The Deep Logic of Marriage

Here's something I didn't know: In 1967, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, finally got around to striking down state laws that made it crime for people of two different races to marry.  It was not a courageous move because, at that time, of the 16 states which still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, very few enforced them.

Thirteen years earlier, in 1948, the Supreme Court of California made a courageous decision: In Perez v. Sharp, it struck down anti-miscegenation laws under the California constitution at a time when racially discriminatory laws were the norm.

This past Thursday, that same court, in deciding In re Marriage Cases, cited Perez and held that laws forbidding same-sex marriage are forbidden under the California constitution. Just like Perez, it was a 4-3 decision. And like Perez, it was courageous.

The title of the post is ironic and refers to this quote from the NYTimes.com article:

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they are uncomfortable with the analogy to interracial marriage bans. “It’s well suited to a sound-bite culture,” said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, which supports traditional marriage.

“Sure, it works at the surface level,” Mr. Stewart continued. “But it is actually defeated by the deeper reality of marriage itself. Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman. To apply Perez in the genderless marriage context is actually to betray it.”

"Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race" today, because of cases like Perez and Loving. Advocates of anti-miscegenation laws used the bible to justify why people of different races should not marry. The trial judge who convicted Mildred and Richard Loving wrote in his decision:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and 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.

When Perez came down in 1948, you can bet people like Monte Stewart thought racial purity was an integral part of marriage's "deep logic", just as they think sexual orientation is today. And they get support for that view from people in power.

Not for much longer, I hope.

Comments

[Jamelle]

In the (frequent and contentious) arguments I have with family about gay marriage, I always bring up the point that many of the arguments they use against gay marriage (we are African-American) are modern day versions of the arguments used against interracial marriage.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to do anything but piss them off, since they (and I think a lot of black people) are extremely hostile towards comparisons between the gay rights and civil rights movements.

It's interesting, I guess.

[Mithras]

Jamelle-
I am familiar with the pissed-off reaction. It's kind of funny and kind of sad. You're not really someone in America until you have someone else to look down on, I guess.

[tomemos]

One of history's sick ironies is that Fred Phelps was a civil rights attorney in the sixties, and is still proud of that even as he leads the "God hates fags" campaign. Obviously, he's crazy, but some people really do see the two things as completely unrelated.