Sinn Fein revisionism, Ctd

Eamonn McCann said in an interview with Eamonn Mallie on Irish TV:

"The reforms which emerged allegedly from the armed struggle were in place in the early 1970s."

Lord Wilson - La Verite est en marche et rien ne l'arretera, Ctd

Lord Wilson on how concept of marriage has changed over time, in lecture for Northern Ireland Medico-Legal Society http://t.co/ZOYDNCA2SR
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) February 19, 2014

Lord Wilson of the UK Supreme Court invited his listeners to consider the changing rules about who has been able to enter into marriage and the emergence of rules for easy exit from marriage. Changes which have altered the whole concept of marriage. He concluded by asking, almost rhetorically:

"I wonder whether Northern Ireland will for long be able to hold back the tide in favour of same sex marriages which laps against all Western shores."

His talk included a few highlights that gave weight to the irresistible inevitability of same-sex marriage.

Firstly, on who marriage was available to. One:

"Up until 1863, here in Ireland, a marriage between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic was void."

Terence O'Neill - The Moderate and Ulster at Cross Roads

Captain Terence O'Neill with his predecessor Lord Brookeborough

David McCann wrote in the News Letter of March 2013 on the 50th anniversary of O'Neill's coming to power in 1963:

"O’Neill was the first unionist Prime Minister who attempted to win over middle class Catholics to support the Union by engaging in symbolic acts of reconciliation such as visiting Catholic schools and extending condolences on the death of the Pope."

On November 20 1964 the News Letter wrote an editorial urging Terence O’Neill to meet his southern counterpart Sean Lemass, arguing that:

"No danger to the unionist cause would be involved in the meeting [with Sean Lemass], in agreeing Captain O’Neill would show the strength of his position." 

As David McCann said:

La verite est en marche et rien ne l'arretera , Ctd

Fintan O’Toole wrote in The Irish Times here:

"Over time mainstream opinion comes to recognise that honest beliefs once held by decent people were reprehensible, not because the people were bad, but because the beliefs were shaped by prejudice. This will happen, probably quite soon, with beliefs about sexual orientation."

He continued:

"Sincerity is as irrelevant here as malevolence – it simply doesn’t matter why people uphold structures of discrimination. Throughout history, decent, moral people have believed with complete sincerity that slavery is a moral good, that women are lesser beings who must be protected from their weakness by being obedient to men, that Jews should be confined to ghettoes, that the Irish are incapable of rational thought, that Catholics are unfit to live in democracies and so on."

He continued:

"This is true even of very great men. Aristotle thought slavery entirely natural. Abraham Lincoln thought for most of his career that when slavery was abolished blacks should be shipped out to Africa because they couldn’t possibly live side by side with free whites. Does this make Aristotle and Lincoln bad men? No. It just makes them examples of highly moral and intelligent people who cannot escape inherited structures of discriminatory thought."

He concluded:

"The whole point of the law is that it’s not about giving people equal status because you like them. It’s about freeing people from subjection to the arbitrariness of other people’s benevolence. Gay men and lesbians shouldn’t have to care one way or the other whether the members of the Iona Institute love them or not. Just as the rest of us shouldn’t measure the rights of our fellow citizens by what they get up to in bed."

In full here.

The Influence of Andrew Sullivan, Ctd

Ross Douthat wrote of Andrew Sullivan in The New York Times here:

"The day the gay marriage rulings were handed down I raised the possibility, on Twitter, that Andrew Sullivan might deserve to be remembered as the most influential political writer of his generation, and I was happy to see Tyler Cowen flesh that argument out:                           

Doesn’t... Sullivan have a reasonably strong claim to that title, especially after the recent Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage? Sullivan was the dominant intellectual influence on this issue, from the late 1980s on, and that is from a time where other major civil liberties figures didn’t give gay marriage much of a second thought, one way or the other, or they wished to run away from the issue. Here is his classic 1989 New Republic essay. Here is a current map of where gay marriage is legal and very likely there is more to come.

Ross Douthat continued his analysis of Andrew Sullivan:

"No writer of comparable gifts was on the issue earlier, pushed harder against what seemed at the time like an unassailable consensus, engaged as many critics (left and right, gay and straight) and addressed himself to as many audiences as Sullivan. No intellectual did as much to weave together the mix of arguments and intuitions that defines today’s emerging consensus on the issue — in which gay marriage is simultaneously an expression of bourgeois conservatism and the fulfillment of the 1960s’ liberative promise, the civil rights revolution of our time and a natural, Burkean outgrowth of the way that straights already live. And no intellectual that I can think of, writing on a fraught and controversial topic, has seen their once-crankish, outlandish-seeming idea becomes the conventional wisdom so quickly, and be instantantiated so rapidly in law and custom."

I wrote an earlier post on the influence of Andrew Sullivan here. New York Times post in full here.

Legalising homosexual sex in the United States - Lawrence versus Texas [2003]

In 1980s Texas, "deviate sexual intercourse" - as homosexual sex was known - was punishable with prison or a fine. In 1981 a Texan court upheld a police department's decision not to hire a man because he was gay. 

The change to the law only came in 2003 when the landmark case - Lawrence versus Texas. John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were fined $200 for being caught caught allegedly having sex in one oftheir  homes. However, the Supreme Court declared the judgement "unconstitutional". In effect the Lawrence case legalised consensual, homosexual acts. This meant that the 14 US states that still had "sodomy laws" were rendered null and void. 

The Law's long arc towards equality

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York said on the issue of civil rights:

"In the whole history of the United States, no law limiting the rights of a particular class of people has ever stood the test of time, and neither will [laws like the Defense of Marriage Act]." 

He then said: “Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time." Andrew Sullivan echoed this position, who said: "When a government is upholding a position not just different from the people, but in a different universe, it’s only a matter of time before the dam bursts." Time after time lawmakers yield to the people; then suddenly past bigotries, prejudices and discriminations no longer exist in the public forum. As Alexis de Toqueville said:

 

"As long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety."

 

That's the story we need to tell in the debate, that, as Christopher Hitchens said, "At every turn they [the religious] try to make the public forget about their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be seen for what it really is."

Hannah Arendt on same-sex marriage

Hannah Arendt wrote in her book Dissent in 1959:

“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”