fearlesshistory

Proponents of a constitutional ban on Gay marriage echo the years gone by when arguments against interracial marriage were made, particularly in the 1940’s through the 1960’s. Loving Day , a website dedicated to information and education about interracial coupling and marriage has an excellent interactive map that shows how American attitudes became more entrenched, more anti-interracial over time before they were overturned through education and reason. Starting at 1662, the country is divided into 4 colors; red for an outright legal ban on interracial marriage, white for no law in place either way but the area was a state, gray for not a state yet, and light blue for laws allowing the legal right of interracial couples to marry.  Fastfowarding through the years shows that, especially in the 20th century, the idea of interracial couples was anathema to most Americans. It is this historical precedent that motivated Gay marriage advocates to appeal to people in the African American community. Most of the Black community in American is socially liberal but religiously conservative, especially when it comes to Gay marriage. In a letter to the Baptist Press , pastor William Shields of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Norcross, Georgia, stated the case from the evangelical Black community succinctly:

“Its apples and oranges…To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable…Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.”

Well, not so fast, my friend. From 17th through 19th century American conservative movements, particularly anti-Abolition movements, White preachers turned to Book 4 of Genesis in the Old Testament where God cursed Cain with a “mark” that would distinguish him from the chosen people. They interpreted that mark as having been born with Black skin. Did Rev. Shields know that, until the 1970’s people who were not lilly white could not be “true” members of the Church of Latter Day Saints because of the “Curse of Cain ?”Also, opponents of interracial marriage almost successfully amended the Constitution of the United States to reflect their mis-interpreted Christian views?

Fortunately for the Civil Rights movement and the general American public, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case upheld the argument that race should be no barrier to marriage.  The arguments of the “sacredness” of preserving the racial “purity” of the United States eventually found no traction in the Supreme Court and lost ground in rational, American minds. Currently, the only people espousing anti-miscegenation rhetoric are the Ku Klux Klan, white supremecists, and radical black leaders (Louis Farrakhan, for instance, still refers to white people as “devils” and finds interracial marriages offensive in the eyes of his god).

Other arguments against interracial marriage projected massive increases in divorce rates and result in more “mulatto” bastards and illegitimate children who would turn to a life of depravity. And yet, according to the 1994 Census bureau , divorce rates for Americans of all races remained relatively consistent (this includes Americans who are from interracial parents or are in interracial marriages, since they interview both white and non-white divercees). Most famously, bi-racial people have held high offices, including (very soon) the highest office in the land.

A final argument, which was loosely based on what has been called “social Darwinism,” believed that the American “race” (by which they meant Anglo-Saxon, White, and Protestant) would be forever tainted and would lag behind the rest of the civilized world in physical and mental development. This last charge is just too ridiculous to bother researching to refute; I’m sure the amount of American achievements since 1967 will speak for itself.

So now we return to the issue of Gay marriage. We see that, like interracial marriage, opponents worry about three things: 1) the disruption of the “holy” sacrament of marriage, 2) The moral and emotional damage that such marriages would do to American society in general and children in particular and 3) the idea that gay marriage would open the floodgates of other, previously taboo marriages.

First, the sacrament of marriage isn’t actually “Holy” in that, until the 15th century, marriages were usually not preformed by Priests or Ministers of the church. Traditionally, European couples who had no money to be married (they had to pay a “tithe” to the church to be married) merely exchanged vows in a civil and private affair that did not involve church or governmental officials.  Only with the advent of better record keeping and a rising nationalist identity did the crown, and then the church, decree that marriages be officiated over by a priest in order to be considered valid. (it might also surprise some Christians that many of the “sacraments” can beperformed by lay people; baptism, for example)

Second, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the children of gay couples ever grow up sexually deviant, confused, depressed, or in any way mal-adjusted. In fact, Medscape , a service of WebMD (which specializes in medically-proven and scientifically-valid medical information) , released a study saying that children of gay couples do as well as children of heterosexual couples. The only barrier that children of LGBT parents seem to face is stigmatism from other students and faculty in a school setting. But then again children who look different, sound different, have different tastes in music or clothes, or who “look funny” also are subject to harassment and stigmatization by their peers (watch the movies Heathers, 16 Candles, Back to School, Revenge of the Nerds, Napoleon Dynamite, or the television shows My So Called Life, Ugly Betty, Square Pegs)

Thirdly, this last argument is too ludicrous to even require research. Some have insinuated that if the country were to allow Gay marriage, then people would have license to marry animals or inanimate objects.  When people make irrational arguments, how does one answer rationally other than to shake one’s head in disbelief that this person doesn’t accidently drown in a bowl of soup or doesn’t get lost in an elevator.

In all logic, pro-life conservative Christians should embrace Gay marriage. According to a 2003 Pew Foundation study , there were over 500,000 children in foster homes in the United States in 2000.  17% of those children stay at least 5 years and may never be adopted into families. A further 28% of those remain in foster care from 2 to 5 years. And this doesn’t count the 3 million children who are homeless and not in the system; Children on the streets are more prone to be abused sexually, physically, and emotionally than children in stable homes (even single parent homes). They also tend to fall into drug and alcohol addiction, are exploited sexually by pedophiles and pimps, are recruited by gangs and other criminal organizations, and are more likely to die by the time they are 18 than any other demographic in the United States. Therefore, if Christians want to stop abortion on moral grounds, they should be willing to embrace Gay couples marrying and adopting children.

QED

Trackback URI | Comments RSS