American Government Essay

The Supreme judiciary slip-up salmagundi v. Virginia (1967) resulted in the striking hatful of state laws that prohibited face cloths and African Americans from marrying. Mildred Loving, nonpargonil of the parties in the case, issued a statement on the fortieth-anniversary of her case in which she urged that same(p)-sex couples be allowed to marry.Q. are the two issueslaws prohibiting interracial conjugal union and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage uniform? Why or wherefore not?I believe laws prohibiting interracial marriage and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are similar. married couple is a unique bond betwixt a man and a muliebrity, who scoff to live together and fulfill for each one others moral and physical demands. However, such(prenominal) a bondage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man would be against nature. This is a widely accepted notion. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the judge believed when God created various die hards and placed them o n separate continents. men should not interfere with His arrangements and should not trail interracial relationships. However, the ACLU filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings that Racial Integrity Act 1924 and Statutes preventing marriages wholly on the basis of classification violates The bear upon Protection and Due Process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. This case holds its significance as it redefined what comprise a marriage. both(prenominal) proponents of hardy rights possess cited this case in support of a right to marriage.Although opponents postulate that this is not viable as the Loving marriage was static between a man and a woman. In the United States, at the set-back of the twenty-first century, Americans considered the freedom to choose a marriage partner a heavy right. The idea that government could interfere with that resource is unthinkable. The case is also significant because it is round how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a l egal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of assorted races. thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of gay rights have cited this case in support of a right to marriage, although opponents argue that this is not viable as the Loving marriage was chill out between a man and a woman. Randall Kennedys interracial Intimacies, saw that opponents melodys against interracial relationships mirrored those of gayrights opponents.In Loving, Virginias Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order, same is the case with same-sex marriages. the American Psychiatric tie-in considered homo innerity a psychological perturb until 1973. Marriages are sought majorly as a foundation for having children, the relation to procreation is different in gay relationships. The live-and-let-live phenomenon practic ed by most Americans doesnt apply to this spectrum, as it didnt apply to interracial marriages beforehand 1967. Majority of the Americans are against it from both the semipolitical spheres. President Clinton, during his reign signed the defense mechanism of marriage act, which refuses to recognize gay marriages, contempt his election platform for gay rights.Also, the kill of Matthew Shepard in 1998 revealed that homosexuality triggered the same kind of violence and fear that was generated in the agone by cruddy-market-white sexual relations. Plus, a similar inversion of family values step to the fores in opponents arguments against gay marriage and in the historical argument against interracial sex. Casual sex is more(prenominal) than tolerable than sex that involved meaning, this stood unbowed for interracial non-marriage relationships and again the same holds unfeigned for gays today. However, according to Colin Powell, the analogy of gays to race is wrong, explaining that race is a status and sexual preference is a behavior.Similar arguments against same-sex and interracial relationships appear in regards to children. There was once make sense opposition to couples adopting children of different races, and there is still weight placed against allowing a white couple to adopt a black child, he said, because of societal pressures. The National tie-in for Black Social Workers has said such cases may result in black children having white minds. Similarly, fears abound that adopted children whose parents are gay ordain be more subject to prejudice, or the child will have confusion over their sexual orientationor worse, theyll end up being gay.