Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages Essay Example

The battle to allow interracial and same-sex marriages have been long and challenging. From the start of our country’s development, marriage was deemed a valuable part of life and many had a narrow idea of how marriage should work. As decades, and even centuries passed, the long-held values of marriage were seen time and time again to limit particular groups of people who would then spend many years fighting for their right to marry. Although both interracial couples and same-sex couples were faced with the same harsh marriage laws, they both faced unique challenges in pleading their cases to the courts and without the existence of these revisions within marriage regulations, marriage today may have looked extremely different. The country’s resistance to change and interest in controlling marriage contributes to fueling a system that keeps the privileged population privileged and demonstrates the government’s blindness to the disadvantaged population that is left powerless and marginalized.

The prohibition of interracial marriage allowed for the superiority of whites and exemplified the complex nature of equality. As Ermin Cherminisky mentioned in his lecture, the Supreme Court’s main argument for why interracial marriage was unconstitutional was that God put different races on different continents, signifying his intention to keep races separated. They also added to this argument stating interracial marriage would go against their “separate but equal” ideology. The government’s use of the “separate but equal” doctrine offered whites more privilege while blacks were segregated and given unequal opportunities in society. By allowing interracial marriage, the government would have to acknowledge that segregation was not equal and it’d force them to place blacks and whites at a more equal level.

Similarly, banning same-sex marriages discriminated against a powerless and marginalized population. According to the Obergefell v. Hodges Majority Opinion, the Courts were hesitant to allow same-sex marriage due to the historical views of marriage being a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Courts wanted to honor and respect this part of America’s history. However, by doing so, they choose to look away from the growing population pleading for changes in the law. Other objections to same-sex marriage were due to the belief in different roles of the sexes. As Kenji Yoshino discussed, by having the idea that males are meant to be the “provider” and females are meant to stay home and be the “caretakers”, same-sex marriage will never make sense because, with that belief, both sexes are necessary to raise a family and be economically sustainable. The government’s values and stereotypical perspective consequently limited same-sex couples from accessing the same benefits and opportunities offered to heterosexual couples.

In both of these cases, the government’s prohibition displayed their biased or stereotypical expectations for races and sexes, which allowed for the marginalized population to be overlooked for far too long. They rationalized interracial and same-sex marriage with the notion that black and whites have different societal roles, and that men and women have specific relational roles.  It revealed that white and heterosexual couples are granted the ability to marry because it aligns with the country’s deep-rooted and historical beliefs. However, there are little to no accommodations for a couple that strays away from this criteria. These harmful stereotypes made it difficult to imagine a marriage that was not built around these same ideas and by holding onto the same values throughout history, the government slowed the progress made towards expanding and equalizing marriage in our country. 

Although both miscegenation laws and same-sex marriage bans were upheld with similar rationales, same-sex marriages would not have been possible without the Loving v. Virginia trial that led to the Supreme Court proclaiming marriage as a fundamental right. Miscegenation laws were initially upheld due to the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 aiming to protect whiteness and maintain white supremacy. Repealing that law, and many others, and deciding that marriage is a fundamental right, later provided same-sex couples with a basis for why they should be able to marry. 

When considering both miscegenation laws and same-sex marriage prohibitions, it becomes clear that our government presents a recurring pattern of showing hesitance when redeliberating long-held beliefs. Their decisions, or lack thereof, reinforce Yoshino’s theory, the Paradox of Political Powerlessness. Kenji Yoshino’s paradox claims that “you have to have a huge amount of political power to be deemed politically powerless.” Same-sex couples and interracial couples both stood on the politically powerless end of the paradox. They only gained political power once multiple cases were brought to the Supreme Court and once it grew into a larger issue. This concept displays that those suffering from miscegenation and same-sex laws would not be recognized or possibly even on a politically powerful person’s radar. Therefore, the powerless remain that way unless they can rally enough support and convince the courts that change is necessary. 

The government’s regulation on marriage also exhibits that hierarchies exist even within the marriages that they consider “ideal.” As Sean Moller Okin wrote, women are made more vulnerable once they’re married. The assumption of roles puts women in a position of being financially dependent on the husband and causes women to be unequally vulnerable in heterosexual marriages. If there’s a hierarchy even within the traditional marriage type that the government hasn’t yet recognized, there’s surely powerlessness that interracial and same-sex couples face in comparison to white and heterosexual couples. 

Regulating marriage proves to be impactful within individual marriages and in populations of couples wanting to marry. Considering marriage is a historically vital aspect of the American experience, it’s clear that the government wishes to preserve its importance. However, their rationale to uphold harmful regulations only placed more harm on the act of marriage and excluded powerless populations. The past marriage battles on interracial and same-sex couples that the government underwent uncovered their limiting expectations and standards that asked Americans to conform to outdated values. Without these significant changes, marriage would not be a fundamental right offered to Americans.