We usually don’t commemorate the 39th anniversary of an event, but today is an exception. Because of the recent proposal to amend the Constitution to ban homosexual “marriage,” which failed to gain traction, I believe it’s important to blog about Loving v. Virginia and distinguish between laws criminalizing marriage between a man and woman of different races and laws against marriage between two men.
Thirty-nine years ago today, the Supreme Court declared in Loving v. Virginia that laws against interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
After the Civil War, states began to enact laws called the Black Codes in response to the emancipation of slaves. Democrats created these laws for newly-freed slaves that restricted their rights to own or rent farmland, vote, sit on juries, testify against white men, sue, enter into contracts, and intermarry with whites. Republicans opposed the laws and wanted to pass the Civil Rights Bill to protect former slaves. Democratic president Andrew Johnson refused.
Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter had known each other since childhood in Central Point, Virginia. In 1958, the two traveled to Washington, D.C., to get married since they couldn’t legally marry in Virginia. They returned to Virginia, and a few months later, both were arrested and taken to jail. They plead guilty to “unlawful cohabitation.” The court suspended their one-year sentence in prison on the condition that they leave Caroline Country, Virginia, and not return together for twenty-five years.
The Lovings moved to Washington and eventually appealed their convictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Virginia defended its anti-miscegenation laws on two grounds:
1) The laws punished “equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race”;
2) Assuming that the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t void miscegenation statutes because of racial classifications, the issue becomes whether there is a rational basis for the state to treat interracial marriages differently. (”No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)
In finding that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violated the Lovings’ constitutional rights, the court rejected both arguments. Racial classifications are suspect, and the state must demonstrate a “permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.”
Post-Civil War legislation (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments) was designed to remove the color line and declare all citizens equal before the law, and the court rejected the notion that the equal protection requirement was satisfied just because blacks and whites were penalized equally for intermarrying.
The court noted that the laws prohibited interracial marriage with whites, “designed to maintain White Supremacy.” Every other race could legally marry. The court also found that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws violated the Due Process Clause: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no “overriding purpose” to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman other than blatant racial discrimination.
Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the entire Civil Rights movement in their quest to legalize marriage between two men. Aside from the moral outrage this should generate in the black community, marriage between a man and woman of different races and marriage between people of the same sex aren’t comparable at all. Marriage is a legal union recognize by the states as serving fundamental purposes: provides structure for family formation and rearing children, and provides a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society.
For an expanded discussion, I refer you to Protecting America’s Immune System: A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage. Frank Turek presents a convincing case why homosexual behavior itself, not just “marriage,” should be discouraged. The same arguments also apply to illegitimacy.
Your thoughts?
Addendum: Commenter “sonnyred” makes two important points. 1) The Loving court cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which contended that “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” That case involved forced sterilization of habitual criminals; 2) I’ve blogged about this before but failed to mention it in the post. Homosexuals do have a right to marry: someone of the opposite sex.
Says commenter Ian MacD.:
You are born with you skin color. I highly doubt that you are born with sexual preferences. Blacks were treated far worse than homosexuals, and were denied the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Until gays are not allowed to vote, are denied access to schools and endure what blacks had to, they have no right whatsoever to call their movement a civil rights issue.
Sources:
- Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
- A More Perfect Union: How the Founding Fathers would have handled gay marriage
- Standing Out: The sharp increase of non-marital births in the Netherlands needs some explaining
- Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws
- An excerpt from the book Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers
- The made-for-TV movie Mr. and Mrs. Loving
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 94 comments }
Good post. The tendency of every group with a gripe to compare it’s “plight” with that of the former status of Black Americans and their fight for freedom is almost as appalling as the media’s joy at covering them.
The only group with any similar claim is the Native American, the rest are just hangers-on.
La Shawn:
Thanks so much for discussing interracial marriage as nothing at all like homosexual marriage.
For those who missed it, here is a link to the story about the pains of interracial marriage in the Old South.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1592286267?&PID=28734
In this case, as well as the one you discuss, the “punishment” of White people was as bad or worse for those that broke the “racial barrier”.
Whites who treated Blacks as equals were called “White N—–s”.
Today, Blacks who believe in treating Blacks as eaual to Whites are called “Uncle Toms”.
Well done!
At the rate the libs are going (abortion, same-sex marriage) in another generation there won’t be much of a problem – they won’t exist!
Not an original point but I cannot remember where I heard it.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman–who cares what ethnicity, color, or background they are!
For those defending gay marriage, Loving is such a red herring. The Court defined marriage by relying on its decision in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson – wherein the Skinner Court stated that “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” The purpose of marriage, it would thus seem from the government point of view, is procreation and the promulgation of the species.
Gays can’t procreate.
The interesting and ironic thing is that a variation of the argument Virginia used in Loving — that both parties are equally treated because they are equally prohibited and punished — is exactly the argument here. Either and/or both gay individual is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they wish, and thus there is no violation of their Const. rights.
Strictly speaking, scientists in 2006 can not produce the verifiable evidence that “race” exists. Strange to say, but liberals have to have race in order to make their “equality” programs work.
Can scientists produce verifiable evidence that homosexuality exists? Perhaps science will discover the “gay” gene. But then, the whole “gay” theme may well hinge on whether the parties opt for gene therapy or not; i.e. a latter day issue of “choice.”
Marriage between a human female and a human male is a completely different issue from marriage between any other combination of living works of God.
Miscegenation laws were part of the eugenics rage. Virginia also sterilized many people and lobotomized others. Isn’t it passing strange how the courts and legislatures always step in deep doo-doo when they play eugenics? (Roe v Wade, anyone?)
Actually, the miscegenation laws that led to Loving v Virginia and the gay marriage concept are two peas in a pod. They both arise from wishful thinking by parties who depend on activist judges to read a “living” Constitution the way they do. Once again, liberals find themselves in bed with conservative red-necks. Oh, my!
Thanks to Loving, I thoroughly enjoy the reality of “miscegenation.” And I am a Virginian!
“Marriage is a legal union recognize by the states as serving fundamental purposes: provides structure for family formation and rearing children, and provides a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society.”
Powerful statement. Especially since history tells us the final outcome of civilizations that failed to recognize this fact and their subsequent demise.
But….we have to learn the hard way.
Mark, the Amer-Indians gave as good as they got. The only ones with a truly legitimate claim would be the Cherokee.
Another point about the Loving case.
Virginia restricted interracial marriage only between their own citizens. If you were from another state, say New York, got married there and then moved to Virginia, no legal action was taken against you, since Virginia gave “full faith and credit” to the legal actions of other states.
The Supreme Court viewed that as nonsense and inconsistent, so tossed the interracial marriage ban into the garbage.
The homosexuals have their hand in the till..they want society to pay for their sexual behavior in the form of tax and insurance and other monetary benefits. I object. Why? Because, heterosexual people of the same sex could not claim the tax benefits or extend insurance to one another, etc. Or, do you think we could just “fake it” and get away with it. Surely, they wouldn’t make us demonstrate our sexual behavior would they?
Whole thing is ridiculous and certainly not the same thing as denying interracial marriage.
You are born with you skin color. I highly doubt that you are born with sexual preferences. Blacks were treated far worse than homosexuals, and were denied the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Until gays are not allowed to vote, are denied access to schools and endure what blacks had to, they have no right whatsoever to call their movement a civil rights issue.
What’s funny is that you posted to a westernsurvivial blog during the immigration debate that actually talked about preserving white identity, and how interracial marriage was destroying white identiy. Some of the commenters appreciated the fact that you were black and agreed with their concerns, but they said that they could not ultimately rely on your help to preserve white identity. You might want to read some of the comments that were allowed on that post you linked to. Interestingly, you did not allow comments to that post. (what happened to debating?)
My blog, my rules, my mood. I can link to whatever blog I want and disallow commenting for whatever reason I choose. And what people do online is not called debating, dear. That requires a much higher standard. – Admin
They seemed to share the views of the Judge in the trial court in Loving who wrote
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ”
I see you trying to take a jab at the Democratic party and trying to tie in the modern Democratic party with the Former Southern Democrats of the past. Ironically, many of the proponents of these marriage protection laws decried the actions of the Supreme Court in invalidating them as Judicial Activism, and this further caused more White Southerner’s to abandon the Democratic Party and jump toward Goldwater’s state rights’ party which had started with Strom Thrumond.
Nice post LaShawn.
just a couple quick comments.
It seems every group is claiming to be a new civil rights movement. gays, illegal aliens..etc. I may be wrong but wasn’t the civil rights movement about systematic inequality in treatment?
What group or subculture can honestly claims they are systematically being denied equal treatment as Americans?
On another note I just read that Jesse Jackson’s group is claiming that immigration issues are the new civil rights movement. Why would he believe that?
#12 Ian notes (gays) “have no right whatsoever to call their movement a civil rights issue.”
I agree wholeheartedly. However, for liberals and many gays, making gays victims under the 14th Amendment is the game plan.
You need only review how they tried to give a disease (AIDS) civil rights status to see their manipulation techniques.
>>Strictly speaking, scientists in 2006 can not produce the verifiable evidence that “race†exists. Strange to say, but liberals have to have race in order to make their “equality†programs work.>>
I’ve heard this. In fact, my son came home from college with this idea after taking a course in anthropology. I think it’s baloney. We’re obviously of the same species, but in my mind, “race” is roughly equivalent to “breeds” in animals. They are the result producing offspring within a small population which results in a greater homozygosity than in a larger population. To say that Negroid and Caucasians are not different is like saying that chihuhuas and great danes are not different. It is to deny the veracity of our senses, and therefore absurd. We are respectively all humans and/or all dogs, but to say that we are not different is foolishness.
The argument my son presented was based on the presumption that the % of genetic differences is so slight as to be inconsequential, therefore race doesn’t exist. As I recall the genetic similarities between monkeys and humans is about 97%, so since there’s only 3% difference, we’re really monkeys, since such a small % difference doesn’t matter?
When anthropologists dig up skeletons from centuries ago and can identify them as belonging to certain races by the measurable differences in those skeletons, then there are people that belong to various groups which we happen to call race.
Denying it doesn’t make it not so.
I’m old enough to remember all the old bigots I knew..their ultimate horror being a BLACK man with a WHITE woman!!! The MIXING of the races!!! Yet all this had already happened, long ago, perpetrated by WHITE men on BLACK women before the civil war (and after), the races were already pretty well mixed up.
So I guess it’s what you call a case of mass *projection* of your own desires on others.
Miscegenation laws stripped African-Americans of their humanity based on a false biology of race.
They’re nothing at all comparable to laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, or the other sundry but important rules States enact e.g. in Illinois first cousins can marry but only after age 51…
#15 suek: From the standpoint of pure science, in this case anthropology, there are no clear indicators of race.
I sympathize with your views. I too think I know the difference “when I see it.” However, there is a bomb buried in differentiating between the races. Think Hitler, Sanger, Stalin, Skinner and other advocates of the pseudo-science of eugenics.
When laws are written and courts decide on the basis of bunk science, great damage is done.
As scientists have taken all the traditional markers of “race” and tested them, they have found that none of them hold true; are exclusive. (Skin tone, cheekbones, hair texture/color, facial features, etc.)
We are all familiar with the basic divisions of Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Melanesian, etc. The Smithsonian still has displays classified under that system. Unfortunately, science can not verify it in any method that has been yet tested. And scientists will continue to test every theory posited.
Your reference to breeds of dogs is probably fairly close to the way most of us encounter race: we notice “breeds.” Old charts showed Aryans (Hitler’s favorite), Celts, Iberians, Indo-Europeans, etc. Like dog breeds, there were whole catechisms of the characteristics of the breeds right down to their tendency to obey and be honest. Phrenology, astrology and eugenics all helped flesh out the descriptions.
The human-genome project has shown a remarkable genetic likeness between apes and humans. There is a small percentage point spread of difference. Just like the small genetic difference between men and women. But what a difference!
The problem with race is that the genetic markers are not there. None. So, we are stuck with inherited differences the eye can discern. That leads to concepts like “high yellow”, “octoroon”, and “pass for white.” A little “breeding” changes the dynamics.
For those who have been subjugated and abused because of “race” it is an especially bitter pill not to be able to take refuge in the “family of (a certain) race.” But just being restricted (scientifically) to membership in the “human race” is not bad duty.
Very interesting…
I think you are born with sexual preferences. You can be born with certain preferences. We are all born in sin.
Although, I think a person with homosexual preferences is the same as someone who can’t stay faithful to their wife, or has sex with multiple partners, or someone who preys on minors, they are all the same and all are perversions.
I just cant imagine that someone’s sexual preference outside of biblical marriage can be protected by any law in this country.
Only Christ can cleanse these people and set them “straight”.
Also, maybe not surprising but there are probably just as many black people who where and are against interracial marriage as white folks. I’ll bet we wont see anything about this anniversary in Ebony magazine.
I’m waiting to see what this Supreme Court decides regarding this gay marriage / civil union garbage..
La Shawn, thank you so much for commemorating this occasion so successfully! It’s obvious that history is no longer taught in schools, so it’s a public service you are providing! God bless you for setting the record straight!
Marriage is a legal union recognize by the states as serving fundamental purposes: provides structure for family formation and rearing children, and provides a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society.
Thank you for pointing that out La Shawn! It’s hard to see how Loving Vs. Virginia can provide the basis for homosexual marriage, but no doubt some will try.
I had a discussion with my brother-in-law (who is in law school) just this weekend regarding same-sex marriage – and he brought up just this example (i.e. inter-racial marriage).
My point to him was just as yours – the two are not analogous. Laws against inter-racial marriage are clearly discriminatory on racial grounds. Laws that prevent same sex marriage are based upon the (somewhat time tested) concept that marriage is an act that only a man and woman can complete.
LSB, well-written as usual.
>>As scientists have taken all the traditional markers of “race†and tested them, they have found that none of them hold true; are exclusive. (Skin tone, cheekbones, hair texture/color, facial features, etc.)>>
What do you mean by “hold true”? Meaning that they exist exclusively in one group, and identically within that group? If that’s your definition (or someone else’s), then I’d agree. That would indicate a very simple dominant/recessive condition for the controlling genes, which would be either ‘on’ or ‘off’. Most of the characteristics we use as a visual guide to race are most likely very complex traits which occur on a gradient curve of some sort. That means that it’s highly probably that one could arrange people on a scale for a certain characteristic. I agree that you could therefore say “where’s the dividing point”…we’re all one. But in fact, although we visually recognize that some people don’t clearly belong in one particular group, by observing a number of characteristics common to a particular race, we can usually categorize people by race. Some people fall along the “edges”. Given that “it’s a wise child that knows it’s father”, that’s hardly surprising, along with the fact that most cultures eschew incest, so genetic homegenity isn’t accentuated.
>>We are all familiar with the basic divisions of Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Melanesian, etc. The Smithsonian still has displays classified under that system. Unfortunately, science can not verify it in any method that has been yet tested. And scientists will continue to test every theory posited.>>
And yet anthropologists still identify skeletons by race. Doesn’t this seem to be a contradiction?
What do you mean that “science can not verify it” They cannot verify that people within a small geographical area tend to have a higher level of genetic homogeneity within that area than they have outside of that area? There is effort to discriminate between breeds of animals by genetic tests. So far, it hasn’t been successful. Parentage can be determined, but not breed. I suspect that “race” falls within the same category. Just because we haven’t succeeded so far, doesn’t mean that the magic bullet won’t be discovered tomorrow! On the other hand, unless there’s some reason to explore the possibility scientifically, it’s unlikely to happen. Given that the present frame of mind in academia is to deny race, my guess is that no one is out there trying to establish that it exists genetically. In animal breeding, there may be reason to – the TB racing industry has some cause to care. If it happens, it will probably be there…
“I just cant imagine that someone’s sexual preference outside of biblical marriage can be protected by any law in this country.”
With respect, that is because (from what you state above) you do not view the world in any way other than from a concept of ‘we are all sinners’.
Speak for yourself! I’ve also got Muslims saying I’m satan. I’ve also got nationalists saying that I’m a traitor to my race. I’ve also got socialists saying I’m a capitalist pig. I’ve also got Conservatives saying I’m a liberal fag. Shame how they all sound the same. i.e mean or stupid or both.
“The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
It’s always so much easier to blame societal problems on ‘evil’ other than plain, brutal self-interest and bigotry. The world’s wars are all begun by differing stripes of the same culprits:
Nationalists, fundamentalists, fascists, religious supremacists, totalitarians and Racial Supremacists. Q. See the common currency? A. Bigotry.
When do we get to burn some more ‘witches’? Do homosexuals float?
As for the miscegenation laws? Yep, apparently the Conservative Christians back then said that God didn’t like blacks marrying whites , it “wasn’t NATURAL!”
Sounds familiar? But in fairness, there probably endeth the similarity.
It all boils down to who gets to say what’s natural or not. Somewhere along the line Christians got more ‘liberal’ and started easing off persecution of both their ‘own women’ and those ’savage’ races. Islam remains more fiercely conservative and as such both women and homosexuals/bisexuals can still get the full wrath of God delivered personally. Cuz guess what? – Shar’iah law ACTUALLY protects their society from the rest of the ‘unclean’! Of course – if it’s called a witch, then it IS a witch. Victimise the witch. Stigmatize the witch.
The ‘living doctrine’ of religion thinks it gets to tell the rest of us what is ‘natural’ and what is not. And all this on a sliding scales of interpretational and subjective dislikes/likes/personal projections. Looks like gay-bashing is coming back before it fully went away.
Maybe it’s time to bring back flogging? Single mothers next.
Bigotry because we believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, they it has always been? Even societies that tolerated or even condoned homosexuality, such as some Greek city-states and the later Roman Empire, never had homosexual marriage. Marriage has been reserved for a man and a woman, period. Is it bigotry to say this? Hardly, it is merely a fact. Even if the figure is accurate, and I believe it is much lower, 10% of the population is gay. Why should the other 90% have to change the definition of marriage? When ever a group runs up against opposition to it’s agenda, the cry of “Bigotry!” is the first heard. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a bigot. As for your “all the world’s wars” bull, was bigotry really the cause of all of them? So Alexander’s conquests were because he hated all non-Greeks? Napoleon conquered Europe because he thought the French were a superior race? And the Civil War in the US was all about racial bigotry, even though 7 of the 13 Confederate States did not eve secede from the Union until Lincoln has called up Federal troops to force the other 6 to remain? Sounds to me like some has looked at things from their own bigoted perspective and found their fault in everyone else.
“Bigotry because we believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman”
Way to put words in my mouth. I refer to bigotry in comments such as ”
…a person with homosexual preferences is the same as someone who can’t stay faithful to their wife, or has sex with multiple partners, or someone who preys on minors, they are all the same and all are perversions.”
That would be like me saying … ” A Christian person is the same as any religious fundamentalist, a perversion of humanity”
But I don’t say that or believe it.
“So Alexander’s conquests were because he hated all non-Greeks?”
Ah, yes, the Great Alexander who decided to conquer the world by violence. No national/cultural bigotry there huh? No ‘us vs them’ in that scenario? Why don’t we call Hitler ‘The Great’? How many more people must one kill to be called ‘great’ instead of ‘tyrant’?
YOu don’t get what I’m saying, all war is fought because of irrational hatred or poor treatment of the ‘other’. Churchill wasn’t a bigot because he fought Hitler. But it was Hitler’s Nationalism and scapegoating of ‘inferior’ races/groups that started the war. Napoleon was a strong nationalist. “In Napoleon’s eyes, Russia was a threat, even though the only threat it posed was to Napoleon’s pride. Russia wouldn’t bow to Napoleon’s will, and so it had to pay.’
“And the Civil War in the US was all about racial bigotry,”
Who said ‘racial bigotry?’. You did. Not I.
I stated that bigotry is a ‘common currency’ in the Fundamentalism, Nationalism, Supremacists and totalitarians.
And no, the American Civil war wasn’t at all about slaves, or ‘us vs them’, or rabid Nationalism.
“The one thing that enslaves people more than any other to the servitude of war is nationalism.”
John Dos Passos
Actually John, Alexander was remarkably lenient and tolerant ruler. He introduced may reforms to the areas he conquered and happily adopted Persians, Egyptians and others into his inner circle. He even faced a revolt of his Macedonians due to this.
While Napoleon was a nationalist, Austria and Russia attacked him first. Russia was a threat because of Czar Alexander’s territorial ambitions and the fact he would sell out anyone out get what he wanted.
I used racial bigotry as an example of bigotry, I did not imply that you had used it at all.
All war is not fought because of irrational haterd or fear of other. There are many causes of war, and they are only two.
#24 suek: I guess I garbled it a bit.
First, the job of science is to discover facts and to organize and systematize them. Scientific facts can be tested repeatedly and independently and they always come out the same.
In the 1990’s, scientists took the facts (what is known genetically and physiologically) about the human and searched them for “markers” that would allow them to determine one “race” of mankind form another. They really did not know how many distinct “races” there would be. At the time, science had been working from the tradition of three major races: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian.
The result of the study was that there were no existing markers that separated people in “races.” (That included all the traditional “markers†and all the new DNA and genetic information.)
Anthropologists who divide skeletons into racial types are operating under the traditional school of studying bone structure and making comparisons with old charts and measurements. That is to say, if an ancient skeleton from Peru is examined, the skilled anthropologist can say with fair certainty whether that the person was an Inca, Moche, Nazca, Huari, Chimu, etc. This would be the same as determining what “breed” the human was. Therefore, if the skeleton compared with the traditional measurements of a Mongoloid, the anthropologist would make that designation. (They could even build up a facial representation from the skull.)
Suppose we were to pass a law that said all people MUST be classified by race. We could take all the “old school” markers and we could continue to use the charts of the three races most of us grew up with and which are still found in many textbooks. The problem with this idea is that the facts of current science will not support the concept of separate races.
This whole affair began with scientists looking for a quick way to make racial classification quick and easy. What is known now is the result of DNA and genetic mapping. You are right that if some currently unsuspected breakthrough as major as DNA were to be uncovered, then scientists will have to retest all the existing facts against the new system of understanding.
The importance of this lies in how the courts balance the traditional concept of “race†with the scientific understanding that races of humans can not be distinguished. As it stands, a model Aryan that would make Hitler proud could tell the court that he is black and wants the benefits of affirmative action. Science would not be able to disprove his claim. Therefore, the court would have to come up with a nonscientific, convoluted formula to direct the application of affirmative action. That is precisely how Hitler dealt with the Jews. That is how the Code Napoleon dealt with who was black and who was not in Louisiana and denied privilege to those they labeled as “blackâ€.
>>The importance of this lies in how the courts balance the traditional concept of “race†with the scientific understanding that races of humans can not be distinguished.>>
I yield on this point…I see absolutely no relevance between distinguishability of race and the courts. I’d like to see the term thrown out of virtually anything legal, but at the same time, don’t see any reason to deny it’s existence. What a loss to us all if the unique characteristics of each race – variable within the population as they may be – are simply ignored!
>>Suppose we were to pass a law that said all people MUST be classified by race….The problem with this idea is that the facts of current science will not support the concept of separate races.>>
When one puts race in the context of passing laws, then maybe it’s just as well that science hasn’t found a way to define it. Biologically, I regret it. Practically, maybe it’s just as well.
Ian MacD.:
You are born with you skin color. I highly doubt that you are born with sexual preferences
I disagree. A biological basis for male homosexuality has been well-established in studies of identical twins. Other studies have shown gays have an abnormalty in the hypothalmus region in far higher percentage than non-gays. Behavioralists note early childhood manifestations of homosexuality, traits that concentrate in gay males. THAT group is no more likely to be counseled or “prayed” out of gayness than such techniques will change black skins to white.
This is different from “opportunistic homosexuals” – the old Greek Army, smooth Arab boy, prison sodomies…which are men engaging in recreational sex with other men for fun and release. THAT sort of gayness may be discouraged by more cultural access to sex and relationships with women and by moral codes.
Women are even more different. Their grouping includes right from birth lesbians, lesbians of opportunity…and unlike men, women that become lesbian out of ideological affinity (with feminism), and women once very into men that “switch” to women after significant lifetime events.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. â€
Did you ever think that God might have had climactic needs in mind? Let’s see, in Africa you might need a darker skin to survive the tropical climate. In Nordic regions you might not require the same pigments to protect you? hmmmm…..Now that we have climate control in most abodes (unless you are an old person in France) you do not need those same conditions to exist? Just a thought.
La Shawn:
I have a beatufil White wife.
But, if something bad happened to her, I would choose a beautiful Black woman over a White man any day of the week.
Whatever we are born with a proclivity toward, even IF humans are born with some sort of homosexual gene, the act of having sex, unless it is forced upon you, is always a choice.
That is what separates it from ethnicity, and disqualifies it from the realm of civil rights consideration.
Besides, as much as people hate to hear this, and it is in no way meant as an insult to anyone struggling to be free of their homosexual tendencies, it is an undeniable fact that no matter what a man does, there is no proof that he (or a woman) is practicing homosexuality unless you see them in the act.
Frankly, the same thing applies to heterosexuality. A really cynical person could even say, once the woman in a couple becomes pregnant, “I didn’t see the act, how do I know it was her husband?” Enter the paternity tests which keep Maury Povich on television.
I know what I like. What I am is a Christian man. We am more than one of our desires, we am more than our sexual orientation, and we are also more than the color of our skin. The color though, is the one that everybody sees first.
#30 suek: I agree with you. Had we not played the game of eugenics and racial superiority, none of this would be important. You know and I know that “racial” pride is a source of strength for many of us.
However, I do not care for the situation we have put our children in when they have to choose their “race” in order to qualify for the category of the moment that is most beneficial to them. I suspect you agree.
Chris, I have to disagree. While I have seen studies that show homosexuality may be genetic, I have also seen studies that say it is not. There is no definitive proof either way. Your genes do not determine your behavior, in my opinion. As for praying them straight, I do not believe I ever once mentioned that.
Arguing that procreation is fundamental to civilization is not sufficiently relevant to the constitutional argument against gay marriage. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that government should not be concerned constitutionally with procreation, which the Supreme Court stated in Griswold. Procreation is a matter of choice. Many people today are choosing not to have kids at all. Then there are couples who are unable to have kids. Yet they are not prohibited from marrying. Death row inmates have been allowed to marry, but have no prospect of procreating. Therefore, the constitutional argument against gay marriage must rest on some other argument. I have yet to hear a sufficient one that would pass constitutional muster.
Although race and homosexuality are different, the Court will first have to decide if homosexual has the fundamental right to marry. Then the court will have to reach the question of choice. Whether homosexuals can marry the person of their choice even if that person is of the same sex. Here is where the analogy with Loving becomes important. The argument against interracial marriage rested on the morality argument that races were not suppose to mix. Likewise, the argument against homosexuality has rested heavily on the morality argument. The Court has stated that the morality of a majority cannot deny fundamental rights to a minority of citizens.
As a black man, I do sometimes get agitated with other groups using the plight of African-Americans who struggled through slavery and Jim Crow. But as a lawyer, I have to recognize that the law should be and must be blind to the differences of its citizen in most situations. There are exceptions, e.g. criminals don’t have the same rights as most citizens.
38. Antonio: A law question—what compelling “state” reason would the SCOTUS have for overturning the long standing, common law tradition of marriage from being restricted to a man and a woman? (Keeping in mind that age, blood relation and mental competency are also long standing traditions.)
I pose this not in contradiction to your post, but in seeking your ideas. After all, to overturn the marriage laws would require the SCOTUS (by their own dicta) to find a “compelling state reason.”
DagneyT #32-what are you quoting? I’m sure that you don’t believe that quote; I’m just wondering where it came from?
In February, when the Supreme Court of New Jersey heard arguments in Lewis v. Harris, even the counsel for the state had to admit the true logic behind “protecting” marriage.
Here’s the reaction when confronted with the following quote by Sandra Day O’Connor from Lawrence v. Texas: “… we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.”
Patrick DeAlmeida: “But she notes that it was moral disapproval with nothing more. Here, the state is asserting something more. It’s asserting an interest in maintaining marriage as it has been.”
Justice Virginia Long: “Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage ‘as it has been’?”
Patrick DeAlmeida: “Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people.”
Justice Barry T. Albin: “Didn’t Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage — in fact criminalizing them?”
DeAlmeida: “They did.”
Chris wrote:
A biological basis for male homosexuality has been well-established in studies of identical twins.
- – - – - – - – - – -
Well, no – the studies were presented by the media as offering “tantalizing” clues that homosexuality “may be” genetic – but an examination of the two largest, most professional surveys actually proves just the opposite.
The first study surveyed several thousand pairs of identical twins in a mid-Western state – and found that there was a higher correlation between twins for divorce (60 percent) than for homosexuality (54 percent). Homosexuality placed squarely in the range of characteristics with clear behavioral/environmental influences.
Compare that with the truly “born that way” trait of eye color – for which the twins correlated 99.9 percent of the time.
A more recent study has come out of Australia. In that survey, the correlation is only 20 percent for homosexuality.
This is a familiar pattern – the media throws pixie dust into people’s eyes, totally misreading the actual science.
Chris wrote:
Other studies have shown gays have an abnormalty in the hypothalmus region in far higher percentage than non-gays.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
… and here’s another example of the same media dodge. In fact these studies prove nothing – as the researchers themselves point out, we don’t know if the brain structures are that way from birth, or if they are a response to repeated patterns of behavior/stimulation.
This little caveat usually appears in the last paragraph of the wire service stories, where it is almost always lopped off by local editors.
At least you didn’t cite the more obviously ludicrous attempts to prove homosexuality is “normal” by pointing to fruit flies/penguins/chimpanzees – those examples demonstrate another major fallacy of pro-gay propaganda: they blur the distinction between “natural” and “normal”.
We know that depression, diabetes, cancer, and a host of other ailments have genetic causes – that is, they are “natural” in the lingo of pro-gay propaganda. Would anyone argue they are “normal” healthy examples of “diversity”?
But oh, no Chris – you go on to write:
Behavioralists note early childhood manifestations of homosexuality, traits that concentrate in gay males.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
… do you REALLY mean to cite behavioral observation to prove GENETIC causation?
In fact, the leading pre-PC thinkers of modern psychology – Freud, Jung, and others – explained homosexuality as an “arrested development’ that could be traced back to missed opportunities in early childhood and adolescence, including a particular set of dysfunctional family interactions.
These theories were never disproven – only shouted down. And the behavioral observations you mention corroborate them.
It’s also interesting that you mention “opportunistic” homosexuals. We know that 25-30 percent of young men will experience transient same-sex attractions during puberty and their early 20s. In a saner age, this was understood as a passing phenomenon as these men integrated a healthy male identity.
Enormous money and effort is now being invested in “turning” these young men – making them believe that they are fundamentally gay. In particular, the totally baseless idea that “you were born that way” closes over many young teens like a shackle. Most of these young men would, if left alone and not “helped” by the gay lobby, go on to integrate a healthy normal heterosexual identity.
Talk about “opportunistic”!
Ben-David
THANKS!!!!
Ben David:
As a biological scientist, I can reaffirm that there is NO proof that sexual preference is genetic – it is all about speculation.
And I have a friend who has brothers that are identical twins – one is straignt, the other gay.
And the gay twin has a history of problems that may indeed explain his sexual preference.
Ben and Frank, thank you for your commentary. I have no background in science and do not have the time to research the subject thoroughly.
>>What group or subculture can honestly claims they are systematically being denied equal treatment as Americans?
You mean now I assume. None really are.
#43 Ben-David
As John Adams said: “Facts are stubborn things.”
Perhaps the gay lobby is more comfortable with Reagan (for the first time) who fluffed the quote and said: “Facts are stupid things.”
Now I know where the slippery slope that is leading to gay marriage began. Can it be repealed?
Heliotrope
The Court would not be overturning the traditional notion of marriage. Instead, the court would invalidate laws that restricted marriage in a way that would prevent everyone from enjoying this fundamental right. Again, it’s not good enough to say that marriage is the bedrock of our civilization. But even accepting that premise, what would be the argument preventing gays from participating in that institution with the person of their choice? Saying that marriage is designed for a man and woman (which I believe) will not likely pass constitutional muster. Remember there were many of the same traditionalist arguments used during slavery and Jim Crow.
To convince a court that laws restricting gay marriage are constitutional, the opponents of gay marriage must come up with more constitutionally sound arguments, not just moral arguments.
Antonio, there is no “fundamental right to get married” anywhere in the Constitution. States regulate marriage in a number of ways – by age, allowing someone to have only one spouse, etc – and this has been found to be Constitutional. In addition to that, as La Shawn has pointed out, the situation blacks faced under Jim Crow laws is in no way legally equivalent to what gays/lesbians face. You are very much in error on this.
Legally, the burden of proof in changing the law is on the advocates of gay marriage, not the supporters of current law.
>>To convince a court that laws restricting gay marriage are constitutional, the opponents of gay marriage must come up with more constitutionally sound arguments, not just moral arguments>>
What is sounder than words meaning what they mean? Marriage is quite simply a legal bond between a man and a woman. That is its definition. You cannot have a square circle – it’s logically absurd. It is constitutional because it _is_.
Perhaps there should be some sort of civil union that becomes the equivalent shorthand for the legal consequences of marriage, but that doesn’t seem to be what gays want. What they want is that their preferences be deemed _normal_ within society and construe marriage to be a means to achieve that end.
Have you ever heard of a list of privileges that are accorded to married persons that gays feel are deprived to them? The only ones I’ve heard of are health benefits, social security benefits and the right to visit their partner in the hospital as automatically as any member of the family. For this, we should change society?
Mwalimu
Please read Loving, Griswold, and Skinner. True the Constitution does not specifically say marriage is a fundamental. However, the Supreme Court has found marriage, along with a host of other rights, fundamental to the liberty and freedom protected by the Constitution. You are right that states may regulate marriage, but those regulations must passed constitutional muster. Further, you incorrectly imply that I have compared the plight of blacks with gays. There is no substantive comparison. However, in making legal arguments one must look at precedent and the rationale used in other cases to understand how the court might reach a decision in subsequent cases. Under a equal protection analysis, race conscious laws are subject to heightened scrutiny by the court. Homosexuality is not subject to heightened scrutiny. But again, when it comes to marriage, the constitutional analysis rests on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, you must look at other due process cases, such as Loving, for guidance. Lastly, the laws that are coming under attack at the state laws prohibiting gay marriage. Those laws must pass constitutional muster and the proponents of those laws must make cogent constitutionally sound arguments to ensure the validation of those laws.
Suek,
I understand your arguments, but again, yours are moral not legal. If I am judging the case, I would ask How would allowing homosexual marriage harm society. This question must be answered with legal arguments in order for gay marriage laws to survive.
>>I understand your arguments, but again, yours are moral not legal.>>
If you’re saying that _any_ of my arguments have been based on a position of morality, then you do _not_ understand my arguments. Please quote any of my comments that have approached this from a standpoint of morality.
I have yet to read a coherent argument that addresses how gay marriage hurts society. What is the harm in promoting a loving and monogamous relationship between two people.
Don’t tell me that homosexuals cannot do it, not when each day we read about domestic violence in the homes of heterosexuals and or adultery.
And don’t give me some crackpot religious argument about how you think G-d wants the world to be. You don’t know, you don’t speak for him and most importantly you don’t live in a theocracy.
There are so many other more important issues to discuss but instead we argue about nonsense.
Jack, we do , however, live in a democracy, and the majority by every single poll I have seen says that they do not want homosexual marriage. As for arguments on why society would be hurt, how about this. When gay marriage is legalized, why not polygamy? Why not pedophilia? Why have an age of consent at all? Slippery slope.
I think this wil sum up my position quite well.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/9381/
Suek,
The argument that marriage is the bond between a man and a woman is a moral argument. Because of most recently, the laws of many states did not define marriage in that way, which opened the door for gays to argue for marriage licenses. Moreover, segregationist made moral arguments that states rightfully restricted marriage between persons of different colors.
I agree that God created woman for man, and ordained marriage as between woman and man. But the courts are not going to accept religious views as compelling on the issue of whether gays are entitled to marry.
It I misunderstood your point, please further clarify.
Ian MacD,
Just because the majority opposes gay marriage doesn’t make laws restricting gay marriage legal. Majority don’t rule as cliche would have it. The Constitution was designed to ensure that those in the minorities were protected from oppressive rule by the majority. Moreover, the slippery slope argument seems a bit of a stretch. Children below a certain age are unable to enter into contracts. Marriage is a form of contract. Therefore, your examples of what might happen are not reasonable.
Antonio, read the link I posted. Sodomy was illegal. When it was declared by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional, that opened the floodgates. Slippery slope is entirely resonable. Take abortion for example. First it was used only when the life of the mother was threatened. Then came abortion on demand in the first trimester. Then came the abomination of partial birth abortion. Take a look at what is happening in Europe, where now it is legal for three people to get married. My position is a reasonable one.
>>The argument that marriage is the bond between a man and a woman is a moral argument.>>
No, sir. It’s a matter of definition.
Proposing gay “marriage” is changing that definition.
>>The Court would not be overturning the traditional notion of marriage. Instead, the court would invalidate laws that restricted marriage>>
By what twist of definition do you consider that invalidating laws would not overturn the traditional notion of marriage?
>> fundamental right.>>
Fundamental rights by what standard? Where, when and by whom is marriage defined as a fundamental right?
>>Just because the majority opposes gay marriage doesn’t make laws restricting gay marriage legal. Majority don’t rule as cliche would have it. The Constitution was designed to ensure that those in the minorities were protected from oppressive rule by the majority.>>
“The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm: our republic and laws are based upon consent of the governed.”
I would submit that “consent of the governed” clearly indicates approval of the majority.
Protection from “oppressive rule by the majority” doesn’t mean that the minority has the right to demand special privileges. Changing basic concepts of social custom definitely falls within the purvue of “special privileges”.
“Fundamental rights by what standard? Where, when and by whom is marriage defined as a fundamental right?”
The Supremes in Loving, although the point about precedent sonnyredd made is a good one.
“Protection from “oppressive rule by the majority†doesn’t mean that the minority has the right to demand special privileges.”
This is where it gets touchy–if marriage is a fundamental right, it’s not a special privilege.
“Changing basic concepts of social custom definitely falls within the purvue of “special privilegesâ€.”
I don’t think that’s right, as a general point. There are certain basic concepts of social customs that violate or have historically violated the Constitutional rights of minorities.
Suek,
You miss the point about the argument against gay marriage. Many states did not define marriage as between a man and woman, that’s why you have so many ballot initiatives attempting to enact such a definition. In those states, the legislatures failed to specifically limit marriage to a man and a woman. Therefore, the new laws that have been deemed unconstitutional by Massachusetts and Georgia have attempted to change the law that existed before the ballot initiatives were passed. Moreover, there are a number of laws still on the books in many states that would not pass constitutional scrutiny if challenged.
I don’t think challenges to unconstitutional laws by minorities were designed to obtain special privileges. Instead, the challenges were designed to make sure that minorities had the same privileges as those in the majority.
The court has found a number of implicit rights necessary to exercise of our freedom and liberty as citizens. Privacy, marriage, education are examples.
Jack, we do , however, live in a democracy, and the majority by every single poll I have seen says that they do not want homosexual marriage.
You know there was a time when the majority believed in slavery and that the earth was flat. Rules based upon the majority are not based upon ethics or morals.
As for arguments on why society would be hurt, how about this. When gay marriage is legalized, why not polygamy? Why not pedophilia? Why have an age of consent at all? Slippery slope.
A common tactic in trying to marginalize an opinion is to try and make it look foolish and weak, but it is not always successful.
The suggestion that by legalizing gay marriage we are going to to have legalize polygamy or pedophilia is weak.
But I’ll ignore that and return to the initial question. What is the harm in encouraging a loving and monagamous relationship between two people.
Jack – “But I’ll ignore that and return to the initial question. What is the harm in encouraging a loving and monagamous relationship between two people.”
Father and willing 19-year old daughter?
Arab immigrant and 7 wives and 27 children all on welfare, but in a loving & monagamous relationship (or at least monagamous with the 7 wives unless he’s out scouting for Wife # 8??)
“Arab immigrant and 7 wives and 27 children all on welfare, but in a loving & monagamous relationship (or at least monagamous with the 7 wives unless he’s out scouting for Wife # 8??)”
Don’t think that’s two people.
Chris,
I tried that in the other post…Jack doesn’t get (At least last time he blamed coffee)
#67 Jack asks: “But I’ll ignore that and return to the initial question. What is the harm in encouraging a loving and monagamous relationship between two people.”
Why loving? Why monogamous? Those qualifiers sound a little value laden. They seem to weaken your philosophy rather than further it.
Renee,
Nice dig, works better when there is a little meat behind it.
Chris,
Again the attempt to marginalize a position by coming up with an extreme scenario is not a strong method of proving the invalidity of the position.
But if I must, what is the harm in legalizing marriage between two non-blood related people in a loving and monagamous relationship.
Thus far the reasons against are limited to religious and or personal preference neither of which really meet the test of proving that there is something wrong with it.
Heliotrope,
What is wrong with using value laden arguments. Values are part of how we establish acceptance or nonacceptance of social norms and practices.
Jack:
“But if I must, what is the harm in legalizing marriage between two non-blood related people in a loving and monagamous relationship.”
Your question fails to distinguish between male and female by the use of “people,” and so seems to be begging the question. In other words, you must not ask that.
Jack,
Why must the vehicle of encouragement be marriage? You’ve made it into a binary system, where one must be for “gay mariage” or against gay folk having loving monogamous relationships.
The point of the Loving vs Virgina was a law that sought not just to prevent marriage, but relaionships themselves.
>>Many states did not define marriage as between a man and woman>>
There are probably lots of words they don’t define. They probably thought that when they used the word, everybody who spoke english would know what they meant. Their mistake.
I’m done with this. If it’s an issue I can vote on, I will. If the courts take it out of the hands of those of us who can vote, I’ll work to see that we are not stripped of _our_ rights. Other than that, I’ll wait for the day when liberals manage to use the courts to protect the Muslim minorities to the point that they’ll institute Shari’a and if gays want to know what “oppression” is, they’ll find it.
>>Don’t think that’s two people.>>
Marriage between _two_ people _is_ a religious concept.
>>…two non-blood related people in a loving and monagamous relationship.>>
Why all the value qualifiers? If marriage is indeed a right, who then gets to define it?
suek,
In some folks minds …
two non-blood related people in a loving and monagamous relationship…
can mean…
man and dog, man and cat, woman and lion, whatever and whatever….
and so on and soon…
such is what happens when man starts worshipping self and makes turth to be whatever his mind thinks it is…
UGH
I actually answered Jack’s question, he just chooses not to see it as such.
>>such is what happens when man starts worshipping self>>
Indeed. The modern version of “placing strange gods before Me”
“in some folks minds…two non-blood related people in a loving and monagamous relationship…
can mean…
man and dog, man and cat, woman and lion, whatever and whatever….”
Who are these “some people?”
Additionally, that “two . . . relationship” definition rules out bestiality, polygamy, etc., etc.
A parade of potential horribles is not a rational slippery slope argument–it’s just Chicken Little with more syllables.
“A parade of potential horribles is not a rational slippery slope argument–it’s just Chicken Little with more syllables.”
And, intentionally or not, in step with attempts to equate homosexuality with bestiality.
homo=man (human)
John and tvd, slippery slope is not “Chicken Little”. When one taboo is broken, it makes it far easier to break others.
‘Slippery slope is not chicken little”
THAT’S what I’m talking about!
Awesome stuff.
When one taboo is broken, it makes it far easier to break others.
It doesn’t have to go that way. Life is not always linear.
Jack, study history. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but is always ends up that way.
Ian,
Actually you are incorrect, but I understand that with that kind of defeatist mentality it might be tough to see things differently.
“It doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but is always ends up that way.”
Prove it.
Hold on a minute.
There is an assumption that marriage is a right.
Rights don’t require application and subsequent rewarding of a LICENSE.
Marriage requires a Marriage License and the applicants must meet some requirements for the issue of that license, blood test at the least.
Therefore, Marriage, or “Holy Matrimony” as it was originally called, is not a right.
It is a privilege.
Just like the driver’s license.
You do not have a right to drive.
If you don’t believe that, try driving wrong a few times and see what the state can do with your driving privileges.
License can be anulled, revoked, suspended, cancelled even.
License can also stipulate requirements as to qualification.
A right?
Rights are defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this country.
Not that present day judges would bother with the distinction.
“Rights don’t require application and subsequent rewarding of a LICENSE.”
That’s just wrong. For instance, authors are guaranteed patent rights as part of the Constitution, but one must apply for patent protection.
The ability to exercise one’s right to free speech in certain circumstances also requires permits on occasion.
tvd, prove how breaking taboos leads to more breaking of taboos and how that leads to a decline of a culture? I can do that in one word: Rome.
Whoa, Ian, you said it *always* ends up that way. One civilization hardly proves that.
In any event, I’d maintain that American civilization has become progresively stronger through the breaking of taboos, from womens’ suffrage to interracial marriage, all the way up to the economic benefits involved with removing the moral opprobrium on gambling.
tvd, you asked for proof and I gave it to you. Want more? Macedonia, Athens, Egypt, Byzantine Empire, Great Ghana, the Zulus, etc. ad naseum.
Actually, I better take Great Ghana off the list.
etc, ad nauseum ain’t *always*.
In any event, my point holds. Taboos aren’t always good things, and the elimination thereof makes this country stronger more often than not.
Thanks to everyone for explaining that the ability to procreate is a necessary part of marriage and therefore it is permissible to prohibit homosexuals from marriage. But is this really a “reason” or an after-the-fact attempt to justify a pre-existing prejudice? Should we have a constitutional amendment to prohibit post-menopausal women and men who have had a radical orchiectomy from marrying? Hmmm. Sounds to me as if all these “reasons” are suspiciously similar to those of Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia — it’s just that we have enough distance from that decision to see that it was PREJUDICE that banned interracial marriage — not a devotion to God’s word. Perhaps we should devote more effort to improving the quality of our own marriages and less on telling others whom they can and cannot marry.
Comments on this entry are closed.