In 1967, on this date, the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage constitutional, and yet even today, there are still 14 percent of the American people, in a poll, who deplore that people of different races may marry.
The answer is that we now have one of seven marriages as interracial, and if bigots do not like it, so be it, but the world is not going to bow to their hate and prejudice!
And the same thing needs to apply to gay marriage, which faces a Supreme Court test in the next two weeks!
Whatever the Supreme Court does by the end of June, gay marriage is here to stay, and if the bigots do not like it, who cares? It is none of their business whether two men or two women marry, any more than whether a man and woman of different races marry!
And since many of these bigots claim to be “good Christians” on both issues, they need to look in the mirror as to their religious beliefs, why in the name of Jesus Christ, a Jew, they feel a need to hate people because of their race or sexual orientation!
The Civil War, the Civil Rights movement and the Civil Rights cases, were struggles against government institutionalized racism, not private bigotry, no matter how hateful.
But the government institutionalized racism you talk about was also endorsed by private citizens, as if not so, such discrimination and racism would not have become reality, Juan! Remember, governments are people who represent the mood and attitudes of the population to a great extent!
I would like to know the exact date in which sustaining that the definition of marriage as was always defined, through time and various cultures, is between a female human being and a male human being, made you a hateful human being. Ron could you please give me the date?
Ron; That is why we have the 14th amendment, so state governments can never again, not even if a majority vote it, institutionalize discrimination.
If one opposes others being happy in the institution of marriage, then that is hate. It is not my or your business to decide what marriage is, and just because of tradition, is not an excuse, as traditions are often ill advised by religion, and the need to adapt to change is part of human existence! If one chooses NOT to marry a person of another race or the same gender, great for that person, but that should not be imposed on others!
As a matter of fact, you just exposed without realizing it, one of the reason the power of government should be limited. So as to not be subjected to the moods and attitudes of the population which might violate our individual rights and freedoms. Even this week I saw a poll in which a majority of Americans are ok with this type of “Orwellian” intrusive government minitoring, all in the name of National Security.
Yes, the 14th Amendment exists, and many conservatives have claimed it is illegal, as it was part of the requirement for the Southern states to be readmitted to the Union. If you left it up to the Right, it would not exist, and already, they are trying to weaken it about children born in the United States of non citizen foreigners.
Your individual rights and freedoms stop when they interfere with my individual rights and freedoms, including the right to marry who we choose, whether you or anyone else likes that fact!
What do you mean “It is not my or your business to decide what marriage is”? We have laws don’t we? We have representatives who legislate don’t we? Someone has to decide what the definition of marriage is? And the law has. If you don’t like it, you can always change it. But you still didn’t answer when has believing in the always known and accepted definition of marriage has become hateful? Always? Since the beginning of time? Personally I don’t really care, for me 3 or 4 people , bi straight or gay can do what the want, and if they want to call it marriage so be it. As a matter of fact why limit love to 2 people, same sex or not. You can call it marriage, but it will not be what marriage has always been,it will be something else, something that society through the ages has never experienced. So lets not fool ourselves in that sense, this will be an experiment and no one knows the consequences down the road. And if society wants to experiment, so be it, fine by me. But, my open-mindedness also allows me to understand that those who believe that marriage is what it has always been are not hateful bigots. I mean I can understand them saying “Hey , when did all of his change all of a sudden? And since when am I a hateful bigot for sustaining the definition of marriage that has always existed? When did I all of a sudden become such a despicable person?”
Fine, have one’s view, but DO NOT IMPOSE it on others, that is all I am saying! Marriage has not worked out very well in America, with divorce, cheating, spouse abuse, broken families, harmed children, so marriage in today’s world is not a model as it is, with heterosexual marriage. And many complain that gays are promiscuous, although I do not think more than straights, but promoting marriage would stabilize many gay relationships, and promote a greater sense of commitment!
14th Amendment illegal? Good grief, now we are in conspiratorial land.
Conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s claimed the 14th Amendment was illegal, Juan. I did not make this up, it is fact! People like James Kilpatrick said that!
Ron: Every time you adopt a legal definition of any institution you are imposing an idea. That unavoidable. You say we have the “right to marry who we choose, whether you or anyone else likes that fact!” But that is not true, you cannot marry a child, you cannot marry your brother or sister, you cannot marry more than one person and children cannot get married between themselves. So any definition that the law adopts of marriage will always be its very nature exclusive and discriminatory. Unless we declare it is a free for all and anyone can do what they want with no limits whatsoever on marriage.That is why, if its going to be defined, better let the legislatures which represent the people define it, not the courts.
I would tend to agree with what you just said, but if the Supreme Court had not intervened in Loving V Virginia, interracial marriage would still be illegal in many states, particularly in the South! So the courts are necessary as a tool for social justice!
Ron, we are in 2013 not 1950. Wilsonian progressives were Klansman and racist. In 1914. So? Wilson, the father of modern democrats progressive, believed that the State should control everything and that the limits of power established in the Constitution were outdated for modern times (1900). Do progressives believe that today? Are progressive segregationist like they were during Wilson’s Presidency?
Here you go off on a right wing rant, claiming that Wilson is a total monster, just like Glenn Beck and other such as George Will say, but with the fault of Wilson on race and also woman suffrage acknowledged, he also helped create important legislation that has affected us ever since, and we would not want to be without that legislation and agencies, or at least, I would not.
And while Wilson called himself a progressive, conservatives were no different on race, whether Republican or Democrat, with exception of a Robert La Follette, who truly believed in racial equality, but neither party was willing to move in that direction in an open manner, due to the desire to heal the Civil War wounds, and this includes Republicans who looked the other way at what was happening in the South for decades. Do not whitewash the GOP, which abandoned African Americans, and got into bed with big business corporations!
The the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional since the adoption of the 14th Amendment. So there I can give you an exact date of when the prohibition of whites marrying blacks was unconstitutional. Remember that blacks could marry Hispanics, Asians, or vice versa. So technically it wasn’t an interracial ban on marriage. Also the case didn’t change the definition of marriage, that was not the issue, marriage was between a female human being and a male human being. Between the 2 distinct sexes. That is why the argument was there is not difference between a black female and a white female, or between a black male and a white male. Same chromosomes both regardless of the race. Therefore you could not prohibit a union between different genders due to race.
Ron: You are the one going back into the middle of the 20th century! So I just went a little bit further back! LOL. I suggest we try to stay in the 21st century as much as possible.
But the Southern states banned interracial marriage between whites and blacks for 99 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. This shows what happens when states are allowed to ignore the civil rights of Americans, which includes the right to marry!
Just one more historical reference. Honestly, what could the Republicans do, if the South was strongly held by the Democrats? Republicans tried with the Warren Court (remember Eisenhower was the first Republican elected in over 20 yrs and Democrats controlled Congress for decades), but Democrats in the south fought hard.It wasn’t until the Democrats dealt internally with their southern wing that progress was possible.
Yes, they did that in the South, but it was made possible thanks to an “activist” SCOTUS that twisted the 14th Amendment meaning in Plessy v Ferguson. Read Justice John Marshall Harlan dissent which states the correct originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Juan, you are communicating with an historian of 41 years teaching experience, so asking me NOT to look at situations historically, and only look at the 21st century, which has lasted only 13 years so far, is simply NOT going to work! LOL
Fair enough, but please don’t cry foul play if I go back a few centuries also!
HAHA!