The picture is more complex than I anticipated. Big shout-out to all my poli sci readers who sent me data. At the height of the miscegenation bans, 41 states had them. Something close to that number will probably eventually have bans on marriage of varying degrees of severity for gay couples. The last hold-outs on inter-racial marriages were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The first states to pass constitutional amendments preventing gay couples from marrying were: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah. Obviously, there are considerable over-laps, but not the identical pattern I suggested. Part of this is accident: Hawaii and Alaska, for example, had early court decisions that prompted amendments that would not otherwise have passed. Part is because I’m taking constitutional amendments as the boundary (most of the anti-miscegenation states have mere laws banning marriage for gay couples). And part, of course, is simply the history of slavery and the South: a unique pattern that does not simply extend to other social issues, like homosexuality. The rhetorical parallels are striking, however. The most common arguments for banning inter-racial marriage were: they violated God’s design; black-white intercourse was mere sex, not marriage; if you allowed inter-racial marriage, polygamy and bestiality would inevitably follow. The most common arguments against same-sex marriage are: they violate God’s design; gay relationships are merely about sex, not love or commitment; if you allow same-sex marriage, polygamy and bestiality inevitably follow. The big difference is that back then, inter-racial marriage opponents backed states’ rights; today, same-sex marriage opponents want to overturn states’ rights. Here are two quotes worth citing:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
That was from the Loving vs Virginia debate. Here’s another from the New York Times last Sunday:
“The gay activists are trying to redefine what marriage has been basically since the beginning of time and on every continent. The Hebrew words for male and female are actually the words for the male and female genital parts. The male is the piercer; the female is the pierced. That is the way God designed it.”
There’s much more on the parallels – and differences – between these two debates in my anthology, “Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con: A Reader.”
The Dish 