This isn’t even remotely true. It was done as part of the general push towards secularizing the state, and occurred even in nations that had no particular social taboo against interracial relationships.
Democrats were nicer Homophobes.
I don’t think anyone would argue against the principle that a “nice” slave master is better than a cruel or vicious slave master. You might get some push back on how big a proportion of slave owners could be classified as “nice,” and even more if you were suggesting that the “nice” slave owners were therefore good people, but I don’t think anyone has a problem with saying “this evil thing is less evil than that evil thing.”
But I wouldn’t compare the relationship between the democratic party and the gay community in the '80s and '90s as a slave-relationship. More of a protection racket. “Yeah, this is a nice pride festival youse got here. Be a real shame if some Republican came along and banned it. I can stop that from happening… if you pay up.” Clinton was pretty much the epitome of this brand of Democrat.
Cynicism aside, though, it turned out pretty good for us in the long run, and we’ve now got a party that can be credibly called “pro-gay,” and not just, “less homophobic.”
Bill Clinton can still go fuck himself, though.
In America it definitely is true.
45% of US adults identify as not religious. Where are they supposed to go to get a marriage license or to be married? Highly, highly doubt any church is going to get involved in establishing and enforcing custody, child or spousal support, much less property rights.
Is an actual cite in the offing? And “My post is my cite.” was used and failed years ago.
Except secular marriage already existed in the law when the colonies were founded. Bans against interracial marriage were amendments to existing laws, not the creation of a whole new legal structure for managing marriage contracts. And not every state enacted those bans, although a majority did.
Even hardcore libertarians will usually concede that the government should have a role in supervising and enforcing contracts. What is a marriage if not a contract?
Stop inviting them to C P A C.
Disavow the Values Voters and the Evangelical people.
I explained above.
I don’t identify as a Libertarian but as a moderate Republican, I have some Libertarian views.
In some sense, The gov’t shouldn’t have any say who you have sex with or procreate with. The idea that marriage is a religious, not gov’t, custom is not entirely lost on me. But many people no longer belong to an organized religious group.
But as basic part of society, such as land ownership, a justice system, building roads, etc. the govt got into the marriage business. Laws were made about who had to provide for children, who inherited what, etc.
But I don’t see any reason a marriage contract couldn’t exist between two homosexuals.
And I agree
Throughout the 1800s up until the 1960s they were controlling interracial marriages.
And the distinction between Civil and Religious Law is a relatively new concept, and not even practiced throughout the world today
Yes, secular marriage laws were used to excluded interracial marriage throughout much of the country. This is not the reason we have secular marriage.
It sure is a part of it yes!
Even in Secular societies, there is an Overlap between religious and secular law. A primarily Christian society, even if it is Secular (IE the US). the religious laws will at the very least influence Secular law. Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc societies, even if they are secular, have the same influence.
That’s like saying that since there were segregated bathrooms, plumbing was created to ensure racial purity. Your assertion is nonsense.
Cite, please.
You’re kidding, right? The reactionaries have controlled the guest list of CPAC for generations.