Texas attorney general works around gay marriage decision

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-29-2015, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959



For Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”



 As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.” This same rationale was later adopted by state supreme courts in Alabama, Indiana and Virginia to justify bans on interracial marriage, and by justices in Kentucky to support residential segregation and segregated colleges.



Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.  This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. 



Tell the Church I Love my Wife: Race, Marriage and Law – An American History by Peter Wallenstein. Christianity and religions come up in several places in the book. Sometimes it refers to ways Christians oppose interracial marriage. For example, President Truman articulated that he believed that interracial marriage was inconsistent with the Bible.  Wallenstein also pointed out how religion was used to challenge interracial marriage such as in the 1960s when various religious figures enunciated an opposition to bans of interracial marriage.





Educate yourelf, Lucy.

Is this what is meant by "Christian morality"? 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959



For Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”



 As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.” This same rationale was later adopted by state supreme courts in Alabama, Indiana and Virginia to justify bans on interracial marriage, and by justices in Kentucky to support residential segregation and segregated colleges.



Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.  This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. 



Tell the Church I Love my Wife: Race, Marriage and Law – An American History by Peter Wallenstein. Christianity and religions come up in several places in the book. Sometimes it refers to ways Christians oppose interracial marriage. For example, President Truman articulated that he believed that interracial marriage was inconsistent with the Bible.  Wallenstein also pointed out how religion was used to challenge interracial marriage such as in the 1960s when various religious figures enunciated an opposition to bans of interracial marriage.





Educate yourelf, Lucy.

Hey fred its 2015. Not the 1860's, 1959
0's, or 1970's. Unless you attend church via a time machine none of this is relevant nor taught in any modern church.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-29-2015, 03:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey fred its 2015.   Not the 1860's, 1959
0's, or 1970's.    Unless you attend church via a time machine none of this is relevant nor taught in any modern church.

So what you're saying, as it relates to the Texas Attorney General........This too shall pass and his ignorance and intolerance shall disappear much like what Fred posted.  Thus rendering your "concerns" irrelevant.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 03:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey fred its 2015.   Not the 1860's, 1959
0's, or 1970's.    Unless you attend church via a time machine none of this is relevant nor taught in any modern church.

any church?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/04/25/texas-appleby-baptist-church-pushes-racist-doctrine/

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 04:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: any church?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/04/25/texas-appleby-baptist-church-pushes-racist-doctrine/

Southern poverty law center ... Lol great track record there.

NO idea what that church is about but there is always small groups everywhere. I doubt their reach is anything significant.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 04:01 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So what you're saying, as it relates to the Texas Attorney General........This too shall pass and his ignorance and intolerance shall disappear much like what Fred posted.  Thus rendering your "concerns" irrelevant.

I do not live in Texas so I have no skin the game either way .... How they do their business is theirs to decide. I really don't care what they do, but I know some Florida counties did the same when there was a court case before. And I think counties can do as they choose. If anyone wants to sue them they are more than welcome.

I just posted a story that was relevant to the days news.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-29-2015, 04:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I do not live in Texas so I have no skin the game either way ....  How they do their business is theirs to decide.      I really don't care what they do, but I know some Florida counties did the same when there was a court case before.    And I think counties can do as they choose.    If anyone wants to sue them they are more than welcome.  

I just posted a story that was relevant to the days news.

Well...With that Iranian Gay Bomb coming, you'll have some skin in the game then......

The exact same things happened when Interracial marriage was legalized, when integration was handed down.  So what.  In the end no one holds on to this type of bigotry for too long and everything gets back to being how it should.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 04:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: any church?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/04/25/texas-appleby-baptist-church-pushes-racist-doctrine/

Huge congregation here ....  





Look this is exactly what I am talking about .... Trying to find some ridculous point to avoid the topic a hand.    

Yes pat these 10's of people are not good people.   Now can we get back to the real topic or would you rather continue to bring up nonsense.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Southern poverty law center ... Lol great track record there.    

NO idea what that church is about but there is always small groups everywhere.  I doubt their reach is anything significant.

Are you saying that their religious rights should be ignored? If I am a justice of the peace in Texas who opposes giving licenses to gay couples, why is my religious conviction worth more than someone's conviction that interracial marriage is wrong?

You can't pick and choose.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 04:14 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Well...With that Iranian Gay Bomb coming, you'll have some skin in the game then......

The exact same things happened when Interracial marriage was legalized, when integration was handed down.  So what.  In the end no one holds on to this type of bigotry for too long and everything gets back to being how it should.

Not sure what the Iranian gay bomb is supposed to be....

And this is what happens when you don't allow these things to happen organically. And to compare this to blacks is wrong.... Gays don't even come close to the bigotry nlacks suffered. Gays biggest problem is they can't get wedding pizza or a wedding cake from a religious family.

Blacks actually had real problems.

[StLucieBengal]

Something tells me blacks would have loved to have the problems of marriage and baked goods.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-29-2015, 04:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Something tells me blacks would have loved to have the problems of marriage and baked goods.

I'm not sure I follow...Are you saying that since the issues that the GLTB community face aren't as bad as what Black people had to face, that some how make them irrelevant?  or are you saying something else.  How about you clearly write it out for me so I don't misunderstand your position.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-29-2015, 04:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Gays biggest problem is they can't get wedding pizza or a wedding cake from a religious family.  

You can't truly be this blind can you?

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2015, 03:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey fred its 2015.   Not the 1860's, 1959
0's, or 1970's.    Unless you attend church via a time machine none of this is relevant nor taught in any modern church.

There are still people who believe being left-handed is morally wrong and a choice, so it takes forever to completely remove an idea from our collective minds.  With that being said, I do believe you are correct in your assertions that eventually denying gays the right to marry will be seen as ill-conceived and poorly defended as denying heterosexual couples of differing races the right to marry once was.

Are you implying that your own stance on this issue will be irrelevant soon?

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2015, 03:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey fred its 2015.   Not the 1860's, 1959
0's, or 1970's.    Unless you attend church via a time machine none of this is relevant nor taught in any modern church.

All it does is prove how wrong the people are who rely on religious beliefs.

In 50 years people will be talking about you the exact same way we are talking about these evil morons from the 50's and 60's.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2015, 04:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:   Gays biggest problem is they can't get wedding pizza or a wedding cake from a religious family.  

Blacks actually had real problems.

Gays couldn't get social security survivor benefits.

Gays could not adopt.

Gays could be forced to testify against their life partners in criminal cases.

Gays could not take advantage of tax benefits.







Thanks again for proving your ignorance on this topic.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 04:42 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I'm not sure I follow...Are you saying that since the issues that the GLTB community face aren't as bad as what Black people had to face, that some how make them irrelevant?  or are you saying something else.  How about you clearly write it out for me so I don't misunderstand your position.

Not saying they aren't real problems. But to compare anything that blacks went through to what gays are going through in regards to marriage is irresponsible and takes away from the real fight blacks had over the years.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2015, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Gays couldn't get social security survivor benefits.

Gays could not adopt.

Gays could be forced to testify against their life partners in criminal cases.

Gays could not take advantage of tax benefits.







Thanks again for proving your ignorance on this topic.

Don't be daft...the only thing gays were denied is a pizza-catered wedding from a specific pizza place in Indiana, as well as something involving a gay cakes.  That's it...they're really being big ol' drama queens and as a white male I can tell you that everything is peachy and everyone has it just fine!

[StLucieBengal]

(06-29-2015, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Gays couldn't get social security survivor benefits.

Gays could not adopt.

Gays could be forced to testify against their life partners in criminal cases.

Gays could not take advantage of tax benefits.







Thanks again for proving your ignorance on this topic.

Gays can't adopt? Since when? Got some friends who adopted and they are gay.

So why not jusy take away the tax benefits and allow someone to name a benefactor for social security? I bet those two things would pass no problems.

As far as testifying I am not as concerned with that, don't break the law.

[Bengalholic]

In general, and more specifically on the SSM topic...I've always found it funny that someone who bangs the drum of rights, freedoms and civil liberties...can, in the very next breath, argue to deny those same rights, freedoms and liberties to groups of people they don't agree with or approve of.