Jul
24
Is Interracial Marriage Really At Risk?
“LGBTQ Americans and those in interracial marriages deserve to have certainty that they will continue to have their right to equal marriage recognized, no matter where they live.” — Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader
With the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and returning the abortion issue to the States, along with related comments made by at least one Supreme Court justice, many on the Left are afraid that the same type of reasoning will be used by SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which invokes the 14th Amendment to require the performance and recognition of same-sex marriages across the nation. So, Democrats in the House of Representatives resurrected the oft-failed Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) in order to codify this redefinition of marriage and “protection” thereof into law.
Essentially, the RFMA repeals (and then some) the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, which is still on the books despite the Obergefell ruling. In addition to same-sex marriages, it requires federal and State authorities to recognize interracial and polygamous marriages, with the possibility of the wording being used (or amended?) to support other types of “marriage”. Technically, the RFMA only requires recognition “across state lines”, as it were, leaving individual States to rule within their own borders.
The bill passed in the House on July 19, 2022 with a 267-157 vote, 47 Republicans having joined with Democrats in favor. It is now in the Senate, and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is pulling out all the stops to bypass committee and get a vote a.s.a.p.
Comedian/talk-show host Trevor Noah is one of those on the Left expressing his dismay at what might happen. On his show the night after the House vote, Noah (who happens to be biracial) commented on the RFMA, and to the 157 Republicans who voted against it he said,
“So you’re on the record now against interracial marriage? Look, I know mixed couples have ruined your lives for the past few years, but I think that’s time to let that go.”
This was accompanied by images of Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris.
I get the joke, and it was clever. But, putting that aside, can we admit that it is silly to think that the GOP Congresspersons who voted against the RFMA were troubled by the last-minute inclusion of interracial marriage in the bill? (Note: Interracial marriage was legalized at the federal level by Loving v. Virginia (1967).) I suspect that it was added just to guilt a few more Republicans into voting for it. In fact, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) tweeted before the vote that many of his GOP colleagues were “poised to vote FOR formal, legislative recognition of gay marriage while hiding behind interstate recognition of interracial marriage (a solution in search of a problem), allowing Dems to deflect from their failures.”
Generally speaking, interracial marriage is not an issue for Republicans. I mean, if politically- and judicially-conservative leaders were truly in favor of anti-miscegenation (i.e., wanted to ban interracial relationships and marriages), then people like Justice Clarence Thomas and Senator Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be in interracial marriages, would they? Or, how about conservative commentator/host Candace Owens or newscaster/host Harris Faulkner?
Lawmakers vote against bills all the time, despite them having content that they approve of. The point is that the bills also contain provisions and/or wording that they don’t like or can foresee being a problem later on. This is clearly the case here, because conservative Republicans have moral issues with promoting things like same-sex and polygamous relationships, let alone “marriage”. Not with interracial marriages.
Of course, some will squawk about interracial marriage being the equivalent of same-sex marriage, so why aren’t we against interracial marriage like we are same-sex marriage? But, it isn’t equivalent. As I have pointed out elsewhere, “there is no difference between a black and a white human being (or any other color), because skin color is biologically and morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Race or ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex, on the other hand, is fundamental to marriage, in regards to both reproduction and child-rearing, which constitute the primary, societal purpose for marriage.” (For more about the opposition to same-sex marriage in comparison to that of interracial marriage, check out this article.)
If SCOTUS does decide to re-address interracial marriage and the Loving decision, it will be for legal/constitutional reasons and not due to racism. In other words, as with Dobbs, it will likely be to address a legal issue and not a moral one, with the probable outcome of returning the authority where it should have remained all along — at the State level. If that happens, I expect every State in the Union to support interracial marriage. (Of course, depending on who is in the respective State legislatures, there could be a couple States that wouldn’t pass a law specifically approving interracial marriages.)
You know who is more likely to call for reinstitution of things like miscegenation and segregation — and for reasons of race? Young “woke” Black folks. They are the ones demanding Black-only “safe spaces”, Black-only housing (on-campus or off-campus) at racially-mixed colleges and universities, Black-only graduation ceremonies, etc. (Yes, I realize that there may be valid arguments for such in some cases.) Many also resent, distrust, and dislike white people, thanks largely to Leftist indoctrination about “white privilege” and oppressive “white supremacy”. Makes sense that they would be against mixing of the races, just like the KKK.
