Gay Marriage vs. Interracial Marriage

[Rachael]

Okay, so here's the thing: I take the whole gay marriage thing more personally than a lot of people, largely because my own marriage would have been illegal in California until 1948, and didn't become completely legal in the United States until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia). Granted, most of those laws were intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites, but many of them forbade all interracial marriages, not just "negro and white", to use the wording of the time.

I would have been for gay marriage regardless, since I feel that it's no one's business who you marry as long as you're both consenting adults, and because I actually agree with Dan Savage that marriage is a stabilizing force in society AND that the institution of marriage is weakened by having "lesser states" such as domestic partnerships - since both same- and opposite-sex people can enter into domestic partnerships, part of me feels it's a way to avoid the "real thing" - the lifelong commitment to raise a family together.

But the fact that my own marriage is interracial gives me another dog in this race, so to speak. I can't imagine what my life would be like if I was forbidden to marry Dave because he's not white and I am. The idea is so infuriating that I can empathize with all those who are forbidden to marry because they happen to love someone of the same gender.

To me, the two issues seem nearly identical - there was even an attempt, in 1912, to amend the U.S. Constitution to say "That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term 'negro or person of color,' as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood."

So I'm wondering what others honestly think about the comparison - are the two situation comparable, or is gay marriage distinct in some meaningful way from interracial marriage?

Especially asking those S'cubies who are so good with playing Devil's Advocate.

[S'ewing S'cubie]

Well, my own marriage is inter-religious and my daughter's marriage is inter-racial. I grew up in a time when her marriage would have gotten both of them killed and I'm mighty glad those days are long gone. I celebrate the number of interracial couples I see as signs that maybe someday humans will finally grow up.

ITA that any law abiding citizen should be able to make a life with the person of his/her own choice whether they share any cultural, racial, relgious or other backgrounds or not.

[Anne, Old S'cubie Cat]

May 30, 2008 12:48:19 GMT -5 Rachael said:

Okay, so here's the thing: I take the whole gay marriage thing more personally than a lot of people, largely because my own marriage would have been illegal in California until 1948, and didn't become completely legal in the United States until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia). Granted, most of those laws were intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites, but many of them forbade all interracial marriages, not just "negro and white", to use the wording of the time.

I would have been for gay marriage regardless, since I feel that it's no one's business who you marry as long as you're both consenting adults, and because I actually agree with Dan Savage that marriage is a stabilizing force in society AND that the institution of marriage is weakened by having "lesser states" such as domestic partnerships - since both same- and opposite-sex people can enter into domestic partnerships, part of me feels it's a way to avoid the "real thing" - the lifelong commitment to raise a family together.

But the fact that my own marriage is interracial gives me another dog in this race, so to speak. I can't imagine what my life would be like if I was forbidden to marry Dave because he's not white and I am. The idea is so infuriating that I can empathize with all those who are forbidden to marry because they happen to love someone of the same gender.

To me, the two issues seem nearly identical - there was even an attempt, in 1912, to amend the U.S. Constitution to say "That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term 'negro or person of color,' as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood."

So I'm wondering what others honestly think about the comparison - are the two situation comparable, or is gay marriage distinct in some meaningful way from interracial marriage?

Especially asking those S'cubies who are so good with playing Devil's Advocate.

I'm with you and Diane - if two consenting adults want to make a committment to each other, they should be encouraged and celebrated.

I also don't see how extending the rights I and my spouse enjoy to another couple diminishes them for us. Rights aren't finite, and they don't have to be rationed.

Here's another part of the issue: What about county clerks who object to performing gay marriages on the grounds that it violates their religious rights?

My opinion on the matter is that the county clerks were hired to perform marriages, it's part of the job the taxpayers pay them for, and if they object so thoroughly that they can't do it, they should find another job. Separation of church and state is still the law of the land.

I mean, if someone can opt out of doing their job because they don't approve of "that kind of people" getting married, what's to stop them from refusing to marry other "kinds of people", say, interracial couples, or couples too old to procreate (since part of the anti-gay-marriage argument is that marriage is for procreation), or just people they don't think would make good parents or they don't like the looks of?

Hrm. Hot-button issue for me, apparently.

And I'm still being happy for you and Dave.

[Rachael]

Yeah...if you work for the government, you shouldn't be able to refuse to marry a couple when the law says their marriage is legal. I suspect that this will be a problem in some smaller municipalities, where gay marriage is still considered a perversion by the majority of people...there will be discrimination cases in the courts over such things.

But in the end, the tide is turning, and in 50 years, no one will look twice at a gay married couple.

[Michelle]

Jun 3, 2008 16:21:35 GMT -5 Rachael said:

Yeah...if you work for the government, you shouldn't be able to refuse to marry a couple when the law says their marriage is legal. I suspect that this will be a problem in some smaller municipalities, where gay marriage is still considered a perversion by the majority of people...there will be discrimination cases in the courts over such things.

But in the end, the tide is turning, and in 50 years, no one will look twice at a gay married couple.

From your lips to... well, someone's ears.

[Spaced Out Looney]

I think its a good way of conceptualizing the issue and helping people resistant to the idea of gay marriage that once not to long ago similar attitudes prevailed about interracial marriage but today the latter is more or less accepted, suggesting that there might be a different way of looking at the issue. Interestingly, in the LOGO Democratic Presidential Forum, Obama made the same analogy (alluding to his parents' own marriage).

One caveat is that I think the objections to the two is slightly different. From what I can tell, objections to interracial marriage has to do with the idea of "these people" and "those people" and the idea that the two shouldn't mix, whereas opposition to gay marriage has to do with the idea that "those people" lead a different lifestyle that's strange or sick or immoral or evil or perverted and they shouldn't be given (or don't need or don't deserve) too much power many rights. Also, the average citizen could conceivably find themselves contemplating an interracial marriage, but most will not find themselves contemplating a gay marriage ever. But ultimately, with both, the opposition ultimately comes down to fears that such marriages undermine the morality of society and are not suitable for raising children and so forth.

Of course, I wonder if the people really resistant to the idea of gay marriage are also secretly opposed or uncomfortable to interracial/inter religious/inter ethnic as well. But there's a large number of people in the in the middle who's opinions have been shifting, due to the work of gay activists and the sensitization of the public through the media and positive snowball effect of gay people feeling more comfortable coming out leading to more people coming out leading to more people knowing and being comfortable with gay people. There was an article from one of the Bay Area papers recently where they showed that public support for gay marriage, which had been increasing over the past couple of decades, for the first time was greater than the opposition to it, and the increasing support was attributed to more and more of the people growing up during the gay rights movement. ITA that in a generation or so, opposition will largely die away.

[SpringSummers]

Jun 3, 2008 16:21:35 GMT -5 Rachael said:

Yeah...if you work for the government, you shouldn't be able to refuse to marry a couple when the law says their marriage is legal. I suspect that this will be a problem in some smaller municipalities, where gay marriage is still considered a perversion by the majority of people...there will be discrimination cases in the courts over such things.

But in the end, the tide is turning, and in 50 years, no one will look twice at a gay married couple.

I do think that as it did with interracial marriage, the "tide is turning" when it comes to acceptance of gay marriage, and homosexuality in general.

Things like this take time, and I agree with Liz that it's more "foreign" for lack of a better word, for more people, than interracial marriage is. Some arguments around it are nearly identical; some are very different.

The country is a melting pot; though it has been a far, far, far from perfect process, if there is any place used to slow but steady assimilation, it's this one.

It takes people who are brave and willing enough to be public pioneers - either by publicly flaunting the status quo or by publicly backing those who do. And we've always had people brave enough to do just that.

Definitely, if you're going to work for the government, you must be expected to follow the laws of said-government. If I was his or her boss, and a county clerk refused to perform a marriage that was allowed by the county due to religious objections, then - I wouldn't feel free to judge the clerk personally, but I would feel free (obligated, actually) to fire the clerk or move him or her into a different job.

If you're asked by your boss to do something that is strictly legal, but you find it morally repugnant - whether it is to marry a gay couple or to open a valve to let some "it passed all its inspections, but you disagree" waste out into a river - then you, personally, have some choices to make, about how you proceed from there.

No matter who you are, or what you are espousing, no matter if you are the gay person or the queasy county clerk, what you can not expect is that the accomodation of your needs and beliefs will always be, or should always be, a first priority - wherever you go, whatever you do.

Sometimes, you're gonna have to make tough choices and or do horribly risky things or knock on a door until your knuckles are raw and bleeding, or fight or even die, and you don't even get to see the benefits of your sacrifice. But someone else will.

I am all for people genuinely doing their best to do what they think is right, without concession to fear or pettiness or superstition or majority approval. If you are doing that, you are all right, by me.

I am rambling now, and I believe I have veered off topic . . . but now must get down to work.

[Jan]

It's also important to note that during the 50's and 60's civil rights movement, many people said you must wait to change the laws until people's feelings/opinions/beliefs changed.

In fact it turned out the creating the laws first allowed some people to change their attitudes. I believe the same will happen for the GLBT movement. People get used to the laws being there, there's less segregation and more actual acquaintanceship with the "others," and feelings and beliefs can change.

We have to remember that both slavery and the Jim Crow laws were defended by the argument that "it's God's will--says so right here in the Bible." And once "religion" is used by persons to allow them to justify wrongdoing, it's almost impossible for them to let go of the wrongheadedness.

In my often-wrong but seldom humble opinion.