2008 Woodie Awards
Once again, the same old intolerance
Steven Hoeschele, Collegian Columnist
Issue date: 12/3/08 Section: Editorial / Opinion
Fifty years ago, Virginia police kicked down the door of a newlywed couple while they lay in bed together. The panicked husband, Richard Loving, pointed to their marriage certificate displayed on the wall. That was evidence enough to try them as felons under the state's law against interracial marriage. Richard and his wife, Mildred, had been married in Washington, DC, where it was legal.
The Lovings pleaded guilty.
The trial judge, Leon Bazile, told the Lovings he would lock them up for one year unless the they left the state and did not return to Virginia as a couple for 25 years.
He wrote in his opinion, "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 marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This mentality will shock most readers now as exceptionally irrational, both for its complete inanity toward race, as well as this activist judge's mixing of religion and jurisprudence. It is the same irrationality toward biology and reliance on religious arguments that pervade the debate around gay marriage today.
But look: there's an acceptable way to have a discourse around this issue, and it's not with hate or loaded terms or exploiting people's otherwise good religious intentions.
I stress this extremely important point because the way we talk about key issues often informs the actions we take on them. Some commentators might mockingly invert the intent of Proposition 8 commercials about homes broken into, Gestapo-style. But we cannot forget that sometimes doors really are kicked in, just like the Lovings' - and just like the arrests that led to the repeal of Texas' anti-sodomy laws.
Some people think it prudent to kill, rape, maim or set on fire other people, simply for their sexual preferences, and these perpetrators are enabled by rhetorical cheerleaders of fear and hate.
The Lovings pleaded guilty.
The trial judge, Leon Bazile, told the Lovings he would lock them up for one year unless the they left the state and did not return to Virginia as a couple for 25 years.
He wrote in his opinion, "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 marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This mentality will shock most readers now as exceptionally irrational, both for its complete inanity toward race, as well as this activist judge's mixing of religion and jurisprudence. It is the same irrationality toward biology and reliance on religious arguments that pervade the debate around gay marriage today.
But look: there's an acceptable way to have a discourse around this issue, and it's not with hate or loaded terms or exploiting people's otherwise good religious intentions.
I stress this extremely important point because the way we talk about key issues often informs the actions we take on them. Some commentators might mockingly invert the intent of Proposition 8 commercials about homes broken into, Gestapo-style. But we cannot forget that sometimes doors really are kicked in, just like the Lovings' - and just like the arrests that led to the repeal of Texas' anti-sodomy laws.
Some people think it prudent to kill, rape, maim or set on fire other people, simply for their sexual preferences, and these perpetrators are enabled by rhetorical cheerleaders of fear and hate.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Christopher Cappucci
posted 12/03/08 @ 2:28 PM EST
As always Steve, excellent writing! A thoughtful, comparative study approach to Gay marriage and interracial marriage that is often lost in today's media. (Continued…)
Charles T. Peterson
posted 12/03/08 @ 9:35 PM EST
When it comes to this issue, future generations will surely ask: "What side were you on?"
Great article, Steve.
ctpeterson
ctpeters
posted 12/03/08 @ 9:40 PM EST
When it comes to equal rights, future generations will surely ask us: "Which side were you on?"
Great article, Steve.
Post a Comment