Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage Find Common Ground
Advert
In the 1948 case of Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George quoted from the Perez decision three times while the current court was ruling on the legality of a ban on same-sex marriage. It seemed that the chief justice accepted that the struggle for same-sex marriage closely paralleled that of the struggle to legalize interracial marriages, reports the New York Times. When the California Supreme Court majority found Thursday that same-sex couples had a right to marry, they cited Perez.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are uncomfortable with the analogy, reports the New York Times. Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, says the parallel only works on the surface. "Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman," said Stewart.
The Perez decision came long before the rest of the nation started desegregation, as another six years would pass before Brown v. Board of Education, where the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that segregated schools violated the Constitution. Thirteen years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court would also strike down bans on interracial marriage in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, according to the New York Times.
As the Perez decision occurred so long before the rest of the nation's attempts at equality, the history of interracial marriage restrictions can be viewed in two ways. The Perez court can be said to have started the wave of equality with an early decision in the right direction. Or, it can be said that the court overrode the democratic process in making a decision most of the country was not yet willing to embrace.
The parallels will continue to be drawn as the analysis of the current court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage continues.
It seemed that the chief justice accepted that the struggle for same-sex marriage closely paralleled that of the struggle to legalize interracial marriages,
Yay! That is excellent. It is certainly true. And about time.
"Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman," said Stewart.
This is total bullshit. Deep logic has nothing to do with marriage. There are two primary faces of religion. Civil and religious. The Civil piece: all citizens should be treated equally. Activists can point to lists over a thousand items long detailing the material advantages available to those who can claim to be married, reaching into every aspect of those lifes. It is not fair to deny people those rights because others don't approve of their choice of life partner. On the religious side: the government has no business offering an opinion of which unions God will find acceptable. That's not their job.
I don't know where these people find such total confidence in their bigotry and fear. Sexual minorities are frequently treated disgracefully by abusers who claim to think that they are furthering God's will by their crimes. This crap won't fly in the 21st century.
Hopefully, the Government won't let them get away with it. Gradually, the intolerance is going away, the ones that hate are being shown to be shallow and small minded - for what they really are. Those that are not small minded are beginning to see the "light" as it were!
I think that the comparison is that neither type marriage was once accepted - and society has changed to mostly allow the mixed marriage, at least legally.
And I agree that logic, whether deep, shallow, wading pool, or mud puddle depth, has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is an emotional connection, and is a social convention that society uses to formalize the relationship between two people such that they are acknowledged to be a couple so that there are no mistakes as to their availability, they have rights as to property, family matters, legal matters, and so these matters are supported by the local government to prevent challenges or disputes as to the rights of the spouses regarding those matters.
Traditionally in Western culture, religious institutions have provided the ceremonies, but as secular governments have replaced the church in secular matters, the registration of marriages has devolved onto governments. Churches have retained the power to marry, but the actual registration, in the US at least, is the responsibility of the secular government.
Since society has now begun the process of loosening the definitions of what relationships between people can entail, i.e., homosexual relationships have become more accepted, all that remains is for society to realize that the secular government can redefine those relationships any way it likes, and can give churches the right to define their own marriage rites and the criteria required to be met before they are performed.
That process is today further along, due to this decision.
Is a civil marriage in one state valid in all states? There was a case recently about a man who legally married a young girl in one state and who was arrested for statuatory rape in another state. The feds may have to step in and cause a ruckus by forcing all states to recognize any state's marriage laws.
(2) And, if same sex marriage is ok, why not 3 way marriage, polygamy, polyandry, robot marriage, marriage with animals......is this not a slippery slope?
And all the implications for having children, adopting children, visitation rights, abortion rights, alimony, separate maintenance, support payments.......
All States have reciprocity agreements with other States regarding the recognition of such things as marriage, divorce, driver's licenses, etc. But a lot of them have passed amendments specifically excluding the reciprocal recognition of same sex marriages.
So the real answer is some do, some don't. I am sure that since it hasn't ever been definitively made legal in any State till now, the issue has not come up yet. (at least that is my understanding)
As for the slippery slope argument, society certainly has the need to set at least some limits, but that could be a while before we get there!
The more complex things become, the more you will hear screaming from the right wing which is not capable of comprehending anything more complex than a beer can.
(2) And, if same sex marriage is ok, why not 3 way marriage, polygamy, polyandry, robot marriage, marriage with animals......is this not a slippery slope?
I think some of those things should be okay. I don't see a slippery slope because I draw a clear line at adult personhood. Only an adult can enter a relationship of this nature. That leaves out kids. Period. And no animal or robot would qualify. But beyond that, society should only get to stick its nose in, if their are minor children whose care does not seem to meet societial standards in terms of mental health or physical safety.
I don't see a problem with 3 way marriage or even more - as long as it wasn't a male centric type where women are given no say.
Robert Heinlein had some very good stories (see the Lazarus Long stories) that explained his ideas about these kinds of marriages. His The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was an excellent text on these ideas - the multiple marriages described there were basically like little corporations, and many of the rules governing them were similar to corporate rules governing publicly traded corporations. Simple, equal in stature between the sexes and fair to all concerned, they emphasized the purpose of the family as being a place where children were to be nurtured and protected, and where the family would be given stability against economic bad times through the operation of its finances like a business, with multiple incomes from different sources.
He tried very hard to bury the current picture of polygamy being male centric and misogynistic in character, so he tended to generalize the practice as being a more general form of polygamy instead of specifically separated into polyandry or polygyny, and since the rules were basically democratic, any majority within the partners could allow a new partner or toss out an old one, preventing one partner from dominating like current polygamous unions within the Mormon sects usually are.
I could easily see marriage moving in this direction as society becomes more mature and tolerant of different customs.
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ')group by comment_item_id order by a desc limit 10' at line 1
I don't know where these people find such total confidence in their bigotry and fear. Sexual minorities are frequently treated disgracefully by abusers who claim to think that they are furthering God's will by their crimes. This crap won't fly in the 21st century.