Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia. This case declared as being unconstitutional a Virginia statute that banned the intermarriage of races. Pictured above ar the Lovings themselves, Mildred and Richard.
The Court wrote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Here is a good article that speaks to the plaintiffs themselves - a man and a woman who loved each other and simply wanted to be married and raise a family.
Many could see this decision as giving support to gay marriages, given the language of the decision. Of course, sexual orientation has yet to achieve the same judicial scrutiny as does racial classification, wherein lies the difference.
I tend to take a more libertarian view towards this - marriage under the State is nothing more than a social contract. Marriage as a sacrament can be bestowed only by God - in which case, marriage is a covenant. So if gays were to be able to marry legally in my state, it does not change the nature of marriage as a covenant. As it is, I point out to people that California does not have "gay marriage" - but we have "gay divorce" for registered domestic partners.
In the meantime, remember the Lovings in your prayers - and anyday that is the anniversary of the State being shut out of governing our personal lives is a day worth celebrating.
4 comments:
Amen - you are on my planent exactly. A civil partnership need not even be sexual in nature, it could be between to elderly siblings for example (as taken to the EU civil rights courts against England with regard to death benefits and taxation).
The right wing moralizers don't understand that keeping the state involved in a sacrament in the hands of the state creates a huge conflict between equality under the law and the integrity of a sacrament. By having universal civil unions (for everyone) the sacrament would be squarely in the hands of the church.
Over on the lair of the Caveman, Kevin went nuts because I suggested this. Keep in mind that gay activists also do not like this suggestion. Finally, the IRS does not like this either. Once we define a domestic corporation for the purpose of say, raising children, the expenses of raising children could arguably be treated as expenses without the IRS blessing a 'deduction'.
It is a massively libertarian suggestion and it furthers the separation of church and state in a way that will increase the power of the church's sacrament.
Winnipeg,
It is true that a civil union , at least in CA, can be between same sex couples if one is at least 62 years of age. Thus, a son could form a civil union with his elderly mother to obtain certain medical benefits for her.
I don't like the idea of gay "marriage" - however, that being said, you can put a dress on it and call it Florence, but a pig is still a pig. Gays want society to accept the notion that they are married and hence want that linguistic acknowledgment from the State, and not simply a civil union. But let's not fool ourselves - so long as the benefits and detriments of the State are bestowed, whether that be tax breaks or alimony upon dissolution of the union, it is, as it were, a "State marriage."
You know, it's interesting - in Texas, after 7 years and demonstration of certain behavior, a couple is legally married as common-law spouses. Move them to California (before the 7 years pass), and they are simply "shacking up." What a difference time and geography makes.
(And before any California attorney jumps on my case, yes, yes, I know that there is the possibility of a Marvin action in civil court, but there are still no automatic wedding bells ringing, nor does the IRS recognize them as a married couple).
Hi Digi,
I agree that gay activists are leveraging state-recognized sacraments to push an agenda. But if the state were simply to say that it has no interest in sacraments, and that it only recognizes a sexually neutral (in the eyes of the state) domestic corporation, then all of the tools the gay activists are interested in using become moot. The partnership no longer has any bearing on social acceptance. To bless a sexual union they have to go to a church.
I have brought it up before with gay activists, and believe me they hate the idea. It does short circuit their entire battle, but conservatives are too foolish to see that.
However, I am actually in support of monogamous gays. Some have argued that there is no such thing as monogamous gay union, and to be honest, I see some truth to that since not a single organization other than the church's Courage (which endorses celibacy) will openly condemn promiscuity. Dignity and all the rest leave open the idea of open marriages and so forth.
So I am a little bit torn about my stance on the topic but am leaning towards supporting Mongamous unions.
Commonweal has some interesting articles on the topic this issue.
Commonweal is hardly the harbinger of orthodoxy or proper Catholic doctrine...
Post a Comment