General Question

ragingloli's avatar

What is the difference between the recent gay marriage ruling, and the 1967 interracial marriage ruling?

Asked by ragingloli (47248points) July 2nd, 2015

Both rulings concluded that state bans on gay marriage/interracial marriage were violating the 14th amendment.
The 1967 ruling was unanimous, and yet the 2015 decision was basically split, and the dissenters acted as if this decision was “unprecedented” and a “threat to democracy”.
Despite the fact that the ruling even directly referenced the interracial marriage ruling.
Why was the 2015 decision split?
Or rather, why was the 1967 decision unanimous?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

bossob's avatar

In ‘67 SCOTUS leaned liberal, the Dems held the White House and Congress, there was more civil unrest, and politicians still thought that finding solutions via compromise was the proper way to govern. Most people were beginning to understand that a ban on inter-racial marriages clearly violated the constitution.

Here’s a timeline that displays the political leanings of the justices.

Of late, everything in politics is so polarized, that compromises on contentious issues are rarely achieved. For some people, gay marriage is a more difficult concept to grasp than inter-racial marriage.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It was split because old white men are still stuck in old white men’s land, where the spectacle of Clarence Thomas would embarrass even Uncle Tom himself.

Strauss's avatar

I would agree with @bossob. Not only are things polarized, but the polarization is skewed to the right. What would have been considered to be a moderate liberal (note the small “l”) is now by some to be considered to be almost to the left of socialist. Add to that the fact that there were some politicians whose descriptions of their political beliefs would be considered an oxymoron today, for example, a conservative Democrat, or a liberal Republican.

Bernie Sanders would not be considered to be a radical liberal in the sixties or seventies.

stanleybmanly's avatar

very good and valid point!

stanleybmanly's avatar

Were the 67 decision in the hands of today’s justices, the outcome would almost certainly be split, and I shudder at the thought of Thomas being in any way involved. There is only one comment for the poor tormented man and whatever demons accompany him to the world’s paradigm bench—thank God that Thurgood Marshall got there first!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Duh, a Black woman and a white man, both have the parts that nature (if it is too repugnant for you to say God) intended to go together to produce more of the species (what people like to call natural selection), hardly any equal in it; and downright insulting to think so.

ibstubro's avatar

^^^The bigot answer, 2015.
The same in 1967.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ The whiny hypocritical answer, 2015
Who knows where that got started, maybe San Fran…...

ragingloli's avatar

Duh, a Black woman and a white man, both have the parts that nature (if it is too repugnant for you to say God) intended to go together to produce more of the species (what people like to call natural selection), hardly any equal in it; and downright insulting to think so.
So what you are saying, it is unnatural and doesn’t produce children.

Have a look at these:
State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): ”They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”

Scott v. Georgia (1869): “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.”

Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law’s stated purpose was to prevent “abominable mixture and spurious issue.” It “forbade miscegenation on the grounds that “racial mixing was scientifically unsound” and would ‘pollute’ America with mixed-blood offspring.”

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: “By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: “Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral.”

Bob Jones University, (1998): “Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man.”

Virginia Supreme Court, 1878 “The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.”

The arguments are identical. So, again, what was different?

ibstubro's avatar

Because the formerly oppressed have gained enough ground that they feel empowered to be oppressors.

Opposition to gay marriage unites black Protestants and white evangelicals as few things do. After all, what have gays done to further black empowerment?

It’s what makes America great. We shouldn’t begrudge the fact that blacks now share the right to public small mindedness with whites.

There’s still a long road ahead.
Black All lives matter.

cazzie's avatar

We all have fingers and tongues and mouths. Also, since when is marriage just about the seX and baby making. It is NOT.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ragingloli The arguments are identical. So, again, what was different?
OK, the decision of 60s ignored biological truths about how biology works between similar entities of the same species because they did not want it to work. The recent SCOTUS is a handful of—activist- judges decided to take what they know of biology and ignore it because they wanted it to work. Being they knew more and still went south with it makes it stupider.

@cazzie Also, since when is marriage just about the seX and baby making.
Marriage is what civilized societies used to propagate the species. It was better than the strongest males beating off the weaker males to collect for themselves a haram of females that were their possession until some male was strong enough to beat him off and take them from him.

ragingloli's avatar

Old people are unlikely to produce offspring themselves.
As are infertile people.
And Sterilised people.
None of them are denied the right to marry based on their “inability” to make babies.
But all three of them, plus gay people, have other means to get children: Artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adoption.
And it certainly is not “unnatural”, since homosexuality is well observed and established in the animal world.
That is the first thing.
The second one is that none of these issues had any relevance in regards to equal treatment under the law, in either case.

“Marriage is what civilized societies used to propagate the species.”
That is a lie.
“Marriage” is what the patriarchy used to ensure clear line of male succession and inheritance.
It was conceived as a tool to enslave one or many women to a singular male, to eliminate any doubt as to whether a child born was the man’s.
” It was better than the strongest males beating off the weaker males to collect for themselves a haram of females that were their possession until some male was strong enough to beat him off and take them from him.
Solomon. 700 wives. 300 concubines (sex slaves).

jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Are you saying that marriages become null and void once the wife hits menopause? Is a vasectomy the same as a divorce? Are a male husband beating his female wife a better parent than a loving same-sex couple? Was Brittney Spears’ 55-hour marriage more valid than the vows of a same-sex couple that have been together for 15+ years?

To claim it’s about children is to demean the old and the sterile as well as homosexuals.

osoraro's avatar

@ragingloli Nobody said it was logical, but that’s how it is. Actually, the turnaround on this has been breathtakingly fast. It wasn’t just in 2004 that Massachusetts was the only state to allow same sex marriage. Now, 11 years later, with a conservative leaning country and court, it’s the law of the land.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@jerv Are you saying that marriages become null and void once the wife hits menopause? Is a vasectomy the same as a divorce? Are a male husband beating his female wife a better parent than a loving same-sex couple? Was Brittney Spears’ 55-hour marriage more valid than the vows of a same-sex couple that have been together for 15+ years?
You know some of that is so ridiculous it need not be explained, however, in case you somehow do not know, let me break it down.
• A woman hitting menopause is still a woman, just one who can no longer bare children. A car with a blown engine is still a car, it just is a car that cannot go anywhere under its power. Her woman parts were always there.
• Vasectomy is not the same as a divorce.
• If he is not beating the kids and caring for them, he is a bad example but still overall a better parent (even if not by much).
• Yes, her marriage was not genuine but it was as intended, she had the receiving parts, he had the giving parts, however long it last it was still the nut and the bolt, that makes a complete fastener, two bolts, or two nuts you can’t do anything with.

There you go, but you will have something else to say about that so I do not even know why you asked.

jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Marriage both is and isn’t about the bearing of children? Marriages that end in under three days are more sacred than those that last more than three decades simply because of genitalia?

No, I really have nothing to say, at least not at the moment; the cognitive dissonance you just displayed has me at a loss for words.

cazzie's avatar

@ragingloli take on the marriage idea is exactly right.

osoraro's avatar

Why is it when someone disagrees with a judge’s decision they’re called an “activist”?

Strauss's avatar

“Judicial Activism” has come to be a “code word” for “I’m gonna take my ball and go home ‘cause I’m losing the game!”

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@osoraro Why is it when someone disagrees with a judge’s decision they’re called an “activist”?
A better question for you to ask is why when someone disagrees with sexual immorality called homosexuality they are called bigots and homophobes; seems like a direct maligning to me.

@Yetanotheruser […“I’m gonna take my ball and go home ‘cause I’m losing the game!”
Those who already lost, do not know they lost because their coach has bamboozled them into thinking they can win, he didn’t and neither will his players. There will be plenty of time to think how the game plan was flawed, and there will be no rematch.

osoraro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central That’s called a “straw man argument”. I will not bite. You called them “activist” judges. Why?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@osoraro That’s called a “straw man argument”. I will not bite. You called them “activist” judges. Why?
You won’t bite, as you say, because you know it will choke you, you have no reason or defense against it but you want to see them as bigots because they will not go along with debauchery. They are activist judges because they (the majority) want to disregard biology and history and manufacture truth from a lie and tell everyone to go along, mostly to appease the masses than do the right thing. I have an answer and I certainly did not choke, you still have no reason other than bigotry to try and call people who oppose your sacred cows bigots.

jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You seem to still have some weird ideas about what marriage is. Ironically, it seems that the biggest deviants are the devout, whether it be Puritans and their porn or the kiddy-diddling Duggars. Also, it seems that as religion becomes less central to most people’s daily lives, the practice of having mistresses and concubines for extra-marital sex has declined.
If you look at history objectively, even recent history, you will realize that Christianity as a whole doesn’t have much room to talk when it comes to debauchery. It gets far worse the further back in time you go too.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@jerv If you look at history objectively, even recent history, you will realize that Christianity as a whole doesn’t have much room to talk when it comes to debauchery.
Yes, I agree, lately there are so many people pleasing congregations, trying to hard to be user-friendly and not live for God, they look so much like the world than a body of Christ, they can’t help but fall into debauchery.

osoraro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Please show me where I called anybody a bigot?

cazzie's avatar

@osoraro I think that was me. I’m pretty sure I’ve called @Hypocrisy_Central a bigot is subtle ways and not so subtle ways.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Whatever, be blessed and hopefully enlightened.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther