Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Gay Marriage and the Slave States




Opponents of gay marriage want us to believe that the fight for gay rights is completely different than the fight for black rights was. Even many blacks make this argument. Looking for some data on firearms today, though I came across the above maps.

Obviously, this does not prove anything. Nobody now alive was alive then. But those maps can't simply be coincidental.

Let's take another example -- women's right to vote.




Was that still too long ago?

Let's take a look at segregation:



And one last look at gay marriage:



Pardon me if I don't think gay marriage is totally different.

24 comments:

Classmate-Wearing-Yarmulka said...

Huh? SSM is illegal in almost all states. This isn't a north-south thing.

Jewish Atheist said...

It's a question of degree right now. The former slave states are much more likely to have constitutional amendments banning SSM as well as laws specifically against it. Look at the second map, above.

Ward said...

Most people who want to claim that the struggles for SSM and black civil rights are not equivalent or comparable do so based on the assumption that being gay is about behavior, ie, gay people can choose to not have sex, whereas black people can not choose to be white. Of course, this is faulty reasoning since being gay is mostly/primarily/predominantly genetic -- just like being black -- and is not about "behavior" that is "chosen." (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?ex=1177041600&en=bcdfa91d1c5944fb&ei=5070)

Ward said...

Here's a more recent map for gay marriage:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19449

Intergalactic Hussy said...

I guess its safe to say its only getting better.

Ezzie said...

This is a joke, right? This is like a NY Times argument: Obviously, this does not prove anything. Nobody now alive was alive then. But those maps can't simply be coincidental.

Obviously, you can't conclude anything from the data you're showing... but you're going to anyway. That's just... dumb. (Sorry.)

Jewish Atheist said...

ezzie:

The maps suggest, but do not prove. I think there is something rotten in the south* and there has been for a long, long time.

*Obviously, it's not all southerners nor is it confined to the south. However, the south has been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue ever, from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation and now to gay marriage. As CWY pointed out, the North is only slightly better at the moment w/r/t gay marriage, but the distinction between the south and north couldn't be clearer.

Those of you who argue that the south's position on gay marriage is right are put in the awkward position of saying, "Well, they were wrong about everything else, but by God, they finally got one right!"

beepbeepitsme said...

Very interesting JA.

Skcorefil said...

Explain Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and North Carolina. Not to mention the square states out west that were territories for the slavery and in the mid ground for everything else.

Your correlation isn't really that great.

Anonymous said...

South is rotten. If you read Faulkner it becomes really clear. But I'm still against gay marriage. I don't think gays suffer without marriage.

beepbeepitsme said...

They suffer from a legal point of view and a tax point of view, that is for sure.

And let's face it, homosexuals can't stuff up marriage anymore than heteros have.

Stephen said...

The south has been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue ever, from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation and now to gay marriage.

As a non-American, it isn't my place to comment. But I'll say this much: it's an intriguing analysis.

In Canada, we have Quebec as a distinct society. The differences are real and problematic for the governance of the country. But the Quebec distinction is rooted in a different language, so it's easier to understand why the differences persist (or grow) over generations.

Ezzie said...

The maps suggest, but do not prove. I think there is something rotten in the south* and there has been for a long, long time.

Explain Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and North Carolina. Not to mention the square states out west that were territories for the slavery and in the mid ground for everything else.

Your correlation isn't really that great.


Actually, I think you missed my point JA, while this commenter got it a bit better. It's a combination of there being a nice huge % difference among the states, along with the 150 year differential, etc. There's nothing here that suggests much of anything, really.

Jewish Atheist said...

skcorefil and ezzie:

While there has been of course some shifting around on issues, the former confederacy -- sometimes minus a couple of the east coast states -- has, as a bloc, opposed every civil rights advance in American history. Today they remain a bloc for gay marriage Amendments.

Or, maybe the inverse is more clear. The Northeast and California have been on the right side of every civil rights issue (except for women's suffrage, it looks like) and continue to be so today.

Yes, it's not a perfect picture of every state every time. But to act like there isn't a strong correlation is absurd.

beepbeepitsme said...

Obviously, I am an outsider as an Australian - but I would find it difficult to live in the south unless I wanted to pretend that I didn't have a religious opinion, a political opinion, or a cultural opinion.

The south reminds me of some areas in Australia where they fly the Eureka Flag - (as opposed to the Rebel Flag in some parts the US).

I can't put my finger on it, but there is a dynamic happening in those places which while all the time professing freedom, liberty and equality - seem to be professing that only for those who agree with them on political, cultural or religious issues.

A kind of "you have the freedom to agree mentality." There's something not quite right about it.

Kullervo said...

Hey now, plenty of progressives and liberals live in the much-maligned South (especially in the cities). Yeah, it's got its problems, but it's not really fair to paint an enitre region with one broad brushtroke.

Skcorefil said...

Someone against gay marriage, against slavery, against segregation and for women's right to vote could say Michigan got it right each time. You just say that Cali and the North east got it right each time cause you agree with them.

Anonymous said...

I agree with skcorefil.......not much of a correlation between the maps. North Carolina, Florida and West Virginia (if you consider WV 'Southern') behave a bit differently than the other Southern states regarding 'gay marriage'; while Michigan and Ohio behave differently from the other Northern states on the same issue.

And much of the Northeast/New England states were in a similar position to the South on 'Woman's Suffrage'.

Keebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skcorefil said...

Keebo, your post is pretty ignorant.

It sounds like you have plenty of your own bigotry and hatred.

There were northern baptists but they renamed themselves "American Baptists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Baptist_Convention

Keebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This is a very odd discussion. Assessing demographics has never been the way of seeking truth, as Socrates pointed out to Crito several years ago. Would somebody here please read some peer referenced journal articles on the nature of genetics and sexual attraction, post the relevant data, and host an appropriately rational discussion? I hope so.

poncho said...

hmm.
Woman are born with vaginas.
Black people are born with dark skin.


and gay people are born with what?

Sorry, no special treatment for choosing to be gay.

Post said...

A biological attraction to the same sex.

Or perhaps you believe people choose to be left handed?