Real Name: Ray Harwick Member Since: June 22, 2008 Last Signed In: November 25, 2009 Profile Views: 2037 Blog Views: 13830 Teen says "I hate being gay" - A gay Christian responds Today in Traditional Marriage Christians can't get arrested In Washington D.C. Religious Right "trawling for assassins" Traditional Marriage News, Fri., Nov 13, 2009 Sanctity of Marriage Gets Broadsided: Husbands Abandon Wives With Cancer Republican National Committee, Baby Killers? Rhode Island Gov. vetoes bill allowing gays to bury their partners How To Open A Bottle Of Wine Without A Cork Screw Mental Health Break: Tricked On Halloween July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln on "negroes, foreigners and Catholics"
In an 1855 letter to his longtime friend Joshua Speed, Lincoln wrote: "I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." Lincoln saw what a fatuous argument "popular sovereignty" was -- that it really is the destruction of self-government to allow fundamental rights to be determined by the whims of the majority. The Declaration precedes the Constitution. "All men are created equal" is the necessary preface to "We the People." Equal rights and the consent of the governed are the principles that make self-government intelligible in the first place. Without them, of course, there are no limits to what majorities can enact, including doing away with democratic rule. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that lurking in Douglas's doctrine of popular sovereignty were the same arguments used to justify the divine right of kings. Once "all men are created equal" is dispensed with, once it is no longer held to apply to a certain group of people, what might limit the arbitrary rule of a few, or one, over other groups without their consent? I understand, of course, the "legitimacy" victories in the democratic process confer on any movement. But for me, the legitimacy of the love and relationships of gay couples already is there. It's a right, grounded in our basic equality. And no majority should be able to take that away. So there's a real ambivalence here. Insert "gay" for "negroes" in Lincoln's letter and my point is made. Lincoln's logic resonates still. No historical analogies are perfect, of course. But this is a great irony, no? The Party of Lincoln is now aping the discredited arguments of Stephen Douglas (and for that matter, John C. Calhoun). Credit: Daily Dish
24 comments from 8 users
1
posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Nov 5, 2009 at 01:58 PM
It is quite amazing at how many Americans tout precident of our history, yet barely know or comprehend said history.
Lincoln was definitely able to understand the real concepts and framework of our constitution. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 02:11 PM
And for "know-nothings" substitute "teabaggers" to bring the quote fully up to date. Jefferson also foresaw the rise of the teabagging phenomenon (he saw it in Shay's Rebellion.) He saw it as a good thing if the government had to shoot a few ignorant teabaggers now and again...watering the tree of liberty and all that. posted by
Ray_Harwick
on Nov 5, 2009 at 02:15 PM
And for "know-nothings" substitute "teabaggers" to bring the quote fully up to date. It crossed my mind, but with Obama's opposition to marriage, I'm striving to be all-inclusive. posted by
FloridaStateGrad
on Nov 5, 2009 at 02:30 PM
I actually agree with Obama on gay marriage - it shouldn't be a Federal issue, it should be a State issue. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Just like straight marriage. Discrimination law, however, *IS* a federal issue under the 14th Amendment. Hence: Loving v. Virginia applied everywhere, not just Virginia. And the "DOMA" law is long-past time for its overturning. posted by
pogo
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:04 PM
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers No. 10, defined factions and why we must be ever alert to the dangers of them. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:06 PM
And George Washington warned us against political parties. posted by
paxchristi3
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Wonder what ol' Abe would've said to Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage: posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:38 PM
Being a lawyer, he'd probably agree 100 percent, Pax. Why wouldn't he? He could face the truth. That's why he was a Freethinker, not a Christian. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Why would the guy who wrote *THIS* have any problem with same-sex marriage? For Reuben and Charles have married two girls, posted by
pogo
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:41 PM
So marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race. Nice. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 03:43 PM
So marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race Progress, of a sort. Pax would define it as being between a man and a woman, both Roman Catholic. "Bastard" used to mean the offspring of a union not performed by a priest. posted by
Ray_Harwick
on Nov 5, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Wonder what ol' Abe would've said to Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage: Can't you read? "All men are created equal." Understandable that two professors of religion would discover every "claim" unfounded, especially when the claims they list are not based upon the reason most people marry. So whatever morality based nuance the McGill professors can contrive, citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. That's Lincoln's position. Before it became an equality issue, the vast majority of the citizens of the US married for the most basic reason that they wanted to demonstrate how seriously they took their relationship. It has always been an act of responsibility between two people. Gays, who are products of the culture that embraces that "act of responsibility" notion of American culture, seek to do the same thing in their personal relationship. Seeing as how Personal Responsibility is a ****CORE*** value of conservatism, no amount of weaseling by McGill even addresses or acknowledges the existence of an approach to marriage as an act of responsibility toward another person in spite of the millions of people who marry for that reason - ALONE. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 5, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Seeing as how Personal Responsibility is a ****CORE*** value of conservatism, So they claim. Then you get Senator Ensign, Governor Sanford... posted by
Ray_Harwick
on Nov 5, 2009 at 05:21 PM
Seeing as how Personal Responsibility is a ****CORE*** value of conservatism, So they claim. Yes. Such is the state of the claim. posted by
CheckMate
on Nov 5, 2009 at 08:04 PM
This whole blog post wants to make me puke.... posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Nov 5, 2009 at 09:07 PM
Mate, you need to stop eating them Big Macs and Biggie Fries . --virgil posted by
paxchristi3
on Nov 5, 2009 at 09:43 PM
CheckMate, cheer up and just remember the Maine where the defenders of traditional marriage stunned the folks who make you puke and repealed a law imposed on the voters by the legislators. That has to leave the lawmakers in Iowa peeing in their pants for doing the same in that state. Me smells a massacre of the Democrats in future elections so that the right kind of legislators can be put in place to approve the voters' request to have them decide whether to overturn gay marriage there, a process that may take until 2014 to complete. Then that will teach them for screwing around with traditional marriage. posted by
defyinggravity
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM
pax... i don't want your religion to run my life or my country. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM
They won't. They're dying off as we speak. We just have to fight them to a standstill, and the courts will overturn their discrimination just as they did in the Loving decision. posted by
CheckMate
on Nov 6, 2009 at 04:25 PM
anderson, are Big Macs and fries what you eat after you smoke a bowl and get the munchies? posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Nov 6, 2009 at 04:26 PM
No. --virgil posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Nov 6, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Mate, John's Burgers !! You gotta keep it Local. --virgil posted by
Ray_Harwick
on Nov 6, 2009 at 04:45 PM
[sigh] CheckMate and Virgil. So much for inviting comment on the subject. I suppose I shouldn't allow my heart to get involved in this issue. CheckMate, I don't think "This whole blog makes me want to puke" is in the spirit of the Terms of Service guidline to "Comment on the subject of the blog itself". But bowls and burgers?
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
