Anti-gay? Or anti-interracial?

[Archae]

Found this list:

1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL 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."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL 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."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL 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."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL 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."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL 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."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-you-cant-tell-the-difference-between-these-actual-anti-interracial-and-anti-gay-marriage-quotes/#10

[markpkessinger]

1. The article suggests that it is hard to tell which is which . . .

. . . but as far as I can see, the only quote that is really textually ambiguous is #10. Otherwise, all of the anti-racial quotes specifically mention race in the text of the quote . . . which is kind of a give-away.

[Archae]

2. The point is all of them are simply lame excuses.

Nothing more.

[markpkessinger]

4. Of course . . .

. . . no argument there!

[stone space]

3. Arguements often get recycled.

Maybe it's a lack of imagination, or maybe it's just that there's only so many arguments to be found.



Here's a few quotes from the Oral Arguments in Loving v Virginia, along with the audio timestamps if you want to listen to them being made:

AUDIO (Oral Arguments-Loving v Virginia): http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395


"If gays and straights are both equally allowed to marry somebody of the opposite sex, then it's not discrimination"

Timestamp: 1:11:50 - 1:12:30

"If the statute equally forbad the white race to marry the colored race, and the colored race to marry the white race, then in the opinion of the framers, that was not a violation of equal protection or due process. In other words, the classification itself was not a violation."

Timestamp: 1:13:00 - 1:13:40

"Now under this, the language which they used in saying that it had no relation, that it had no effect in the state's power over marriage, they also said provided no discrimination is made by it. It is clear, under the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, that if a statute had forbad white people from marrying colored people, and then had a different penalty for violation of that statute, that even the framers of the 14th Amendment would have thought that that would have been unconstitutional, and that the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to <*unintelligible*> that difference in penalty problem."

Timestamp: 1:17:09 - 1:17:24

"But, it is clear that the framers understood, that in their intention, a law that equally forbad the members of one race from marrying the members of another race, with the same penal sanction on both, did treat the individuals of both races equally."

Now, remember Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas? If so, this little gem should sound familiar. Scalia didn't come up with this argument all by himself.

Timestamp: 1:19:30 - 1:20:05

"The state's prohibition of interracial marriage ... stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

AUDIO (Oral Arguments-Loving v Virginia): http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395