OPINION: Anti-gay marriage ban just like ban on interracial marriage
Posted on Sep 09, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Gilroy Dispatch
September 8, 2008
More than 40 years ago, laws banning interracial marriage wouldn't have been repealed if put to a vote. It took the United States Supreme Court to tell Americans that they were not living up to the promises of the Constitution: In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those opposed to interracial marriage made many of the same arguments about "nature," the Bible and tradition and made the same predictions of dire consequences that are hurled today by same-sex marriage opponents.In both cases, these arguments are poppycock. [Link]
September 8, 2008
More than 40 years ago, laws banning interracial marriage wouldn't have been repealed if put to a vote. It took the United States Supreme Court to tell Americans that they were not living up to the promises of the Constitution: In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those opposed to interracial marriage made many of the same arguments about "nature," the Bible and tradition and made the same predictions of dire consequences that are hurled today by same-sex marriage opponents.In both cases, these arguments are poppycock. [Link]
The Case for a Right of Marriage Recognition: Why Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Should Protect Sa
Posted on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:40 am
Findlaw
July 9, 2008
Steve Sanders writes, "I believe scholars, legislators, and judges accept the status quo for same-sex marriages because of a lingering, perhaps subconscious, belief that they are not quite 'real' marriages. From such a belief, another belief follows: that the people who enter into such marriages have no legitimate expectation they will be treated with the deference the law accords to virtually all other marriages. But our law should not tolerate different classes of marriages, some more favored than others." [Link]
July 9, 2008
Steve Sanders writes, "I believe scholars, legislators, and judges accept the status quo for same-sex marriages because of a lingering, perhaps subconscious, belief that they are not quite 'real' marriages. From such a belief, another belief follows: that the people who enter into such marriages have no legitimate expectation they will be treated with the deference the law accords to virtually all other marriages. But our law should not tolerate different classes of marriages, some more favored than others." [Link]
I Don’t (But I Might Soon)
Posted on Jun 24, 2008 at 09:34 am
AFF Doublethink Online
June 24, 2008
Dorian Davis writes that, "it seems clear that the long-term fate of the issue is already settled. The question that remains, then, is how long it will take the Republican party to notice." [Link]
June 24, 2008
Dorian Davis writes that, "it seems clear that the long-term fate of the issue is already settled. The question that remains, then, is how long it will take the Republican party to notice." [Link]
The right to love
Posted on Jun 17, 2008 at 10:36 am
Los Angeles Times
June 17, 2008
The LA Times editorial staff notes same-sex unions do not diminish the bonds of marriage, they uphold them. (Link)
June 17, 2008
The LA Times editorial staff notes same-sex unions do not diminish the bonds of marriage, they uphold them. (Link)
Marriage is not about gender or race, but love and family
Posted on May 20, 2008 at 03:30 pm
San Jose Mercury News
May 20, 2008
Marla Scharf talks about growing up when her parents were prohibited from marrying in numerous states across the nation because they were an interracial couple, and honors the CA Supreme Court upholding the freedom to marry for same-sex couples saying, “I believe that our nation's promise of 'justice and liberty for all' applies to every person in the same way.” (Link)
May 20, 2008
Marla Scharf talks about growing up when her parents were prohibited from marrying in numerous states across the nation because they were an interracial couple, and honors the CA Supreme Court upholding the freedom to marry for same-sex couples saying, “I believe that our nation's promise of 'justice and liberty for all' applies to every person in the same way.” (Link)
The moral compass of Mildred Loving
Posted on May 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
Washington Blade
May 9, 2008
In honor of Mildred Loving, a defendant in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case which ended race discrimination in marriage, Lane Hudson writes about her courageous support for marriage equality and her belief that “a particular religious belief should not interfere with our government granting that right.” (Link)
May 9, 2008
In honor of Mildred Loving, a defendant in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case which ended race discrimination in marriage, Lane Hudson writes about her courageous support for marriage equality and her belief that “a particular religious belief should not interfere with our government granting that right.” (Link)
Mildred Loving, a pivotal figure in civil rights history, is remembered
Posted on May 08, 2008 at 11:31 am
Washington Blade
May 6, 2008
Said Evan Wolfson, "The defenders of the discriminatory laws invoked the Bible, invoked their own view of morality and made similar kinds of claims about the disastrous consequences if interracial couples were treated the same." (Link)
May 6, 2008
Said Evan Wolfson, "The defenders of the discriminatory laws invoked the Bible, invoked their own view of morality and made similar kinds of claims about the disastrous consequences if interracial couples were treated the same." (Link)
Mildred Loving, Who Fought Marriage Ban, Dies
Posted on May 06, 2008 at 11:51 am
New York Times
May 6, 2008
Mildred Loving, a black woman whose anger over being banished from Virginia for marrying a white man led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning state miscegenation laws, died on May 2 at her home in Central Point, VA. Just last year, on the 40th anniversary of her case, she issued a statement in support of gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry. (Link)
May 6, 2008
Mildred Loving, a black woman whose anger over being banished from Virginia for marrying a white man led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning state miscegenation laws, died on May 2 at her home in Central Point, VA. Just last year, on the 40th anniversary of her case, she issued a statement in support of gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry. (Link)
Quote of the week
Posted on May 06, 2008 at 10:50 am
"Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."
—Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia
—Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia
Freedom to Marry Honors Mildred Loving Upon Her Passing
Posted on May 06, 2008 at 10:29 am
Freedom to Marry mourns the loss of Mildred Loving, a plaintiff along with her husband, in the historic 1967 case Loving v. Virginia which ended race discrimination in marriage in the United States. By simply getting married, Mrs. Loving became a civil rights leader and helped end restrictions on the freedom to marry in the historic court case bearing her name, and went on to speak out for that same freedom to marry for all loving couples, gay and non-gay. Just last year, upon the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred Loving made a statement in support of the ongoing struggle for the freedom to marry.
Read Evan Wolfson's full statement honoring Mildred Loving.
Read Mrs. Loving's full statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.
Read Evan Wolfson's full statement honoring Mildred Loving.
Read Mrs. Loving's full statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.