What's at stake

[owlmoose]

Bloggers take a video arguing for Proposition 8 and replace every instance of "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage".

This is chillingly effective for a lot of reasons, but the thing that struck me immediately is that, had the California electorate been in the habit of voting on constitutional amendments in 1948, when the CA Supreme Court struck down the state's law against interracial marriage, not only could the opposition have made an ad exactly like this, they probably would have.

I said before that the fight for marriage equality is personal for me. This is the other reason why. Sixty years ago, within my parents' lifetime, people used this exact same rhetoric against my marriage. In some parts of the country, they still do. It's frightening and it's maddening and it's wrong. So I stand against it, and will continue to do so.

Comments

[bottle-of-shine.livejournal.com]

During History of Sexuality, I did a lot of research on miscegenation—I did my final paper and presentation on it. What struck me about so many of the sources I used wasn't the bigotry (given), but the fact that almost all of the language matched the language used today and a lot of that language rang true about women's rights, as well.

The language used to discriminate is exactly the same and that disturbs me that as a country, we're pulling out the same arguments, over and over, and the majority doesn't realize because they're not taught about history of these movements properly. That's a rant on how history is taught in public schools, though, and is a rant for another day. ;)

Come on, California. ♥