First published on November 4, 2004, in the The
Dartmouth.
Our ongoing culture war over marriage for gays and lesbians
bears striking resemblances to America's culture war over
interracial marriage (also known as miscegenation, or the mixing of
races). Like all analogies, there are differences as well as
similarities, but perhaps we have not pressed the analogy far
enough. The entire history of miscegenation has valuable lessons to
teach us today.
Two items from that earlier struggle clearly mirror our current
situation. First, the arguments against miscegenation sound eerily
like the arguments against same-sex marriage, with appeals to the
Bible, nature, tradition, and the welfare of children. Second, the
2003 Goodridge decision that extended marriage to gay
couples in Massachusetts (a 4-3 decision) is reminiscent of the
1948 case of Perez v. Sharp (another 4-3 decision), in
which California's highest court struck down that state's
anti-miscegenation law some 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down all state and federal anti-miscegenation laws in
Loving v. Virginia (1967).
But should we conclude that we are in a post-Perez,
pre-Loving phase in the battle for marriage benefits for
gay couples? No one seriously believes that the U.S. Supreme Court
will impose gay marriage upon our nation anytime soon. Rather,
recent events suggest that we are in a pre-Perez,
post-Civil War phase of same-sex marriage, with many more twists
and turns before us.
Consider first the politics of miscegenation. Interracial
marriage is as old as humanity, and various cultures embraced
miscegenation to varying degrees. The American colonies, for
example, alternately allowed and discouraged the practice. It
wasn't until 1863, though, that the issue heated up and boiled over
into a presidential campaign.
The word "miscegenation" was coined that year when two Democrat
writers anonymously published a pamphlet that extolled the virtues
of interracial marriage. It was a trap, and some unwitting
Republicans fell into it. The Democrats labeled the Republicans as
being too pro-black for the good of the country. Abraham Lincoln
had his hands full with a major war; his opponents tried to use
miscegenation as a wedge issue. Today, Lincoln's party uses gay
marriage as a wedge issue; the Republican National Committee even
distributed a pamphlet in Arkansas and West Virginia that said the
Democrats would ban Bibles and usher in gay marriage. Meanwhile,
the Democrats work overtime to show themselves as not being too
gay-friendly.
Then take the case of Burns v. State. In 1872, the
Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state's anti-miscegenation law
was unconstitutional. There was such a backlash from white
supremacists that, five years later in Green v. State, the
court reversed itself and reinstated the law. Some states (like
Massachusetts) repealed their anti-miscegenation laws in the 19th
century, but others (such as Virginia) toughened their statutes.
Fast forward to this year, when 13 states have amended their
constitutions to forbid same-sex marriage and at least eight of
these amendments also outlaw civil unions.
Consider also the goings-on at the federal level. In 1911, Rep.
Seaborn Roddenberry (D-GA) introduced a constitutional amendment
that would have outlawed miscegenation throughout the republic. His
proposal was advanced at a time when state anti-miscegenation laws
reached a peak in number and severity and when Jack Johnson, the
1910 black heavyweight champion, cavorted with white women. We see
a similar attempt at the federal level to ban gay marriage at a
time when state bans pass with supermajorities and gay couples are
visible throughout society.
One other comparison needs to be drawn. Most Americans a century
ago were not white supremacists. Many believed that blacks deserved
some legal protections, and most knew that miscegenation was
unlikely to affect them personally. All the same, these white
Americans were ambivalent toward black Americans. They allowed the
rhetoric and actions of white supremacists to prevail. They chose
to ignore the hurtful - and sometimes fatal - consequences of their
complicity. And all Americans continue to pay the price for that
quiet capitulation to white supremacy.
Today, straight supremacists are trying to impose their vision
of America upon those who are unsure about gay people. In this last
election, 64 percent of voters said in exit polls that they support
the legal recognition of gay couples. And yet many of these same
people, goaded by straight supremacists, voted for laws that make
legal recognition for gay couples all but impossible. Their hearts
are in the right place, but when push comes to shove, they choose
the preservation of privilege over the expansion of justice.
Eventually gay couples will achieve full legal equality
throughout America, just as interracial couples achieved equality.
How soon that day arrives depends on how loudly the advocates for
same-sex marriage denounce straight supremacists and how long it
takes the majority of Americans to abandon its double-mindedness
toward gays. Even so, the sad history of miscegenation suggests
that if we are in a pre-Perez phase, as I believe we are,
full gay marriage equality may be years - even decades - away.