![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The movement is not trying to ban gay marriage. They'd like to ban gay marriage. But what would be a greater victory for them would be to define marriage. When the constitution is used to define , it usually ends up pretty bad for human beings.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution described how we would apportion representatives: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
This did not ban the humanity of slaves. It defined, for these purposes, the slaves as 3/5 of a person. The compromise was appropriate in only one (1) way: slave owners would have been disproportionally represented in congress if they had been allowed to count slaves for their population; a patently absurd notion since in no way would the congressional representatives have been representing the interests of slaves as constituents, but only the slave owners. So in that regard, counting slaves as less than was... marginally less insanely stupid (I cannot ever call it good or wise). HOWEVER, this served as a legal definition of less-than-full-personhood which permitted innumerable civil rights horrors that adhere even to this day. It permitted the legal enshrinement of a way of thinking, one that stubbornly guided thinking about African Americans for two hundred years: they are not persons, they are not fully human, they are not good enough, they are separate, they are other and so on. Every inch of their struggle was pushing through that barrier- first to say slavery was appalling, then that they could be separate but not equal, then to say that equality must be sought, then to say that they are more than entertainers, athletes, non-criminals, full participants-- inch by inch there have been gains which have always been in the shadow of this notion that somehow they are not fully human. A notion which was once legally enshrined in our Constitution.
The effort to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is very similar. Because instead of banning things it seeks to assert an affirmative definition of what marriage is. This definition then guides policy, court cases, debates, scholarship, science... until in 150 years, nobody is thinking about the definition anymore, they're just living with it. If they can win now, they will control history because three generations from now, no one will wonder.
It's not because no one will keep the faith. No one of substance will be allowed to participated in our society unless their thought pattern matches those of the defining language and thought processes of the society. Orwell describes it best in his appendix on Newspeak. Here is the original text of the Appendix on Newspeak by Orwell. "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever." The greater emphasis on definition, and narrowing definitions equates functionally to the Newspeak effort.
Please give this consideration as you turn over the issue of gay marriage in your mind. If definitions are established, it's exceedingly difficult to disestablish them. If words are set forth which define things to meet ideological needs, then the thoughts or systems of thought which follow will have a nearly impossible task to exist outside those definitions. This is not a joke, friends. This is not hyperbolic worrying, okay? Just because I say something sounds like 1984 does not mean it's necessarily so, but it also does not mean I'm tarring all my opponents with the brush of "Big Brother." It means that people may not have given full consideration to the impact such things have had historically.
Although, to tar many of my opponents with a big ol' brush here, some people have given full consideration, and this meets their aims precisely.
Ignorance is strength. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. GOP is Ingsoc.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution described how we would apportion representatives: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
This did not ban the humanity of slaves. It defined, for these purposes, the slaves as 3/5 of a person. The compromise was appropriate in only one (1) way: slave owners would have been disproportionally represented in congress if they had been allowed to count slaves for their population; a patently absurd notion since in no way would the congressional representatives have been representing the interests of slaves as constituents, but only the slave owners. So in that regard, counting slaves as less than was... marginally less insanely stupid (I cannot ever call it good or wise). HOWEVER, this served as a legal definition of less-than-full-personhood which permitted innumerable civil rights horrors that adhere even to this day. It permitted the legal enshrinement of a way of thinking, one that stubbornly guided thinking about African Americans for two hundred years: they are not persons, they are not fully human, they are not good enough, they are separate, they are other and so on. Every inch of their struggle was pushing through that barrier- first to say slavery was appalling, then that they could be separate but not equal, then to say that equality must be sought, then to say that they are more than entertainers, athletes, non-criminals, full participants-- inch by inch there have been gains which have always been in the shadow of this notion that somehow they are not fully human. A notion which was once legally enshrined in our Constitution.
The effort to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is very similar. Because instead of banning things it seeks to assert an affirmative definition of what marriage is. This definition then guides policy, court cases, debates, scholarship, science... until in 150 years, nobody is thinking about the definition anymore, they're just living with it. If they can win now, they will control history because three generations from now, no one will wonder.
It's not because no one will keep the faith. No one of substance will be allowed to participated in our society unless their thought pattern matches those of the defining language and thought processes of the society. Orwell describes it best in his appendix on Newspeak. Here is the original text of the Appendix on Newspeak by Orwell. "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever." The greater emphasis on definition, and narrowing definitions equates functionally to the Newspeak effort.
Please give this consideration as you turn over the issue of gay marriage in your mind. If definitions are established, it's exceedingly difficult to disestablish them. If words are set forth which define things to meet ideological needs, then the thoughts or systems of thought which follow will have a nearly impossible task to exist outside those definitions. This is not a joke, friends. This is not hyperbolic worrying, okay? Just because I say something sounds like 1984 does not mean it's necessarily so, but it also does not mean I'm tarring all my opponents with the brush of "Big Brother." It means that people may not have given full consideration to the impact such things have had historically.
Although, to tar many of my opponents with a big ol' brush here, some people have given full consideration, and this meets their aims precisely.
Ignorance is strength. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. GOP is Ingsoc.