Posted on 12/04/2003 11:37:40 AM PST by Holly_P
My husband and I married at the Denver County courthouse in 1999. The judge's secretary, a black woman, didn't hide her surprise that I was black and the groom was white. Even on the cusp of the 21st century in the progressive West, I guess it was still shocking for a black woman and a white man to marry.
But at least it was technically legal, unlike in Alabama at the time. It wasn't until 2000 that Alabama residents voted to remove a provision from that state's constitution that declared that "the legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro." Though this law, which was created in 1901, wasn't enforceable after 1967, clerks in some Alabama counties still denied marriage licenses to interracial couples.
Alabama was the last state to remove such laws from its books. But Colorado shouldn't exactly congratulate itself. This state didn't repeal its anti-miscegenation laws until 1957, six years after my house was built.
The case that changed everything was the aptly named Loving vs. Virginia. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., in 1958. After they went back home to Virginia, they were arrested for having an "invalid" marriage license and violating the state's Racial Integrity Act. The Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to a year in jail. The judge, Leon Bazile, suspended the sentence for 25 years as long as the Lovings left the state, though one could hardly call him sympathetic. In his ruling, he invoked God to uphold a racist law: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
So I get suspicious when people start talking about "protecting" marriage by banning people of the same sex from marrying. ("As if marriage were some kind of paradise," my husband thoughtfully adds.) I get suspicious when people say that gay marriage will force Americans to recognize "ungodly" relationships. The same arguments used to "defend" my marriage today were first used to deny ones like it. Blacks and whites intermarrying and interbreeding was the original slippery slope to the downfall of American civilization. Racist interpretation of religious teachings was just one justification used against blacks and whites marrying. Another common contention was that interracial marriage wasn't a healthy environment for children. Ultimately, all the rationalizations boiled down to this: Blacks were inferior and would contaminate whites with second-rate genes. Indeed, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act (passed after World War I) set out "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens" and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens" and "the obliteration of racial pride."
You can cloak bigotry in religion, pseudo-science or mom-and-apple-pie patriotism, but it's still bigotry. Only I suspect bigotry isn't the only impulse behind opposition to gay marriage. I think people are afraid. As a society, we are overwhelmed by swift technological, economic, social and cultural changes. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 made us feel even more vulnerable. Perhaps it's human nature to create a bogeyman and channel fears of the unknown toward it. But I don't see how trying to control (and legislate) the actions of others will give any of us a greater sense of control over our own lives.
Personally, I find the upcoming televised wedding of two people who "fell in love" during six weeks of taping a reality TV show scary. However, there's nothing to be done about it because straight people are free to marry for any reason, including money. Besides, who am I to judge?
Despite the judge's secretary and funny looks from a few others, my husband and I have been married almost five years. Granted, our marriage is no paradise, but it's happy more often than not, and it's legal. I wish all couples, gay and straight, the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Brice is taking time off from work to finish a novel. She lives in Denver with her husband, and can be reached at carleenbrice@aol.com . Applications for Colorado Voices are accepted in February.
Coming soon - boy/dog, girl/elephant.
I have read threads at F.R. showing studies that a great majority of black people oppose same sex marriages.
Transexuals (people who have had "some" surgery, usually men who got breast implants but kept their male appendage) and even transvestites (who technically could be wearing as little of the opposite sex's clothing as a bra or panties under their street clothes) are demanding the "right" to go into the bathroom of the "opposite" sex.
I'm sure that this could be extended to even include "metrosexuals" who just like to sit down when they pee. It is all about your "state of mind", not your physical equipment or genetic identity (XX or XY).
In the future restrooms will be unisex (maybe with an attendent/guard like in Soviet Bloc countries) and no one will want to use them (the relative safety and cleanliness of a gas station bathroom will seem like luxury accomedations).
Instead, agree with it. And then just take it to the next level and make them debumk their own argument.
For example, Yes they are the same. After all at the heart of it gay people don't choose to be born that way; therefore, we shouldn't discriminate against them. Get them to agree to that (and they will). But I think we need to take it a step further to get rid of all this hatred spurred by religion. I'm certain pedophiles don't choose to like little boys and girls, they are obviously born with that lust in them. So who are we to judge him? We need to live and let live, especially if the kid says ok. By then they'll be shocked and want to dismiss you.
I'm sure they'll say the difference is that they are both consenting adults, but you can't let them off that easy. Because the core of their argument is that they are born that way and we need to embrace them for who they are. Just keep framing the discussion around that and they'll get mad and never talk to you again. That's how I keep stupid liberals (I know that's redundant) at bay.
I have seen as high as 90% opposed. I guess it depends on who is doing the polling.
She's doing herself and her race a disservice by equating color of skin with choice of perversion.
Nothing immoral about interracial marriage.
There is something greatly immoral about same sex 'marriage.'
Just one more step down the slippery slope of total depravity. Our nation is going the way of the ancient civilizations who were also great - until they allowed immorality to overtake them.
Not at all. No one chooses the color of their skin. They do choose to engage in perversion.
Coming soon - boy/dog, girl/elephant.
The former already happened last year.
The father caught the son practicing ..err...Animal husbandry..with the pooch, and severely beat him. The father was imprisoned for this. Probably to get even, or infuriate the father more, the guy DID marry his dog, and created a license with a paw print for a signature. This story was in the news around a year ago.
Well, at least it was a Girl Dog, so it wasn't a Gay Marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.