California is Not Ready for Gay Marriage

For those who doubt that the Native Americans practiced same-sex marriage, here is the background of a contemporary account of a white man who lived with the Chippewa (not Chittewa) tribe. Rather than bring up examples of current Native American practices and opinions that are not natural to their culture... after we forcibly took their sons and daughters away from the parents, forbade them to speak their own language, and forcibly converted them to 'Christianity'... while beating and sexually abusing them within 'Christian' boarding schools, thus cutting-off most modern Native Americans from knowledge of their own culture, heritage, and history spanning tens of thousands of years... here are examples of what they were before we decimated their culture: Son of a pastor, John Tanner was born in Tennessee in 1780. Captured by the Saginaw-Chippewa, he lived for a time with the Ottawa and finally the Saulteurs-Chippewa until 1828. He then withdrew to the American side at Sault Ste. Marie, where he was for a time the official interpreter for the celebrated ethnographer of the period, Henry R. Schoolcraft. In his exemplary narrative of captivity among the Ojibwa/Chippewa, John Tanner (known as Sashwa’benase or “the Buzzard”) relates how he once received a marriage proposal from Ozawendib (or “Yellow Head”), whose fate it had been to become "agokwa” that is “like a woman”. At the time, Tanner lived on a hunting territory in the Red River region (Manitoba/Minnesota). Like many aboriginal hunters, each spring he took his furs to the North West Company, which was then in keen competition with the Hudson’s Bay Company The moment Yellow Head chose to join Tanner’s camp was inauspicious ; the winter was harsh and provisions were scarce. The agokwa was looking for a family in which to become socially integrated, one where he could attend to strictly female tasks. Without such a family, a certain death awaited him ; either from famine, which was rampant, or from warfare. Indeed, the Chippewa, who were allies of the Assiniboine (Siouan) and the Cree (Algonquian), were conducting an on-going war with the Sioux of Minnesota and the Dakotas. The fur trading companies, moreover, were known to have exacerbated such ancestral conflicts. These were the circumstances in which the agokwa attempted to join Tanner’s camp, where Tanner’s adoptive mother Netnokwa also lived. Netnokwa was an exceptional woman who scorned neither leadership nor participation in the fur trade. Here is John Tanner’s narrative: “Some time in the course of this winter, there came to our lodge one of the sons of the celebrated Ojibbeway chief, called Wesh-ko-bug, (the sweet)... This man was one of those who make themselves women, and are called women by the Indians. There are several of this sort among most, if not all the Indian tribes. They are commonly called A-go-kwa, a word which is expressive of their condition. This creature, called Ozaw-wen-dib, (the yellow head), was now near fifty years old, and had lived with many husbands. I do not know whether she had seen me, or only heard of me, but she soon let me know she had come a long distance to see me, and with the hope of living with me. She often offered herself to me, but not being discouraged with one refusal, she repeated her disgusting advances until I was almost driven from the lodge. Old Net-no-kwa was perfectly well acquainted with her character, and only laughed at the embarrassment and shame which I evinced whenever she addressed me. She seemed rather to countenance and encouraged the Yellow Head in remaining at our lodge. The latter was very expert in the various employments of the women, to which all her time was given. At length, despairing of success in her addresses to me, or being too much pinched by hunger, which was commonly felt in our lodge, she disappeared, and was absent three or four days. I began to hope I should be no more troubled with her, when she came back loaded with dry meat. She stated that she had found the band of Wa-ge-to-tah-gun, and that that chief had sent by her an invitation for us to join him ... [He] had sent the A-go-kwa to say to me, ‘my nephew ... Come to me, and neither you nor my sister shall want anything it is in my power to give you.’ I was glad enough of this invitation, and started immediately. At the first encampment, as I was doing something by the fire, I heard the A-go-kwa at no great distance in the woods, whistling to call me. Approaching the place, I found she had her eyes on game of some kind, and presently I discovered a moose. I shot him twice in succession... [but]... he escaped. The old woman reproved me severely for this... But before night the next day, we arrived at Wa-ge-tote’s lodge, where we ate as much as we wished. Here, also, I found myself relieved from the persecutions of the A-go-kwa, which had become intolerable. Wa-go-tote, who had two wives, married her. This introduction of a new inmate into the family of Wa-go-tote,...

Someone should just come out and challange the validity of state-sanctioned marriage across the board. Marriage is a religious concept, and since the Supreme Court has wrongly viewed the First Amendment (freedom of religion) as an individual right (with respect to the Federal Government and with respect to the states through incorporation via the 14th Amendment), rather than as a structural limitation upon the Federal Government, we might as well be consistent and force the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave that to the churches only. If the states want, they can just dole out benefits packages to any two people who choose to enter into a civil partnership. (By the way, St. Paul couldn't be clearer in defining homosexual acts as sin. He also condemned the alcoholic life-style, though not recovering alcoholics.)

This article fails to be subjective in addressing a couple of issues:

1. Firstly, how discrimination makes people "feel" does matter as does the differences in rights married couples have vs. civil unions. The author conveniently overlooks this.

2. Religious justifications are a special case because of the Separation Clause, that is not binding on other social aspects. The same clause also acts to protect religious institutions from government interference and taxation. The same cannot be said for homosexuals. They are not protected from government interference or taxation.

3. While the "majority" argument was never appropriate for minority rights and has historically NOT been applied to minority rights, recent polls now show the majority in California supporting gay marriage. Where does the "majority" argument fit in there?

4. The "What else" slippery slope argument is complete hyperbole. It is a completely non-unique argument that can be generically applied to ANY change. It is nothing but an appeal to fear of change, without any logical thought to the consequences. Example: "Women can vote- What's next? Animals?"

5. The statement that "judging by the uprising the tolerance is not here yet" is a completely unqualified statement to make, given the situation. There is absolutely no logical way to draw that conclusion. There is opposition too just about anything. Opposition is conclusive proof of nothing, and again, polls now show a majority favoring same sex marriage.

This article is nothing but opinion devoid of reason or logic. It is a good example of the failure to produce coherent arguments against gay marriage by prop 8 defense counsel. There is now empirical evidence in states that allow gay marriage that there is zero increase of divorces due to the gay marriages.

Do yourself a favor, and find something that is actually worth fighting against. With childhood poverty, third world and domestic hunger, and a myriad of other REAL problems, put resources into addressing those. This wasted energy against gay marriage is time that could be spent helping those who need it, rather than persecuting and chasing after people who are just trying to be happy.

So society (aka the majority) should be the arbiter of tolerance and what is fair? So we should be able to discriminate as we wish, if enough people vote that way? I think not.

The constitution bars people from using religion to make laws. That's why inter-racial marriage was allowed in 1967. At the time, a minority of people believed it to be "moral." Should that have stayed illegal?

Should your religion or morals take precedence over someone else's love or life? Several churches allow same-sex marriages in them, including the UCC, so relgious organizations are not a monolith of agreement on gay marriage. What makes one better than another or more right?