty sure that there were many, many Americans still in favor of slavery at the 1860 election as demonstrated by the votes in that election. Lincoln won but the Democratic party ran a candidate who was decidedly pro-slavery. I think it's pretty clear that there was not a huge anti-any-kind-of-slavery contingent. Even many Republicans were more interested in containing rather than abolishing slavery. The popular tide didn't really turn until later. I think if the majority of people in America at the time (and by people I mean rich white men) were anti-slavery, Lincoln would have garnered at least a majority of the votes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Lincoln won but the Democratic party ran a candidate who was decidedly pro-slavery.> Stephen Douglas was not pro-slavery, and he captured almost 30% of the vote. The only candidate who could be described as pro-slavery received less than 20% of the vote. Were a majority of Americans in 1860 willing to tear apart the Country in order to end slavery? No. Does this mean that they supported slavery? No again.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Given the attitude of the white south towards blacks even up until the 1960's (George Wallace, anyone?), I don't see how anyone can say with certainty that most americans were against slavery in the 1860's. The country was sparsely populated west of the Mississippi, and given the fact the Underground Railroad still operated after the slaves were freed, I'd say quite the opposite.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Matter of fact, I'd say it would be a tight vote in many southern states today if you put segregation to a vote. For that matter, if people in L.A. were allowed to vote for the segregation of blacks, latinos and whites, it could pass as well. So to say a certain percentage of people voted for a gay marriage ban so therefore should stand ignores the overriding issue of the constitutionality of the thing voted upon. If segregation were voted in, should that be kept as well? Of course not. Same with a ban on gay marriage. What cracks me up is what part of targeting a specific group and making them a suspect class don't people understand?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Given the attitude of the white south towards blacks even up until the 1960's (George Wallace, anyone?), I don't see how anyone can say with certainty that most americans were against slavery in the 1860's.> The white south were a minority of the population in the 1860's.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The white south were a minority of the population in the 1860's." Even if true, an utterly useless statistic. They obviously had all the power.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo It depends on what you mean by opposed. If you mean that the majority of Americans did not own slaves for whatever reasons, be they moral, economic, etc… then yes. This was true in the south as well as relatively few, even among Confederates, held slaves. However, most Americans in 1860 had little, if any, affinity toward African Americans and, outside of the abolitionist movement, there was hardly a large movement toward freeing the Southern slaves. American population in 1860 was not willing, nor ready to enact such changes on behalf of the black man. Doesn’t sound like the oh so kind and fair minded American population Beau seems to believe in, that due to American population’s kindness freed the slaves. This is essentially the point I was refuting. I’ve been a living historian (reenactor) of the Civil War era for nearly 15 years and have read literally hundreds of letters and documents from Union soldiers and have come across maybe ten or twelve who even mention slavery as their motive for fighting. Also, Stephen Douglas my not have been “proâ€-slavery, but he wasn’t against either, rather opting for a States Rights position. But look at the other candidates, John Breckenridge and Bell were both pro slavery. This means that a good 60% of the nation was at either indifferent or pro-slavery according to the overall polling data from the 1860 election.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They obviously had all the power.> In the south, sure. But not in the country.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Also, Stephen Douglas my not have been “proâ€-slavery, but he wasn’t against either, rather opting for a States Rights position.> That's not been my read. <But look at the other candidates, John Breckenridge and Bell were both pro slavery.> I disagree. The Constitution party candidate, like Douglas, appeared to be opposed to slavery, but willing to leave it as a state rights issue.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There's opposed and then there's opposed. Abolitionism - the actual opposition to slavery nationwide - was a minority position even in the north. A large percentage of the populace was not "pro-slavery" per se, but believed it should be allowed to continue in the states that had it. For quite a while Lincoln himself was of this opinion. It may not make them "pro-slavery" per se, but in practice it did mean that a large percentage of the populace was perfectly willing to keep millions of black people enslaved in their country, if not in their own state.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A large percentage of the populace was not "pro-slavery" per se, but believed it should be allowed to continue in the states that had it. For quite a while Lincoln himself was of this opinion.> Change the "should" to "could", and I agree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And yet, 5 years later, the slaves were free. Obviously, a majority of Americans were not supportive of slavery, and talking about it really doesn't prove anything one way or another on the issue of gay marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And yet, 5 years later, the slaves were free. Obviously, a majority of Americans were not supportive of slavery,> That doesn't quite follow. Most northerners did not favor abolishing slavery in the south before the war, but they couldn't really do much about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was essentially a fait accompli. <and talking about it really doesn't prove anything one way or another on the issue of gay marriage.> Basically, I agree; it wasn't me who brought up the whole issue. It IS true, however, that sometimes when the public is "goosed" along to favoring the right thing (your own example of slavery, which most did not favor abolishing before the war, or various state courts overturning the ban on interracial marriage prior to Loving v. VA, for example), the public comes to see the new situation as the right thing to have done, even if they were lukewarm or perhaps hostile to the idea previously. The same thing will occur with gay marriage, I believe.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It must be a lot easier to be opposed to extending equal rights and benefits to gay couples if you're not gay yourself. It has no impact on your individual status. But if that's true, then the converse must also be true - that in order to have a voice in whether or not to extend equal rights to gay couples, you must have some kind of standing - that is, you must show that you would be aggrieved or harmed in the process. So if you believe that equality should NOT be extended to gay couples, what effect would it have on you personally? Maybe none?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Most northerners did not favor abolishing slavery in the south before the war, but they couldn't really do much about the Emancipation Proclamation.> The data does not support your premise. Neither slavery or interracial marriage had the opposition that recognition of gay marriage has. When the people were given the chance to vote on slavery or interracial marriage, most places chose to end or not allow slavery and to allow interracial marriage. The same is not true of recognizing gay marriage.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But if that's true, then the converse must also be true - that in order to have a voice in whether or not to extend equal rights to gay couples, you must have some kind of standing - that is, you must show that you would be aggrieved or harmed in the process.> Your second statement is not the converse of your first. <So if you believe that equality should NOT be extended to gay couples, what effect would it have on you personally?> I believe that equality should be extended to gay couples. I do not believe that legal recognition of marriage is an equality. It's a special benefit given to heterosexual couples because they tend to have children, and society wants to encourage them to form stable relationships in which to raise those children.
