Skip to main content

Love and Marriage

"Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such [mixed race] marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix,"
This little piece of enlightened rhetoric spouted from the revered lips of Caroline County Circuit Court Judge Leon Bazile in 1958 as he suspended the one year jail sentence against a newly wed mixed race couple; Suspended the sentence, that is, so long as the couple left the state and did not return together for a quarter-century… Talk about activist judges!

Mixed marriages were finally made legal in the US in 1967 after that same couple mentioned above did go into exile to a more liberal part of the country and went to court. This happened 39 years ago, on 12th June; the case was, aptly enough, Loving v. Virginia. The repercussions of this change in the law on the demographics of the country have been significant.

Doesn't the argument sound familiar, though? God (or rather those fortunate enough to be in the confidence) telling us, poor ignorant mortals, what marriage is and should be? Although it seems that, contrary to what we are now being told repeatedly, and following the same reasoning used today, albeit with a different conclusion, marriage was not always simply the union of a man and a woman… A law banning mixed marriages was fisrt passed in Maryland in 1661.

In the light of this week’s anniversary, George Bush’s recent remark that “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots […]”, takes, I think, a different meaning altogether (although this is obviously not what he would want to say): Clearly that the religious right cannot reconcile itself with the idea of liberating marriage from cultural and religious constraint and simply have it recognised by the state a the caring and loving union of two individuals; that it is something to be regreted and that marriage SHOULD indeed be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots.

Marriage, by its very nature as a human institution, is steeped into cultural and religious contradictions and I don’t think looking back at what the institution has been over the years can help define what it should be in our time. If anything history will tell us that bigotry and religious hypocrisy were as vocal on the subject as it is now. Rather, the state should create the circumstances to liberate the institution as much as possible of any partisan influence. This will certainly not be achieved by restricting it to the union of a man and a woman. If we heed God’s message in the Bible has a duty to go forth and multiply; why not limit marriage to the union of fertile heterosexual couples, since marriage is apparently there only for the bringing up of children?

This story is also a reminder, if one is needed, that racism and homophobia are the two sides of the same coin kept into a brimming purse labelled ignorance.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Short History of the Elephant and Castle and Its Name

Last night I attended a lecture by local historian Stephen Humphrey who discussed the general history of the Elephant & Castle, focussing more particularly on what he called its heyday (between 1850 and 1940). This is part of a week-long art project ( The Elephant Project ) hosted in an empty unit on the first floor of the infamous shopping centre, aiming to chart some of the changes currently happening to the area. When an historian starts talking about the Elephant and Castle, there is one subject he can not possibly avoid, even if he wanted to. Indeed my unsuspecting announcement on Facebook that I was attending such talk prompted a few people to ask the dreaded question: Where does the name of the area come from, for realz? Panoramic view of the Elephant and Castle around 1960/61. Those of us less badly informed than the rest have long discarded the theory that the name comes from the linguistic deformation of "Infanta de Castille", a name which would have become at

Rev. Peter Mullen's Blog

Rev. Peter Mullen is the chaplain to the London Stock Exchange and the rector of St Michael's Cornhill and St Sepulchre without Newgate in the City. Rev. Peter Mullen was also until recently a blogger. Sadly the result of his cyber labour seem to have been deleted but Google has thankfully cached some of it and I have saved a copy for posterity, just in case. The deletion of Rev. Mullen's writings might just have something to do with the fact that last week, the Evening Standard and then the Daily Mail published an article (the same article actually) about some of those very writings (even though the elements of said writings being quoted had been published in June this year, at the time of the blessing ceremony which took place between two members of the Church of England in St Bartholomew the Great - picture ). In the article, we learned what the Rev. thinks about gay people and what should be done to them: We ["Religious believers"] disapprove of homosexuality

Liam Messam and Tamati Ellison Swap Jerseys

I am having a bit of a vacuous evening looking at images of pretty rugby players. Addidas, with its latest viral campaign, Jersey Swap , seems to be squarely aiming at the gay market with a selection of five antipodean rugby players, visitor to the website can select and see take their tops off and... well... swap jersey (those interested can create posters too). My favorites of the bunch are Liam Messam and Tamati Ellison . The pictures of their pretty faces and bulging naked torsos (excuse me while I sit down for a second!) included to this post should tell you why. A job well done for Addidas. This will go round the Internet for a while, I think.