Let's assume for a moment that a presidential candidate of either party had come out against interracial marriage. How many of us would be inclined to vote for him or her?
Until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the anti-miscegenation laws of 16 states including Virginia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia, supporters of such a ban used pretty much the same theology-based arguments their ideological heirs use today to rail against same-sex marriage.
Segregation itself was justified on the ground that God had divinely ordained the separation of the races. "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will," a 25-year-old Jerry Falwell told worshipers at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, in a 1958 sermon, "the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education, holding segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional] would never have been made." Using Genesis 9:18-27 as "our guide," Falwell went on to declare that, "The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line." Referring to a fellow pastor who had told him that "a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife," Falwell concluded that integration "will destroy our race eventually."
Thirty years later, in a Washington Post Magazine interview, Falwell recanted his segregationist views and acknowledged that he had distorted the Bible's message under the influence of his Bible college teachers. "You don't know how hard it is to purge yourself of these things," he said. "Unless you've been there, you just don't know. It's the strongest grip."
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red," wrote County Circuit Judge Leon M. Bazile of Caroline County, Virginia, in his January 6, 1959 ruling sentencing Mildred, a woman of African-American and Native-American descent, and Richard Loving, a white man, to one year in jail for living together after marrying in the District of Columbia (suspended on condition that they leave the state for 25 years). "And," Judge Bazile continued, "he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' criminal conviction and declared Virginia's Virginia's prohibition of interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that,
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Forty-five years later, only a small minority among us, many if not most of them hard-core white supremacist bigots, disagree with Chief Justice Warren's words. According to a September 2011 Gallup Poll, 86% of Americans approve of interracial marriage. That was up from 4% in 1958, 20% in 1968, 48% in 1994, and 77% as recently as 2007.
The attitudes toward same-sex marriage have similarly changed, evolved if you will. In 1996, only 27% of Americans supported, and 68% opposed, the legal recognition such marriages. Only two years ago, the number of Americans supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage had risen to 44%, with 53% opposed. As of last year, according to a May 20, 2011, Gallup Poll, a majority of 53% of Americans believed that marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized, while the number of those opposed had declined to 44%. Most dramatically, support for same-sex marriage among 18- to 34-year-old Americans rose from 54% in 2010 to 70% just one year later.
As I have written previously on this site, constitutional rights should never be determined by Gallup polls or popular referenda. At the same time, it important to remember that such rights must also never be limited by the "grip," to use Jerry Falwell's term of 25 years ago, of parochial or narrow-minded religious dogma.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had erected "a wall of separation between church & state," and believed that all Americans must be accorded the opportunity "to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." Effectively, this means that while government cannot impose its will on religious institutions, the converse is equally true: religious institutions or religious tenets must not be allowed to dominate or dictate the national civil agenda.
As President Barack Obama correctly told ABC News' Robin Roberts, the national debate over same-sex marriage involves civil -- not religious -- marriage and civil -- not religious -- laws. Churches and other religious groups are not obligated in any way to endorse practices they consider antithetical to their beliefs.
I have no argument whatsoever with priests, ministers, rabbis or imams who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages. They cannot and should not be compelled to do so. Nor should any church, synagogue or mosque be required to provide a venue for such nuptials. At the same time, those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds must not be allowed to infringe on the right of gays and lesbians to the pursuit of happiness which necessarily includes the happiness of being in a loving and recognized matrimonial relationship.
President Obama got it right when he said that he did not want to explain to his daughters why some people should be treated differently in the "eyes of the law." In the end, striving for equality should never be a nuanced principle.
Menachem Z. Rosensaft teaches about the law of genocide and World War II war crimes trials at the law schools of Columbia, Cornell and Syracuse universities
Mark_Levine: How Far We Have Come
It's nothing for people to get all worked up over.
Finally, our notions of race are all screwed up. Research the notions about race over the last 200 years or so. Definitions of race and ethnicities are all over the map. The only definition of race that comes closest to something definitive is that there are a few major stocks of humans that can be traced genetically using modern techniques. But most of us are confused about race because we have been artificially conditioned to zero in on skin color as the main determinant of race, and this notion is based on bizarre theories from the 1800s. This is why it is rather unfortunate that those who are racist don't know what they're hating since they can't properly define race. That's the essence of conditioned ignorance.
Again and again we listen to the political call for 'States Rights', and that civil marriage must be left to the states. And, 30 states have already written bans on marriage equality into their state constitutions - a place where they will reside for generations.
So what's left for the proponents of equal rights and equality? Certainly the Executive Branch is doing little or nothing in this regard. Even worse, the Legislative Branch of the United States has enacted DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) with Democratic support and President Clinton's signature. And currently the House of Representatives is representing the law in the Judicial Branch.
There is only one hope: The Supreme Court of the United States washes these discriminatory laws away as if in a flood - just like they did in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Only by judicial fiat were these despicable laws, mostly in the Confederate South, killed in finality.
And, in 'Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS also washed away these 'anti-sodomy' laws of many states in which it was very easy for the State to imprison gay people on sexual grounds for what was done in the privacy of one's home.
We have a long way to go until we are all free. And no one is free until we are all free.
He has done exactly what he said he'd do when he campaigned. What is so divisive? Killing Osama? Saving the American auto industry? Standing up for equal rights for all Americans?
YOU on the Right make him divisive because you have told the country over and over and over that he isn't "one of us" - and all that means is that he isn't white. That's your real divisiveness.
This country is badly divided for one overwhelming reason: the rightwing has run on social issues for the last 30 years - the most divisive issues that exist. The Right divided this country. It wasn't Obama, it wasn't the Left, it wasn't the Democrats. it was the GOP and the RIGHT who will not accept any progress whatsoever.
And just as they use everything they can to further divide us they are using the president.
"Churches and other religious groups are not obligated in any way to endorse practices they consider antithetical to their beliefs."
And does anyone really believe this anymore, especially after the problems with HHS and its push for contraception?
Excuse me - what do you think that purpose is?
Marriage is a contract between the parties and the state. The state agrees to confer certain legal rights in married people and the people getting married agree to do their best to maintain that legal state.
And that is ALL that marriage is - it is not some religious sacrament. That was tacked on after the fact. Marriage existed before christianity or any or organized religion.
Marriage is a property relationship - it is a LEGAL relationship. IT has nothing to do with god.
What the historical disqualification of interracial couples and the current one of same-sex couples have in common is arbitrary exclusion - otherwise known as discrimination - due to a personal characteristic.
The contraception analogy is inoperative as well: there is a difference between a religious organization and a business that happens to be owned by one.
Why? Traveling is not a requirement for a passport but this does not nullify the tie between passports and traveling.
"What the historical disqualification of interracial couples and the current one of same-sex couples have in common is arbitrary exclusion - otherwise known as discrimination - due to a personal characteristic."
You are correct that it was an arbitrary exclusion in the case of interracial marriage since there are no difference between, say, a black human being and a white human being because one's skin color is morally trivial. There are, however, physiological, psychological and functional differences between men and women. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. One's sex is fundamental to marriage.
"The contraception analogy is inoperative as well: there is a difference between a religious organization and a business that happens to be owned by one."
And they will be forced to comply in spite of objective moral standards.
First, for non-lawyers. The Equal Protection Clause does not mean the government can’t treat people differently under the law (e.g. we have age discrimination for driving, income discrimination for welfare etc.) The legal question as to whether a classification will be subject to strict scrutiny (the highest and most difficult standard to justify) is whether it effects a suspect classification or effects a fundamental right
Race has long been understood as a suspect classification. In fact, the Amendment was passed in part as a reaction to the Black codes in the South. Sexual orientation and in fact sex, has never been classified as a suspect classification. The miscegenation laws in Loving could have been overturned simply on that basis since their was evidence they were passed to preserve “White Supremacy”. Nevertheless, the Court went further and declared marriage a fundamental right.
The Court’s basis for determining whether something is a “fundamental right” is whether it is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition (their words). Although traditional heterosexual marriage could be deemed a fundamental right because it was deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition, it would be absurd to try to justify gay marriage on the same basis.
Thus unlike interracial marriage, a gay marriage ban passes the Constitutional test the Court has previously used.
If you like that, consider this analysis. Although the Court has never ruled sexual orientation to be a suspect class or homosexuality to be a fundamental right, that begs the question might they do it in the near future.
On the one hand, Justice Kennedy (the presumed swing vote in such a debate) has been sympathetic to gays in the past. He wrote the majority opinions in Romer and Lawrence which were favorable to gays. Although in Romer he used a rational basis analysis ( a rare case in which a statute was overturned on rational basis review) and in Lawrence he bootstrapped the proscribed sodomy activity into the general right of privacy in the home. Whether you liked or disliked the outcome, both cases had extremely tortured logic to say the least. Thus one might conclude that Kennedy, eager to clean up the loose ends of Romer and Lawrence and being sympathetic to gays will on his next opportunity vote to "bump up" sexual orientation to a suspect class. Well maybe.
On the other hand, in Lawrence (which was decided relatively recently in 2003), Kennedy explicitly stated homosexuality wasn't a fundamental right and that his ruling didn't apply to public actions (e.g. prostitution, marriage etc.). In addition Kennedy is a strong supporter of states rights. Marriage rights have generally been left up to the states and he could very easily view classifying gay marriage as a fundamental right would violate the state's 10th Amendment rights.
You assume that sexual orientation is a choice like religion or choice of diet, our understanding of this subject has expanded greatly during the second half of the 20th century and the best analog to it, according to sound science is that it is "hardwired" and analogous to being left-handed or right handed. You appear to imply that unlike race which is literally "skin deep" that somehow sexual orientation is "different" if so how so? All things being equal it is no harm to anyone or anything if a man loves another man or if two women wish to share their lives together.
The basis for permissible discrimination has always been "compelling reason" and not allowing same sex marriage fails the compelling reason test soundly. There is simply zero real reason for such. Before you start spouting about the Courts I would remind you that Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott were also "grounded in law" and are reviled today as b.igoted
That aside, you miss several points
I said my analysis was a legal not a moral one. The “compelling reason” basis for discrimination only applies under strict scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review the standard is much less. The Court over nearly 150 years has only found FOUR classifications (race, national origin, religion and alienage) to be suspect classifications subject to strict scrutiny. Yes even classification by sex is analyzed at something less than a compelling reason!
Of course it is possible the Court will add sexual orientation to this list, but my point was that it’s a stretch to think they will because it is similar to bans on interracial marriage the author cited. Race had been a suspect classification long before Loving and race was the original basis for the Equal Protection Clause. In contrast, in Lawrence v. Texas the Court declined the opportunity to declare the ability to engage in homosexual behavior to be a fundamental right (which would have subjected it to strict scrutiny) and took pains to assert the decision only applied to private conduct and not public conduct like prostitution and the decision “[did not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexuals persons seek to enter”
grandchildren, once those unions have grandchildren the families usually chill out because they want to be involved in the childrens lives, wont say it happens all the time but it does happen
Plenty of heterosexual couples do not have children, either because they can't or because they don't want to.
Same-sex marriages and interracial marriages are mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other.
Pope Alexander VI organized alliances through the marriages of his children. He married his young daughter Lucrezia to Giovanni Sforza; thus uniting the Borgia and Sforza families. Lucrezia was 13 years old when her father married her to Sforza for political reasons. The relationship was annulled four years later when Pope Alexander VI decided he didn't need the Sforzas any more. The annulment was granted when judges from the Vatican determined that she was a virgin, even though she was pregnant at the time. The child, fathered by a chamberlain named Perotto was born in secret and eventually raised as her half brother. Gioffre Borgia, the younger brother of Cesare and Lucrezia was directed by his father to marry Sancia of Aragon and in so doing obtained the Principality of Squillace and the Duchy of Alvito. Cesare (Lucrezia's brother) became a cardinal when he was 18, an appointment that would in theory strengthen his father's political and papal ties. Cesare soon left the position however and married French princess Charlotte d'Albret.
Call other relation whatever you want, but NOT marriage. It can also be legalize by civil law and given similar financial and social benefits... But, keep your hands off this nomenclature.
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and DC
You point out that marriage evolved from its traditional beginnings as a means of gaining influence and power, so we've already seen sea changes in its purposes and functions. And now once again it's changing, with or without your consent or cooperation.
And now society is tuning it into a committed contractual agreement between a man an a man, a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. So what the problem again? We shouldn't change stuff without your consent? Sorry Sam, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
if the taxpayers did not have to pay for it
if the label of "marriage" was not falsely attached to it
if everyone had the freedom to not recognize this artificial institution
Straight couples do that ALL the time, and that doesn't ban them from marrying. That doesn't make said kids inferior to any other kids out there.