Camenker Admits Loving Was Wrongly Decided

I have long noted the disconnect among opponents of same-sex marriage, who make the exact same arguments that were made against the overturning of miscegenation laws but refuse to apply their reasoning consistently because they can’t admit that they would have said the same thing in 1967. But Brian Camenker of MassResistance will admit it:

On the face of it, the Fourteenth Amendment says that everybody will be treated equally, that the law will treat everyone equally. Well, the law treats everyone equally; everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s it. There is no Fourteenth Amendment problem unless you stretch it to such ridiculous lengths and twist it around to claim there is. But yes, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. Now someone may say that it was the same issue with the miscegenation laws. And that’s true. The miscegenation laws were not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they applied to everybody. As an aside, I was living in the South at the time when the miscegenation laws were struck down and the interesting thing about that was, nobody paid any attention to it, nobody cared, it was like page 25 in the newspaper, there weren’t these signature drives or meetings and gatherings. Nobody really cared at all. Here it is a much different thing because it really is a moral issue.

Well that’s stupid and dishonest, but at least it’s intellectually consistent. And I have no idea why he thinks the furious reaction to a ruling has anything at all to do with the legitimacy of that ruling. It’s true that the reaction to Loving was relatively muted, but that’s irrelevant. The reaction to Brown v Board of Education was rage and defiance, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct ruling.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/187195042″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    “The reaction to Brown v Board of Education was rage and defiance, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct ruling.”

    No. The rage is important. That is because Brown was MORE correcter!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    The reaction to Brown v Board of Education was rage and defiance, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct ruling.

    Yes, but that was wrongly decided, too, since it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which treated everybody equally. Seperately, but equally.

  • smhll

    The government has no business telling someone — no you can’t marry that adult.

  • dugglebogey

    Nobody THAT HE KNOWS cared.

    Slight difference.

  • wreck

    Yes, Brian, and everybody has the right to go fuck themselves. I strongly urge you to take advantage of it.

  • weatherwax

    I suspect there wasn’t much outcry in 1967, especially in the south, because no one intended to pay attention to the ruling, anyway.

    ie We don’t care what the law says, well deal with it our way.

  • scienceavenger

    Well, the law treats everyone equally; everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s it. … The miscegenation laws were not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they applied to everybody.

    [sigh] This infantile argument really chaps my ass. Camenker acts like the law came out of nowhere, handed down from on high if you will. Fact is, the laws were written by those who only wanted to marry a member of the same race and opposite sex, giving themselves the freedom to marry who they wanted, while denying it to those with different desires. That inequality is why it violates the equal protection clause. That’s not “stretch[ing] it to such ridiculous lengths and twist[ing] it around”. That’s judging it by what it is.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    And how would we handle two people of mixed race who wanted to marry? Who would Barack Obama be allowed to marry, as one parent is “white” and the other “black.”

    Race is socially constructed, and so is hetero privilege.

  • abb3w

    @-1, Brian Camenker

    The miscegenation laws were not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they applied to everybody

    @ 388 US 1 , Mr. Chief Justice Warren for the Court

    […] we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations […] and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race

    In short: that argument has been previously been placed as controversy before the Supreme Court, and rejected; per Article III, Section 2, resolution of such controversy is within the scope of the judicial power; therefore, your contention is bullshit.