Last week, the US House passed, by a vote of 267 to 157, "The Respect for Marriage Act." The bill protects the rights of people to marry whom they choose without regard to sex, race, or national origin. It also guarantees the right of all married couples to access federal marital benefits. Feeling the political winds, 47 Republicans joined the unanimous Democrats.
The Senate is unlikely to consider the bill before their summer recess. And there is no guarantee that the 10 Republicans ‘aye’ votes needed for its passage will appear.
The bill, if passed, will overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The need for this legislation became evident when the Supreme Court struck down the right to abortion by overturning “Roe” in their Dobbs vs. Jackson decision. In his concurring opinion, the always disagreeable Clarence Thomas wrote that the Obergefell decision — guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage — was “demonstrably erroneous” and should be reviewed, as well as some other previous decisions.
The civil rights community and many others could read the tea leaves. Gay marriage, so recently SCOTUS-blessed was again threatened, along with access to contraception, non-procreative sex practices, and even interracial unions. The battle in American bedrooms between the citizens and the Supreme Court’s Inquisitors was heating up.
Conservative evangelicals, having won their war on choice, now have a ban on gay marriage in their sights. Which is hardly surprising as their bigotry toward LGBTQ+ has been overt and consistent. But are contraception and interracial marriage threatened? Yes. Today’s GOP is committed to a course that causes the most pain to people they have never met and have done nothing to hurt them.
When a Morning Consult/Politico poll asked a bunch of Americans, “Do you support or oppose Congress passing a federal law to protect the right to same-sex marriage?” 51% said “yes” and 31% said “no” - solid support. Among Republicans, the breakdown was 36% vs. 51% - unsurprising. (NB support for gay marriage among atheists was 81% — the truly compassionate.)
Now consider the breakdown when the question is, “Do you support or oppose Congress passing a federal law to protect the right to interracial marriage?” Among the general population, the result was 71% yes vs. 15% no. Among Republicans, it was 56% vs. 25%. One out of every four Republicans does not think that the federal government should protect the right of an American to marry someone of a different race. (Again, atheists led the pack with 84% support)
I suspect that in Clarence Thomas’s bilious view of the world (I have read his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son” — and he has issues) he would be disappointed that only 25% of Republicans are against guaranteeing his right to marry Ginni.
Similar trends exist when the question is, “Do you support or oppose Congress passing a federal law to protect the right to contraception?” In general, 75% support vs. 15% against. Republicans 63% vs. 25%. Atheists 86% for.
But back to interracial marriage. Besides the sociopathic bigotry of being against the right of two adults to marry because they have different skin colors, how do you decide what race someone is? I mean legally? Say you want to write an anti-miscegenation law today how would you define race? Back in the day, everyone agreed that this person was white and that person was Black. But today, people are not so bifurcated in their thinking.
President Obama had a white mother and a Black father. He identifies as Black. And by most people's estimation he ‘looks’ Black. But what if he identified as white? A claim easily supported by his ancestral roots. How would you write a law that would define him as Black?
The South Africans, when they created apartheid, defined white as
"A White person is one who is in appearance obviously white – and not generally accepted as Coloured – or who is generally accepted as White – and is not obviously Non-White, provided that a person shall not be classified as a White person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu..."
That was fine when all the executive, legislative and judicial authorities were white. And everyone knew what was ‘meant’ by white. The same philosophy was prevalent in the Jim Crow South. But in America today, I suspect that wording would be too vague to withstand judicial scrutiny — even by a SCOTUS as thoroughly bigotted as this one.
At its heart, race is an opinion. In America, white Americans embraced it so they could justify enslaving Blacks. But you cannot tell someone’s race by looking at their DNA. So two people, who society might consider different races, could argue that they were the same race. And who is to say they are not?
Take the case of Lucy and Maria Aylmer. They are twins.
They have the same mother and father. And are products of the same confinement. Tell me again about race.
This all points to another conservative hypocrisy. They claim America is the “land of the free”. That from her fruited plains sprang sweet liberty and the individual right to be left unburdened by the weight of tyranny. But while their pretty words extol this philosophy of individual choice, they legislate conformity to religious fundamentalism, imprisoning the citizen in the jail of their unasked-for morality.
Henry Ford, the master of standardization, said, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black.” A quarter of today’s conservatives say, “Anyone can marry any color they want, so long as it is the same color as they are.”
Clarence and Ginni think they’re immune I’d bet , but one never knows , I’m still hopeful these asshats hey what’s coming, thanks Pitt