Marriage neutering advocates frequently cite prohibitions in the past against "interracial"* marriage as why African-Americans, judges, an all who care about civil rights should support the neutering of marriage laws and the replacement of marriage with a counterfeit. The claim goes that because African-Americans in some parts of the country in the past could not marry white people, they should identify with the inability for brideless pair of a groomless pair to get a "marriage" license, and they should fight for marriage neutering.
When one takes a closer look at the situation, though, if African-Americans, as a group, have something with which to identify in this case, it is actually the denial of their voting rights. More African-Americans were denied their voting rights than were ever prevented from marrying a white person.
For example, if the pollsters are to be believed, African-Americans, as a classification, strongly supported California's Prop 22 and subsequent Prop 8, which was adopted as a state constitutional amendment. And yet their votes were cast aside by courts based on a made-up "right" and based on a demand to treat different kinds of voluntary associations as though they are the same. In other words, they were denied their voting rights in favor of imaginary rights demanded by an even smaller minority.
"Interracial" marriage has been readily recognized to be marriage by every major religion (though not all sects) all throughout history around the world. Some places in this country banned it (a true ban, as I explain below... not simply "refusing to license"). Notice that the people who passed those laws did not also set up laws to ban same-sex couples from getting married – because such a thing had never been recognized in the first place. Indeed, in the case that shot down bans on interracial marriage – Loving v. Virginia, no mention is made of same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" is a modern invention modeled after marriage - which was not created by the state but merely recognized by the state - but missing the key element in marriage that is of the most interest to society. This modern invention is designed for the appropriation of government benefits (already provided to domestic partners in California and other places) and public affirmation (which should be up to the public).
If marriage is about forming a microcosm of society for the sake of perpetuating it – uniting both sexes that comprise all of society, giving children both a mother and a father legally bound to each other and to them, then "interracial" marriage is the same kind of voluntary association as any other marriage. However, two men or two women, of any race, are not. Skin color is incidental to marriage, while sex is inherent to it. Thus, the comparison to same-sex "marriage" doesn’t hold up. "Interracial" marriage is how we got new citizens like Tiger Woods. Who has ever been conceived by sodomy between two men?
Today, people are able to live their lives together without a marriage license, while in the past, property owners and employers could refuse to deal with people who were "shacking up" and cohabitation could be prosecuted. Thus, a ban on interracial marriage was a form of segregation and a denial of the freedom of association. It was truly a ban. Now, people are free to cohabitate without social or legal repercussions, and keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing and federal law will not keep them from doing so.
Having had wrong laws regarding marriage licensing in the past does not mean that all laws regarding marriage licensing are wrong. Most people calling for marriage neutering are in favor of some form of discrimination themselves when it comes to issuing marriage licenses. Everyone involved wants some form of discrimination, such as restrictions on the number of spouses, how closely related the spouses can be, and the minimum age to to marry.
Must a brideless or groomless sex-segregating couple be treated the same as a couple integrating and uniting both of the sexes? Why, when so many laws treat different kinds of voluntarily associations differently?
In addition to rejecting the attempt to confuse the issue with a legitimate civil rights fight from the past, the African-American community should speak up in defense of their voting rights, and judges should recognize that marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, and the people have the power to require that marriage be integrationist rather than segregationist.
*I maintain that we are all one race – human, and this “interracial” is an artificial term in this case, in my opinion.
(I originally posted this in a slightly different form as "The Race Card and Prop 8" on my previous blog.)
When one takes a closer look at the situation, though, if African-Americans, as a group, have something with which to identify in this case, it is actually the denial of their voting rights. More African-Americans were denied their voting rights than were ever prevented from marrying a white person.
For example, if the pollsters are to be believed, African-Americans, as a classification, strongly supported California's Prop 22 and subsequent Prop 8, which was adopted as a state constitutional amendment. And yet their votes were cast aside by courts based on a made-up "right" and based on a demand to treat different kinds of voluntary associations as though they are the same. In other words, they were denied their voting rights in favor of imaginary rights demanded by an even smaller minority.
"Interracial" marriage has been readily recognized to be marriage by every major religion (though not all sects) all throughout history around the world. Some places in this country banned it (a true ban, as I explain below... not simply "refusing to license"). Notice that the people who passed those laws did not also set up laws to ban same-sex couples from getting married – because such a thing had never been recognized in the first place. Indeed, in the case that shot down bans on interracial marriage – Loving v. Virginia, no mention is made of same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" is a modern invention modeled after marriage - which was not created by the state but merely recognized by the state - but missing the key element in marriage that is of the most interest to society. This modern invention is designed for the appropriation of government benefits (already provided to domestic partners in California and other places) and public affirmation (which should be up to the public).
If marriage is about forming a microcosm of society for the sake of perpetuating it – uniting both sexes that comprise all of society, giving children both a mother and a father legally bound to each other and to them, then "interracial" marriage is the same kind of voluntary association as any other marriage. However, two men or two women, of any race, are not. Skin color is incidental to marriage, while sex is inherent to it. Thus, the comparison to same-sex "marriage" doesn’t hold up. "Interracial" marriage is how we got new citizens like Tiger Woods. Who has ever been conceived by sodomy between two men?
Today, people are able to live their lives together without a marriage license, while in the past, property owners and employers could refuse to deal with people who were "shacking up" and cohabitation could be prosecuted. Thus, a ban on interracial marriage was a form of segregation and a denial of the freedom of association. It was truly a ban. Now, people are free to cohabitate without social or legal repercussions, and keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing and federal law will not keep them from doing so.
Having had wrong laws regarding marriage licensing in the past does not mean that all laws regarding marriage licensing are wrong. Most people calling for marriage neutering are in favor of some form of discrimination themselves when it comes to issuing marriage licenses. Everyone involved wants some form of discrimination, such as restrictions on the number of spouses, how closely related the spouses can be, and the minimum age to to marry.
Must a brideless or groomless sex-segregating couple be treated the same as a couple integrating and uniting both of the sexes? Why, when so many laws treat different kinds of voluntarily associations differently?
In addition to rejecting the attempt to confuse the issue with a legitimate civil rights fight from the past, the African-American community should speak up in defense of their voting rights, and judges should recognize that marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, and the people have the power to require that marriage be integrationist rather than segregationist.
*I maintain that we are all one race – human, and this “interracial” is an artificial term in this case, in my opinion.
(I originally posted this in a slightly different form as "The Race Card and Prop 8" on my previous blog.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.