LaShawn Barber tries to argue that same-sex marriage bans aren’t analagous to interracial marriage bans:
Loving did not give people the right to marry whomever they wished; it gave them the freedom to marry without racial restrictions. The goal of interracial marriage bans and legalized segregation was to maintain a subordinate class of citizens based on race. The goal of same-sex marriage bans is to protect traditional marriage, not maintain a subordinate class based on “sexual orientation.” Anyone with only half a brain knows that homosexuals in the U.S. hardly are a subordinate class.
It’s time for homosexual “marriage” proponents to find a more apt and a less offensive argument to gain validation and acceptance of a lifestyle choice.
Well, what Loving specifically decided was that the legal argument that interracial marriage bans didn’t violate the equal protection clause because both whites and blacks were “equally restricted,” (the conclusion of Pace v. Alabama) was fallacious. Those opposed to gay marriage have made similar arguments, that heterosexuals and homsexuals have “the same rights”. I’m not sure why Barber finds this argument “offensive,” as someone who was born of an interracial marriage that would have been illegal had it occurred two years prior, I find the comparison highly apropos.
Barber also doesn’t even address the notion that denying LGBTs marriage rights means making them a subordinate class. She just says that “anyone with half a brain knows” that’s not true. Well why is it not true? Barber doesn’t even offer an argument.
As for “lifestyle choice,” I’m going to need to someone to explain to me why someone would choose to be gay unless they were attracted to people of the same sex, in which case they would be gay. If you have to make a “choice” about what you’re attracted to, chances are you’re doing something wrong.
— A. Serwer
