Letter to the Editor: Supreme Court ruling protects families across the nation

For all the outrage far-right conservatives have declared regarding the Supreme Court redefining traditional marriage in the United States, I have yet to hear them define it correctly.

Throughout much of the history of the US, marriage was not “One man plus one woman.” It was one white man plus one white woman, one black man plus one black woman, and so on.

Nearly all states prohibited at least one form of interracial marriage at some point. Seven states banned whites from marrying anyone of Asian descent. And sixteen states still outlawed interracial marriage after 1960.

It was not until 1967, after a white man and black woman were sentenced to a year in prison for the crime of being married while having different races, that the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Thus, allowing couples of mixed ethnicity and race to have their marriages recognized across the nation.[4]

No longer could state laws determine who was family. A black man is now guaranteed access to his white wife in the hospital. A white husband can rest assured his Asian wife will inherit his estate when he dies, et cetera.

That was until 2015 when a hodge-podge of state laws left families uncertain their status as they traveled across the country. Will my husband still be my child’s parent if I take this job across the country? Will I still get visitation to my child should my ex-wife move out of state [3]? Will I be allowed life-decisions for my spouse that had an accident in another state [1]? Will my spouse be able to inherit this property?[2]

When states defined marriage they created criminals of consenting adults. Thanks to the common sense of the Supreme Court, then, we wholly recognize mixed-ethnicity marriages, now, and thanks to the common sense of the Supreme Court again equality is once again paramount.

So, it is not because of judicial tyranny that same sex couples are allowed to marry and it is not because marriage is a right. It is because our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.

As for where this leaves churches… Well, churches are not obliged to marry anyone. Indeed, over the past five years, churches have refused to marry divorced people [7], interracial couples [6] and black couples.[5] Some churches will only marry members. Therefore, it is safe to conclude churches will not have to marry gay couples.  To claim otherwise is to speak contrary to the evidence.

Joseph Huddleston
Jasper, Ind.

1. A Maryland hospital is under fire after a patient and her family alleged that the hospital wouldn’t allow her same-sex partner to visit her.
2. Another thing that changed for Miller and Long is the automatic inclusion of Long as the inheritor of their future home in Orlando.
3. http://nyti.ms/1UbStKu Nassau County family court ruled that Ms. Paczkowski did not have legal standing to seek access to the boy — because even under the Marriage Equality Act, she was not his parent.
4. Loving v. Virginia. The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other.
5. http://cnn.it/1CN6OSH Their pastor, Stan Weatherford, made the request on behalf of some congregants who didn’t want to see the couple married there…
6. A small Pike County church has voted not to accept interracial couples as members or let them take part in some worship activities.
7. If I am Catholic and divorced can I get remarried?