Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Happy Loving Day!

40 years ago today, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional.

Let me repeat that. 40 years ago, it was against the law in many states for a white person to marry a black one.

Let us hope that one day soon, laws against gay marriage go the same way. I have no doubt that our children and grandchildren will look at today's laws against gay marriage with the same horror and disbelief that most of us now feel about the anti-miscegenation laws.

[T]here is a striking similarity between the arguments used to justify anti-miscegenation laws and the arguments put forward today against gay marriage. Tradition, a respect for majority opinion, religion, science, sociology -- all were invoked with great somberness and much citation of experts and their research. The prejudice that propped up all the arguments -- and, for us, invalidates them -- was invisible or inevitable to their proponents.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents, their sentencing judge decreed. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. --Fred Hiatt


You opponents of gay marriage, I beg of you to consider your position in light of the positions of people opposed to interracial marriage just a single generation ago. How was it possible that so many American citizens believed then what seems to be a gravely immoral position today? What questions have you asked yourself to ensure you aren't making a similar mistake today?

30 comments:

Nephtuli said...

Many of the arguments against miscegenation were false on their face. For example, Virginia's law in Loving was just enacted in the 20th Century, so such prohibitions couldn't have been that traditional. In contrast SSM has never been recognized in the United States.

But of course even if that wasn't true, it fallicious to argue that since similar arguments were used in the past for something unjust, that their use in support of another practice makes that practice unjust. The arguments could have been wrong then, but not now.

Parklife said...

Looking up anti-mescegenation in Wiki.. You discover there was a proposed Amendment in 1912. Sound familar?

The origninal trial judge in the Loving case went as far to say:

The fact that he (God) separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Now if that isn't the biggest load.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

I actually agree a lot with tigerboy here, even though he misuses quite a few terms.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skcorefil said...

I agree with Tigerboy too.

Ezzie said...

I'm more with Nephtuli, but even I'll agree with about 90% of what TigerBoy said.

Racism and being against gay marriage are completely dissimilar.

That people then viewed them the same way does not mean that they're the same.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

Marriage existed prior to the jewish version, the christian version or the islamic version.

Religions do not own the concept of marriage. They have just formalized a natural process of pair bonding into their respective religions and tried to convince us that no other type of marriage except the ones they espouse, are allowed to exist.

jewish philosopher said...

When am I going to be allowed to marry my goldfish, Pinkie? I love her.

Ezzie said...

Tigerboy - Huh? I basically said exactly that. Note that I used the words "gay marriage" and not 'being against homosexuals'.

I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality being an inborn trait. And as science is still out on that one, I'll keep waiting. A psychologist we know felt that that was not the case.

Marriage is a right for anyone - a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is, seeing as how it's a religious creation. You want to have civil unions for tax purposes? What do I care? Go ahead. (Unless you argue that the reasons for the tax breaks are something else, in which case you can have a nice economic debate.)

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jewish philosopher said...

"Homosexuality being an inborn trait is not something for you to agree with, or disagree with, unless you are homosexual."

So is pedophilia. So what? It's still a crime.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen said...

Tigerboy (and those who agreed with him):

I've heard this argument before, that the state should solve the problem by getting out of the marrying business. It always makes me think of a famous court case. Forgive me if the details are vague, but I read about it years ago.

Some decades ago (1960s?) there was a municipality in the USA that operated a "whites only" swimming pool. A court decision eventually found that this was discriminatory and ruled that the municipality had to open up the pool to blacks, too.

The municipality couldn't stand the thought of white kids and black kids romping together in the same pool, so they came up with a clever alternative: they closed the pool entirely. They reasoned, "Now we're not discriminating — there's no public pool for kids of either color."

Back it went to court. The court ruled that the "solution" was an even worse instance of racism. To paraphrase, "You are so biased against black kids that you would deny a swimming pool to white kids too, just to prevent the races from mixing."

If the government gets out of the marrying business, that's a quick political fix. But I don't think it equals justice. The only just solution is to open up marriage to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

beepbeepitsme said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

tiger:

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage."

Westermarck, Edward Alexander (1903). The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480 (reprint).

JP:

The marriage contract involves consent which is why it is restricted to those who are able to give consent on their own cognizance.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but when your goldfish looks at you in what you believe is that "special way" - that it more than likely only has gas, and is not responding in kind to your declaration of love and marriage.

beepbeepitsme said...

tiger:

Marriage as a concept, existed prior to judaism and consequently christianity and islam. One only needs to look at Ancient Egypt to see this.

And certainly pagan marriages, (those who were not one of the big 3), existed prior to these religions and during the expansion of these religions.)

Some religions would like us to believe that only THEY get to dictate what a marriage is or can be for everyone. In reality, they can dictate to those who share their religious beliefs, but not to those outside of their religion.

So, christianity gets to say what a christian marriage is. Judaism gets to say what a jewish marriage is and islam gets to say what an islamic marriage is. However, they don't get to dictate to those OUTSIDE of their specific religion what a marriage is.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "So is pedophilia. So what? It's still a crime."

Pedophilia is a crime because a contract for sex cannot be made without consent. Children are unable to give consent on their own cognizance, so pedophilia is sex without the legal consent of one of the parties.

Sex without consent is rape. Easy to see why it is illegal and a crime.

The same goes for bestiality or people in love with their goldfish. The issue of a contract requiring mutual consent is what keeps pedophilia and bestiality illegal.

Surely one would agree that the important issue in a contract of any kind is that of mutual consent. The ability to give consent on one's own cognizance is the underlying feature.

Unless, of course, you support the marrying of children as child brides at the age of 9 or 10 - regardless of their ability or willingness to consent?

Now, where did I read about instances like that? Oh yes - in so called holy books.

jewish philosopher said...

"Children are not old enough to give consent. Adults CAN give consent. That creates a very different situation."

So what's wrong with prostitution?

jewish philosopher said...

"when your goldfish looks at you in what you believe is that "special way" - that it more than likely only has gas"

I don't believe you. You don't understand Pinkie.

beepbeepitsme said...

JP:

And you don't understand the concept of consent. Who/what is considered able to give consent and why.

beepbeepitsme said...

JP:

Prostitution is a contract for sex between 2 consenting adults where a financial transaction is involved.

Sounds like marriage to me.

beepbeepitsme said...

JP:

It seems like the only reason you can give for not marrying your goldfish or your cat, or perhaps your favorite teddy bear, is a scriptorial one. (Or one associated with your religion)

If that is the case, where in passage and verse does it say that you are not allowed to marry your underpants?

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

tiger

I would sleep with someone for money if the offer was right, and perhaps other people would also. What we seem to be haggling about is not whether people would prostitute themselves, (have sex for money), but the price.

Therefore, I declare in the openness of this forum that I would sleep with any of you for a million dollars. No goldfish/animals, teddy bears or underpants need apply.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

LOL tiger