*what* slippery slope?
Jul. 11th, 2004 11:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wench"If we allow blacks and whites to marry, what's next? Men marrying other men, sisters marrying brothers, or people marrying their pets?"
It's been a long time since miscegenation laws were struck down in this country. I think the last laws were struck down well over 30 years ago, and it's taken this long before gays have found the collective courage to raise their voices to ask for the right to marry.
The gears of legislation and jurisprudence grind slow but fine in this country. How long does it take to enact laws and amendments on average? Oddly, laws to limit rights seem to pass with lightning speed, but laws that protect the minority drag on and on. Take a look at the ERA; in all it's simplicity*, it still has not passed ratification.
There is no legislative "slippery slope".
When the zoophiles and those who wish to marry siblings bring their cases before judicial review, there will be a protracted debate about the consequences of allowing such unions to be legal. There will be the usual name calling, appeals to religion, outbursts based on visceral reactions (the squick factor), just as there are today over gay marriage, and back when whites and blacks wanted to marry and raise families.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
*Oh, for those who don't know, the entire text of the ERA is included below:
It has been ratified by 35 of the needed thirty-eight states.
It's been a long time since miscegenation laws were struck down in this country. I think the last laws were struck down well over 30 years ago, and it's taken this long before gays have found the collective courage to raise their voices to ask for the right to marry.
The gears of legislation and jurisprudence grind slow but fine in this country. How long does it take to enact laws and amendments on average? Oddly, laws to limit rights seem to pass with lightning speed, but laws that protect the minority drag on and on. Take a look at the ERA; in all it's simplicity*, it still has not passed ratification.
There is no legislative "slippery slope".
When the zoophiles and those who wish to marry siblings bring their cases before judicial review, there will be a protracted debate about the consequences of allowing such unions to be legal. There will be the usual name calling, appeals to religion, outbursts based on visceral reactions (the squick factor), just as there are today over gay marriage, and back when whites and blacks wanted to marry and raise families.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
*Oh, for those who don't know, the entire text of the ERA is included below:
Proposed E. R. A. (1972)
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
It has been ratified by 35 of the needed thirty-eight states.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 05:04 pm (UTC)More seriously: the ERA has actually been around since 1923, but wasn't approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification until 1972 (!) Having missed deadlines for ratification, it now seems to be dead in the water. From Wikipedia:
Opponents of the ERA argue that its passage would have far-reaching implications, obliterating sensible distinctions between gender. Women would be required to register for the Selective Service System (the draft) just as men currently do, and serve in combat just as men do. They claim that the amendment would also remove laws that specially protect women, such as labor laws in heavy industry. Some states have ordered taxpayers to pay for abortions by women based on a state equal rights amendment, under the theory that women must have full health care as men do. Gay marriage could be ordered by courts based on ERA, as Hawaii did based on its state equal rights amendment. Single sex schools or sports teams could be ordered to be integrated on the theory that men and women must be treated alike under ERA, as a Washington state court ordered a fraternal civic organization to admit women.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 09:56 pm (UTC)