that's what BOE struck down. it didn't matter whether blacks got a better education in a separate school; the problem was the separation. separate water fountains provide exactly the same water, separate seats at the diner get served exactly the same food, separate seats on the bus got you to your destination at the same time.
it is about the notiong that a +class+ of people get treated a certain way -- separately, even if equally, because their participation in the same diner, use of the same water fountain, use of the same restroom or use of the same seats on the bus might defile whites somehow.
same argument about gay marriage: gays marrying will defile the institution of marriage.
pulling a sorta-ian: Purity and Danger, calling Mary Douglas.
At 01:18 PM 11/13/2008, Michael Pollak wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>>Why would anyone want identical legal protections going under two
>>>different names, one for heterosexual couples and one for homosexual
>>>couples? What benefit could one possibly derive from this circumstance?
>>
>>The point is to make one lesser than the other. Bill can't seem to accept
>>that.
>
>It's true that the point is to make one lesser than the other. But what
>Bill's right about is that this isn't finally about rights. Civil Unions
>would be less than Gay Marriage even in a hypothetical situation when a
>civil union contract offered substantially more rights.
>
>The word marriage has several traditional magic powers that go beyond any
>legal bounds, but the most important is the power of bestowing legitimacy
>on a relationship. If gays can marry, it will make being gay normal. And
>no other word will.
>
>That's the crux that both sides dilly-dally away from in public debate
>(gays because they feel "rights" are a firmer ground when you're talking
>about law and just demands, and anti-gays because "saving the institution
>of marriage" focus groups better). This is why gays feel a civil union is
>nowhere near their goal no matter how many rights it gives them. And this
>is why anti-gays feel that allowing gays to marry will affect everyone in
>the world and not just those who are getting married. They are both right.
>
>And this is why it will be such a hugely great thing when it eventually
>happens. No matter how ho-hum or even anti the institution of marriage
>you might be personally.
>
>Michael
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)