Historical Revisionism Jujitsu: Religious Right Celebrates End of Interracial Marriage Ban

Cross-posted from Religion Dispatches, the new magazine for intelligent analysis of religion and public life.

Tony Perkins' Family Research Council may be the brightest star in the Christian Right constellation, with deep ties to the unholy trinity of the Republican party, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and even Blackwater USA -- the military contractor whose malfeasance is fast becoming the stuff of legend.

Their email alerts, which I receive daily, can be distressingly cloying, deploying middle-age dad puns and witticisms worthy of the uniquely middle-American craft of crochet-art. Recent subject headings read: "Ligers, Tigons, and Zonkeys, Oh My!" (warning against the dangers of genetic engineering) and "Meet the Robinsons" (warning against the dangers of certain high-ranking, gay Episcopalians getting married).

And, despite connections to white supremacist groups documented by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Nation's Max Blumenthal, the FRC throws in the occasional right-wing black preacher like Bishop Harry Jackson, nods to a self-serving slice of the Dr. King legacy and, this past week, a tribute to the Rosa Parks of miscegenation, Mildred Loving, who died on May 2nd (pic and blurb below). (Note: the white supremacist connections don't end there by a long shot. One could -- and one still may -- devote a whole post or series of posts to these connections...)

------
From a recent FRC newsletter: ------

The FRC devotes a significant portion of its tribute to Loving to caution readers: "Although homosexual activists are fond of portraying the Lovings' victory as a precedent for their cause, the Loving case didn't alter the definition of marriage but affirmed it by allowing any man to marry any woman. The nation is indebted to Mildred for a legacy that so aptly lives up to the couple's shared name."

There are at least two critical things to keep in mind while reading this. First, the embarrassing, then the meat. It's not just "homosexual activists" who see parallels in the Loving case -- it's Mildred herself. On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving case (a decision handed down just months before MLK was killed in Memphis, by the by), Mildred penned a public statement that included these liberal sentiments (full PDF here; italics mine):

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the tendency for conservative groups to adjust their views to give the Groundhog Day-like impression that to believe in what is (now) the culturally appropriate view is eminently "conservative" (as in: "traditional," "unchanging," or "objectively true").

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, these very welcome props to Mildred Loving and her husband Richard are deeply, abidingly, and intrinsically progressive values. They are the values of those whose sense of justice transcends the tunnel vision of time; of those who have both the vision to question received wisdom and the guts to express it. The argument that acceptance of gay marriage might (or would necessarily) lead to people marrying 5 people, dogs, or lizards finally makes sense. It could only be birthed from the conservative mindset which, for many of its proponents, carries the burden of a North-less moral compass when it comes to reassessing that which is codified in the pew, PTA meeting, or backyard BBQ.

A final note, lest I be accused of negativity: it seems that the arc of justice may not only not be terribly long, it may be more of a zig-zag than an arc. Gay marriage remains more of an electoral tactic than a moral issue for the majority of those who have the power to do anything about it legislatively; not much is bound to happen soon. But, according to Wikipedia, the author of the 1966 decision to uphold the ban on interracial marriage, Justice Harry L. Carrico: "was succeeded as Chief Justice by Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., the first black Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia." But then conservatives and the religious right were probably for that from the start.

Comments

[WasteNJ]

I remember stories of my parents quietly battling the looks and whispers they'd hear when out together (late 60's), and even after I was old enough to notice things (born '74). They are an interracial couple, my father's black and mother's white.

We lived in New York City, then moved out to NJ and the tolerance level dropped. It's tough. I have siblings so I suppose we had some strength in numbers... People aren't lying when they say that interracial kids have a hard childhood, although I think nowadays it's less so. You can look on the internet now and know you're not alone.

As far as the GOP, they are always the ones who oppose civil rights until it's impossible not to. Then they claim it was their idea all along. I know some aren't that way, much respect Richard Cohen and his wife for standing up on this issue for so long as a republican.

[oafishcad]

Conservatives love to rewrite history. They also love to act as though they didn't hold views that later became unpopular. Look at global warming. Every conservative politician said it was poppycock. Now they call it climate change and say they were always for America doing its part. Do they think no one was paying attention? Judging from voting patterns, many voters aren't paying attention.

[Evan Derkacz - Huffpost Blogger]

I think it's crucial to also point to the foundation of each of the ideologies. Conservatives by definition want things to stay "traditional," an idea that just doesn't seem to exist with any broad look at history.

To the more moderate conservatives who claim that things just shouldn't change so fast as liberals and progressives like I usually ask: do you feel the same with the issues that touch your life on a daily basis? You seldom find that change that conservatives themselves want is couched like this:

We'd like to remake the middle east, but we'd like to do it slowly over the course of one or more generations. It's rather striking that this slow mode of change is relegated to rights for brown people, women, gay people, etc...

[oafishcad]

Conservatives think that government has no business in regulating morality when it comes to things like helping the poor or caring for the sick. However, sleep with the wrong person, according to their interpretation of their religion, and suddenly the state needs to take a stand and crush the unpopular minority viewpoint or religion.

[JScott]

Hmm this 'rewriting' history something they also did in the book 1984?