At the time, 16 states had laws preventing a white person from taking a spouse of a different race. Even with the civil rights movement in full swing, public opinion polls showed just 20 percent of the American public approved of interracial marriage.That meant no shortage of segregationists who agreed with the opinion of Judge Leon Bazile, who had presided over the trial of Richard and Mildred Loving in Virginia?The implication of this argument is that just as today there are few people, religious or otherwise, who oppose interracial marriage that in the future this will be the same as we realize that the same religious foolishness that opposed interracial marriages will be recognized as foolishness in the same-sex marriage debate.When I used to do research on interracial marriage, I read a good number of academic books on the history of interracial marriage.Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, mother and father.Indeed, support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal.
In her address, Clinton told those in the audience of her support for the Federal Equality Act (more on that below), a piece of legislation that signals the next wave for gay rights after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, which nationalized same-sex marriage.
When citizens lead their lives and run their businesses in accord with this belief, they deny no one equality before the law.
As a result, such beliefs and actions deserve protection against government coercion.
A good deal of the controversy over same-sex marriage has been linked to the comparison of it to interracial marriage.
Merely perusing the articles, comments and debates reveals that many believe that same-sex marriage today is what interracial marriage was in the past. But one argument in particular that has caught my attention is that just as Christianity is the major force opposing same-sex marriage today, it was the major force opposing interracial marriage in the past.
The pitched, glossed-over caricatures of religious liberty elicited by Clinton are unbecoming for someone of her stature, and furthermore, they devalue by way of cynicism a bedrock value at the heart of our Constitution.