"Separate but equal"

Сообщение от Squishalot

Ok, I see where you're coming from. However, it doesn't satisfactorily answer the question.

zdouse actually points out the issue - 'separate but equal' was the problem that you describe because they weren't actually equal. The separation associated with different buses, drinking fountains etc. is very different from a 'separation' associated with naming conventions. So how is the 'separate but equal' concept applied to cases where two groups would actually have precisely the same rights and treatment under the law, and separation only in name?

My point wasn't that the language used in the specific instance was itself derogatory, my point was that language used in that context always sounds derogatory in modern American thought on prejudice.

I don't see why it is. A private school student is afforded exactly the same rights under law as a public school student - if someone's a public school student, is that somehow derogatory? Or vice versa?

Unless, of course, you're referring to the context of gay marriage, in which case, again, it's homophobia that's interpreting the prejudice against any terms associated with it.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Сообщение от pezz

There's a belief, I believe, that that can never really happen.

It didn't happen under Jim Crow (despite the fact that it was supposed to), and now people say 'oh why can't gays be happy with civil unions' when in a lot of states they aren't allowed that.

To some extent it's a slippery slope argument. Separate but equal is not a phrase that Americans as a group tend to believe remains true for very long. At least not the equal part.

Сообщение от Jubilee

Yes it is very different, which is why I really have nothing to say on the matter of marriage. It's just semantics, not separation in the sense of the word implied by the phrase.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Yes it is very different, which is why I really have nothing to say on the matter of marriage. It's just semantics, not separation in the sense of the word implied by the phrase.

Ah, ok. So essentially, the idea of 'separate but equal' as an objection to there being two names for the same principle is not what you associate with the term 'separate but equal'?

Сообщение от Gone

/fart

Thats all

No seriously...

No not really. The thing is "constitutional" and "moral" or "just" do not mean the same thing. Segregation may be wrong, but Im not sure its really unconstitutional, as long as things really are equal. But the thing is if you have two different schools, two different buses, two different drinking fountains, it costs twice as much money tto keep these things running, so lets say you have enough money for just one school to get new books, and the white school gets it then things are no longer equal are they? And honestly the whole spirit of segregation is kind of built out of hate, people not wanting to intermingle with people who are different and such.

As for the marriage thing...

#$%^ it I dont have the energy.

Сообщение от Tartonga

What are the specific issues of segregation that U.S. has?

Not so much as "has" but "had" and Jim Crow laws answer that question.

The South African Apartheid was almost exactly the US Jim Crow laws.

That's what I was going to say >_<

Сообщение от Jubilee

Yeah, the term has a very specific connotation in political/historical theory, based in the Supreme Court case of Brown vs The Board of Education. Here's where the term gets its legal use:

"We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Essentially, the Supreme Court decided that an active separation inherently created inequality. In the case of naming something, there is no active separation, just semantics.

Сообщение от Pwntiff

Giving different names to an abstract is still actively separating it.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Ok then, that's good to clarify your view.

The reason this came up is because 'separate but equal' keeps coming up in the marriage thread on the basis that giving homosexual couples the same rights as marriage, but labelling it as a 'civil union' would be seen as breaching the 'separate but equal' principle and therefore be unconstitutional. I personally thought that that idea was semantics and a load of crap, but people kept pushing the line, so I wanted to understand it better.

Giving different names to an abstract is still actively separating it.

Howso?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Сообщение от Tartonga

So, people had a wrong idea of what "separate but equal" ended meaning?

Сообщение от Pwntiff

Giving different names to an abstract is still actively separating it.

Howso?

The way I look at it at least. That's the problem with abstracts. If "two" abstracts are identical, why give them different names? If same-sex marriages are called civil unions to protect the "sanctity of marriage" then call all marriages performed under non-religious settings "civil unions."

Сообщение от Jubilee

They aren't identical. On the most basic level, one's heterosexual and the other's homosexual. On a more complex level, social understanding of the separation predates any formulated legal semantic separation.

Сообщение от pezz

Сообщение от Gone

If same-sex marriages are called civil unions to protect the "sanctity of marriage" then call all marriages performed under non-religious settings "civil unions."

There's another problem with this kind of language. If homosexuals have to have civil unions to protect 'sanctity' that implies the fact that heterosexual marriages are morally superior to homosexual ones. It's fine if you want to say that, as a private individual/organized religion, but you can't codify that kind of language in law.

No its implieing that marriage preformed under religious settings would hold a sanctity to people under that religion that civil unions would not, and if somone is not a practitioner of said religion than it shouldnt make a difference to them anyway. I think pwntiff makes a very good point, drawing the line between religious and other forms of marriage would have a similar effect to drawing the line between hetrosexual and homosexual marriage, and wouldnt really offend as many people.

Сообщение от Tartonga

Сообщение от Gone

Сообщение от Skreeran

Gonna agree with several people in here in that the biggest problem is when is when it's separate but not equal. To quote Animal Farm "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

In an ideal world, Seperate But Equal laws would be harmless. But we unfortunately do not live in such a world. Defining a minority group of people as innately different than the rest fosters mistrust, misunderstanding, and even outright hatred. It's the perfect breeding ground for "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Edit: It might help if you imagine that you are talking about interracial marriage instead of homosexual marriage. Imagine if we lived in the 30s and were discussing legalizing interracial marriage. If someone suggested "Well, I believe God instilled marriage as between a white man and a white woman. If someone wants to be with a &*%$@#, but don't call it marriage. Marriage is for me only."

Сообщение от Tartonga

Сообщение от Gone

No its implieing that marriage preformed under religious settings would hold a sanctity to people under that religion that civil unions would not, and if somone is not a practitioner of said religion than it shouldnt make a difference to them anyway. I think pwntiff makes a very good point, drawing the line between religious and other forms of marriage would have a similar effect to drawing the line between hetrosexual and homosexual marriage, and wouldnt really offend as many people.

Atheists can get married in churches if their couple is religious. Could then homosexuals get married by the church?

/shrug didnt say it was perfect, in situations like this there will never be anything that keeps everybody happy. Just that drawing the line between religious and civil ceremonies is less offensive to gays who would want to get married than putting the line between homosexual and heterosexual.

Haha, and what about religious gays =P?

I said less offensive, not completley unoffensive. Situations like this are always tricky, whatever people do, somone will be offended somewhere. But if the line is drawn between religious and civil ceremonies than it just depends on their religion, many religions do not recognize gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, but not all of them. Its certinly less offensive than any heterosexual couple being able to marry and no homosexual couple having that same eligibility.

Сообщение от Orranis

I thought that equal but separate was constitutional, but when they were separated it wasn't equal.

Although I know I should know this and I probably sound stupid as I live in the U.S...

I think you're right. The idea of 'Separate but Equal' was deemed constitutional, however, segregation was deemed to not fit this idea in real life, and thus was outlawed.

"Separate but equal"

Ответить