Arguments against same sex marriage the same as arguments against interracial marriage

Great Debates
1

From what I can tell, arguments against same gender marriage mirror that of the arguments that were made in the '60s as “evidence” that interracial marriage should be outlawed.

There is a recent article in The Atlantic Wire that outlines some specifics. I also like this PDF from the Vermont Freedom To Marry organization from which I will excerpt some prominent quotes of which there is no shortage of equivalent quotes regarding the issue of gay marriage:

God/Religion

"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.”

Slippery Slopes

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing
as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

The Right of Marriage is not Denied to Anyone

“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”

The End Of The World As We Know It

"Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

Traditional Marriage Destroyed

“Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

Think Of The Children!

"It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”

=====

I started this thread for two reasons:

  1. Are there any arguments against same gender marriage that were NOT used to support bans on interracial marriage?

  2. Even if some arguments are found which do not mirror those made by bigots four decades ago, a majority of them are the same and were addressed by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia. Why are we subjecting gay marriage to state votes and state court decisions (and the Defense Of Marriage Act) when the court has already decided that those same arguments - either all of them or certainly a vast majority of them - were rejected?

From what I can tell, if we had waited for interracial marriage to gain public support in America, it would not have been until 1991 - nearly a quarter century after Loving - until interracial couples would have been able to marry (based on polling data that can be found online). Why does this minority group have to subject individual rights to the vote of the majority when that wasn’t the case four decades ago? What changed? Are those same arguments that were rejected and therefore invalidated marriage discrimination in spite of public opinion somehow valid now? Who can make that argument with a straight face anyway?

2

  1. Yes, there are such arguments. Here is one: laws made by the legislature are presumed valid. To overturn a law, you need to show that it violates a constitutional guarantee. In this case, the constitutional guarantee discussed is the Equal Protection Clause. To analyze purported Equal Protection violations, varying levels of scrutiny are used. Racial classifications are analyzed under the strict scrutinty standard, but at present no court has found that sexual orientation requires anything more than the lowest level of analysis, rational basis. Under a rational basis review, the bans survive.

  2. The court in Loving was analyzing a law that created racial classifications. They correctly used a very exacting level of scrutiny. Today, the issue is not racial classification, and there is no controlling authority for the proposition that a high level of scrutiny is required.

So, in short: the laws were passed by valid votes, are thus presumed valid, and require the identification of a constitutional violation to overturn.

(See my posts in this thread for an example of an argument showing why the courts SHOULD apply at least intermeadiate scrutiny to the question.)

3

That’s all well and good, Bricker, but isn’t that argument (which I acknowledge you don’t support) merely an argument about whether it is legal to ban same-sex marriage, not whether it is correct to do so.

Is there an argument regarding the necessity and propriety of banning same-sex marriage that is unique from the ones promoting anti-miscegenation?

4

Still waiting for somethat that addresses the OP’s request for arguments pertaining to the merits of the policy, not arguments pertaining to the legalistic basis thereof.

Edit: Darn ninjas… somebody ought to ban ninja marriage…

5

Children.
The ban on interracial marriage was seen in part as a ban on miscegenation.
The ban on SSM is seen in part as an acknowledgement that same-sex partners cannot have children.

Read the case of *Kirby v. Kirby *(1921). Mrs. Kirby contended that since she herself was of mixed race, she would not be allowed to marry anyone. The judge dismissed the argument as it merely sufficed to show that she was not the same race as Mr. Kirby.

I heard an argument (not one I believe has any merit) that claims that the government, Federal and State, should stay out of all marriage issues since it is a religious issue HOWEVER the founding fathers would believe that the right of a man and woman to have a civil marriage is an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment.

6

Bricker’s arguments isn’t really an argument, merely a variant on “we’ve always done it that way, and here’s the precise legal formulation spelling out how we do what we’ve always done.”

7

By phrasing things this way, you’re avoiding the question of whether the arguments listed are true or not. For instance, if anybody ever did say that allowing interracial marriage would lead to the degradation of traditional marriage, they were lying, because in western civilization legal interracial marriage has been the norm virtually everywhere for thousands of years. Laws against interracial marriage were brought into being recently for one of two reasons: either because a strict separation between races was thought necessary to maintain slavery, or because of pseudo-scientific arguments launched by eugenicists. Bans on interracial marriage were an attack on the traditional understanding of marriage.

8

Well I’m confused then. Either we’re talking legal arguments, or we aren’t.

If we’re talking about legal arguments, then “The status quo must remain unless it can be shown it violates a constitutional guarantee” is a legal argument.

OTOH, if we’re talking arguments in the broad sense, then I don’t see the point of contrasting interracial marriage. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there that believe some of the arguments against interracial marriage were sound. Why would they necessarily abandon those arguments just because it was made legal?

9

A few historical quotes.

10

Correct.

Well, the “think of the children” argument is rather broadly characterized; in the case of same-sex marriage, it’s to encourage the creation of chidlren; with miscegenation, it was to NOT create mixed-race children.

11

In reading the OP’s number 2 request, it’s unclear to me how you can believe that his request there is for merits of the policy, since he specifically mentions SCOTUS and their reponses.

12
  1. Did anybody ever ask someone, “Have you tried not being black?” It’s not as common now as it was four decades ago, but it seems to me that the people who were opposed to SSM weren’t just opposed to gay marriage, they were opposed to gay anything–they wanted people to stop being gay.
13

The issue at hand is that the two arguments stand or fall together. Whether they are both true or both false is a separate question.

14

Um, what’s your point? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

15

Indeed. The belief that it’s a “lifestyle choice”. Nobody argued that being black or white was a “lifestyle choice”.

16

Except that they don’t stand together. It’s logically possible for a certain statement to be true about interracial marriage but false about same-sex marriage. Likewise if the government proposes regulating cigarettes because they cause cancer and regulating cell phones because they cause cancer, the arguments do not stand together, but rather separately, since one is based on a true statement and one on a false statement.

17

I think one of the only arguments that is different is the idea that marriage confers tax benefits which are, in part, meant to support and encourage relationships that can produce offspring.

This argument fails for various reasons (adoption, the fact that some hetero couples can’t have children etc.), but I think the tax aspect makes it distinct from the arguments that were made in regards to interracial marriage.

18

That’s a good point.

With the corollary (which I believe is at the heart of a lot of opposition to gay rights in general) - my children might choose to become gay if it is seen as acceptable. So by marginalizing the “gay lifestyle” I make it clear to my kids, and the next generation as a whole, that being gay is wrong.

One never had to worry about their kids becoming black, although banning interracial marriage was a way to ensure that your grand-kids wouldn’t be mixed-race.

So I guess that is a somewhat unique argument against gay marriage, even though it isn’t one that most opponents actually use because it sounds obviously bigoted.

19

About 3.5 years ago we (SDMB “we” and you were a part too) discussed the merits/flaws of whether strict scrutiny should apply to homosexuals.

I am not suggesting that thread proves anything one way or another. Merely tossing it out as relevant to this discussion and that others might find interesting.

20

They do not use it because it fails as an argument.

Did you, or anyone you know, ever sit down at some point in life and ponder whether you wanted to be gay or straight? Make a list of the pros and cons of each? Given the prejudice and intolerance homosexuals face would anyone, given the choice, choose that lifestyle? If you wanted to could you just decide, right now, that you want to be gay with no more fuss than changing your shirt?

Further, there is evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. You can no more choose it than you can choose your skin color.