Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?

Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."

wolv67 said:

Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."

Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. The only part they achieved was the "separate" part. They were never equal. They argued that if we put the races together, no one would ever be able to get along and there would be endless fights. I think that's been proven to be untrue.

Black_Zawisza said:

This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

There wouldn't be a need to separate them in the first place if they were equal. That's my 2 cents.

I wouldn't say that separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have some very minor examples of separate but equal in society that are fairly equal. Men's and Women's restrooms for example. They are separate, but generally equal.

When talking politics in the real world though, separate but equal will generally turn out to be separate and unequal. It's just one of those ideas that looks okay on paper but doesn't work in practice.

"Separate but equal" is like "just the tip". Once a blue moon, the person making the statement is actually sincere . For the most part, its a blatantly transparent lie.

Black_Zawisza said:

This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The motivation to separate two things like whites and blacks or straights and gays pretty much comes from the feeling by one group that another group is inferior in some way. That same motivation will create the tendency to allow or create substandard conditions from the group deemed inferior.

Read the decision in Brown v Board.

There's a pretty easy way to tell if a propose two- (or more) tier system of allegedly equal rights/facilities/services is ACTUALLY equal, whether in substance or (at the very least) in the expectations and conceptions of those arguing in favor of the separation.

It's a classic approach drawn from cake-cutting algorithms: if the situation is one of two entities, then one "cuts" (establishes the terms or enumerates the rights/goods/services associated with the two separate-but-allegedly-equal packages)...while the other chooses (with the chooser keeping what they chose, and the cutter keeping whatever other option is left over).

The basis of this approach should be obvious: if those seeking to do the separating are genuine believers in separate-can-be-equal, then they should have no objection to having the other group (the group being targeted for separate treatment) keeping the choice of which track/tier of rights and services they have access to. For example, if current legal recognition of marriage is so closely on par with civil unions, then advocates of separate-but-equal would themselves be engaging (no pun intended) in civil unions and marriages on a roughly equal basis. I'd have to dig a bit later on to see if I can find numbers on this, but my first impression is that there remain very, very few heterosexual civil unions (relative to legally recognized marriages) among the population of committed hetero couples seeking legal recognition of their relationship.

This is of course worlds away from what we're actually in right now with regards to legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages, which is a case where a dominant and already-entitled hetero population holds most of the chips and is allowed to decide upon matters they have no direct stake in. It's a classic case of moral hazard, and fundamentally antidemocratic.

Separate but equal sounds wonderful until it is applied, as with the racial segreagtion use originally proclaimed as equal. As an earlier post pointed out, if one proposed a trade, say swapping the black/white signs on school or restroom facilities both groups may be surprised how unequal those facilities really were.

We now have this mainly for gender yet never intended it to be "unfair", but to maintain "tradition" just like the prior racial version or to elevate females "artificially" since they can not successfully compete "heads up" with males in some areas. This is done now to help women feel 'included' while actually being excluded. For example, college sports rules (laws?) say that for every male sports player there must be a separate, yet not equal (except in number) female sports player. If your college has a male football team that has 100 players you must create 100 female players in some sport(s) to "balance that out", perhaps a female swim team, some female golfers and a female vollyball team. But in the name of "fairness" that is the deal, because obviously women are very unlikely to make the college football team, yet it generates tons of money for the school, so somehow that means that we must benefit female athletes "equaly" too. Why this is fair is beyond me, as most males can't make the college football team either, yet they get no 'alternate' special free benefit offers to try out for.

There is also the military version of gender pseudo separation, some positions are male only and some are either gender, yet I know of none that are female only. The pay is essentially the same except for those not permitted equal access to "combat pay" slots, or getting ample overseas or shipboard time to advance in rank as rapidly (there may be more strange remedies for this, but I know of very few, when I was with the US Navy, only females got Guam and Iceland shore duty counted as "shipboard" assignments), but the physical requirements for the "either gender" slots are strangely not equal, the males must be more physically "able" to do the SAME job as the females, yet this is somehow seen as "fair" and necessary. Imagine if we had different minmum qualification standards based on other factors - woops, we do that too in the military, as you age, less is expected of you physically, even if you are likely paid more due to rank and time in service. We accept all sorts of 'separate' things yet rarely call them 'unequal" even when they actually are.

"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Rising Sun said:

"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Click to expand...

The question is now seems to be if it is "fair", since many laws are DESIGNED to be unequal; a prime example is the FIT code.

ttwtt78640 said:

The question is now seems to be if it is "fair", since many laws are DESIGNED to be unequal; a prime example is the FIT code.

Click to expand...

Feed in Tariff? I didn't realize furriners deserved the same consideration as American citizens. Why do you think they should?

Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.

Kal'Stang said:

Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.

Click to expand...

Not all "religious people" believe that so blaming all "religious people" for these prejudices is unfair.

Gay Marriage & Homosexuality - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
View attachment 67128876

FWIW, I think the denial of marriage rights for gays is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Regardless what they think about gays or gay marriage, many Americans of all flavors are also seeing this as more of a civil rights issue than a religious one.

Rising Sun said:

Not all "religious people" believe that so blaming all "religious people" for these prejudices is unfair.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I err'd in saying "all religious people". I should have said "all religious people that are against making SSM legal". Thank you for your correction.

Kal'Stang said:

You are correct. I err'd in saying "all religious people". I should have said "all religious people that are against making SSM legal". Thank you for your correction.

Click to expand...

LOL. Close enough. I think more religious people than you think may go with their religious beliefs about the morality of homosexuality just as they do with adultery, but that they will tolerate it as a matter of law since the consequences of depriving fellow Americans of their rights ends up eroding the rights of all Americans.

Are Americans wrong for voting their opinion when not supporting the adulterous-wannabe-President Newt Gingrich? "Sorry Newt, but you're not good enough to qualify for President". No, of course not. What would be wrong is if they voted to change the laws so that adulterers couldn't run for President or voted to stone them to death just like the Bible says.

Black_Zawisza said:

This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

"Separate but equal" was the best that could be done at the time to keep the smashing of the atoms from happening: we'd done that once and it was not a good experience for anybody. Though a racist decision, we lived in a very fearful society; very Mesopotamian = vengeful God.

Black people equaled big trouble; not becasue they were black, but because of what happened when they were around: read Matin Luther King. So thinking like that was more about preserving the peace than being "higher human beings".

Kal'Stang said:

Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.

Click to expand...

Why must males pass a different physical test than females for the SAME pay and SAME job classification in an "open gender" military job? Why allow different age limits for the right to vote and the right to bear arms? Why is it legal to get gov't retirement pay at age 50 (or younger), but a tax penalty is levied for anyone taking out their own private retirement before age 59 1/2?

Rising Sun said:

Feed in Tariff? I didn't realize furriners deserved the same consideration as American citizens. Why do you think they should?

Click to expand...

Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).

ttwtt78640 said:

Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).

Click to expand...

I favor a flat tax and a consumer tax, no deductions, not tax write-offs, no tax deferments or other tax dodges. Sound good to you or do you have a different idea?

Rising Sun said:

I favor a flat tax and a consumer tax, no deductions, not tax write-offs, no tax deferments or other tax dodges. Sound good to you or do you have a different idea?

Click to expand...

I prefer a single federal income tax rate (20%?) with a single standard deduction ($10,000?). If citizen A makes $20,000/year then they pay $2,000 in tax (10% of gross income). If citizen B makes $100,000/year then they pay $18,000 in tax (18% of gross income). It uses a flat tax rate yet it is progressive, shielding the lowest income people from excessive taxation; having only two numbers it is not as subject to a bunch of lobbyists and special interests monkeying with it, and inserting special trickery to make it so complicated that many end up paying vastly differing amounts of tax for the same amount of gross income. NOTE: the reason I have placed ? with my rate and deduction amounts is that I would start with figures that yield about 15% of current GDP, but do not know how to acurately compute those numbers. ;-)

ttwtt78640 said:

Why must males pass a different physical test than females for the SAME pay and SAME job classification in an "open gender" military job? Why allow different age limits for the right to vote and the right to bear arms? Why is it legal to get gov't retirement pay at age 50 (or younger), but a tax penalty is levied for anyone taking out their own private retirement before age 59 1/2?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have added "when all things are equal". Unfortenately I forget that there are too many people caught up in semantical crap to be honest in their debating.

ttwtt78640 said:

Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).

Click to expand...

Since when? When I was single and working at age 21 I was getting the same amount of FIT taxes pulled out of my check as someone that was 51 and single.

Your Star said:

Read the decision in Brown v Board.

Click to expand...

I did. I found the Supreme Court's ruling to be exasperatingly unsupported and pretty clearly politically-based.

I generally don't pay attention to arguments from authority, anyway, which is what people are doing whenever they invoke a Supreme Court ruling. If their reasoning holds up by itself, then there's no need to mention that it was thought up by a majority of SC justices - if it doesn't, then their opinion should be discarded. :shrug: