Howard University School of Law

The Howard University School of Law is one of the oldest law schools in the country and the oldest law school at any historically black college or university (HBCU). Its Civil Rights Clinic has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 by highlighting how all of the arguments against same-sex marriage equality are simply recycled variations on arguments that were used to justify prohibitions of interracial marriage until Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967 (citations omitted):

In the Jim Crow era, the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples served as one of the most potent symbols of the less-than-equal status of  African-Americans. As recently as 1967, sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation statutes on their books; the last such statute was not officially repealed until 2000. Opponents of interracial marriage justified criminal prohibitions against such unions by pointing to the purported detrimental effect of interracial births and parentage, the supposed destruction of society if people marry between the races, and the so-called natural law rationale for keeping the races separate.

While public debate over interracial unions has generally died since Loving v. Virginia, today the opposition to marriage for same-sex couples relies on arguments strikingly similar to those raised in opposition to interracial marriage. Without acknowledging the racial provenance of these discredited arguments, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples as a threat to American society, American families and heterosexual marriage, as an affront to the laws of God and nature, and as a menace to their children.

The brief goes on to highlight five distinct arguments that transcend the debates between marriage equality for interracial couples and marriage equality for same-sex couples:

• SOCIAL ORDER: Marriage equality is a threat to the social order and would “introduce a form of pollution to marriage.”
• SEXUALIZATION: The people who want to get married have relationships that are purely sexual, promiscuous, and “deviant.”
• PSEUDOSCIENCE: Researchers have distorted research to raise fears about supposed consequences of marriage equality.
• JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES: The Bible forbids recognizing these relationships.
• CHILDREN: These relationships will cause physical and psychological damage to the children they raise.

The similarities are jarring, and Howard provides plenty of examples for each to demonstrate just how unoriginal the arguments against same-sex marriage truly are. The brief concludes with this stirring rebuke of equality’s opponents, including a quote from gay black poet James Baldwin:

But the certainty and monotony with which some will always sound the death knell for society, morality, and faith, just because two adults choose to marry, cannot obscure the reality that we heard virtually the same arguments for almost three hundred years to justify preventing two black people from marrying and then a black man from marrying a white woman. Nor, when all is said and done, can these jeremiads about how marriage equality for same-sex couples will lead to our final slouching toward Gomorrah obscure the reality that it is “an inexorable law that one cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one’s own.”

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

A new study from researchers at Rice University finds that without marriage, same-sex couples do not have access to the same health benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The study compared non-married same-sex couples, non-married opposite-sex couples, and married opposite-sex couples and found that the married couples were usually healthier than all of the cohabitating couples. Lead researcher Hui Liu explained that the data suggest same-sex couples would benefit from having the same access to marriage — combined with the resulting decrease in societal stigma — as opposite-sex couples:

LIU: Most of those people in the cohabiting relationships cannot be legally married, so they cannot get the resources related to marriage — for example the health insurance benefits from their spouses. This is not good for their health. It is also possible that the same-sex couples suffer higher levels of discrimination and higher levels of stress which may also effect their physical health.

Conservatives, unfortunately, have manipulated the study into an anti-gay narrative, suggesting that it somehow confirms their belief that gay people are just naturally less healthy. There’s no rationale for this explanation other than confirmation bias, and the data do not support this conclusion. Unmarried opposite-sex couples also had lower health outcomes compared to the married couples, so the variable is clearly marriage — not sexual orientation. Further, the same-sex couples were still healthier than people who were single, so there are benefits to being in a relationship regardless of the sex of the partner.

Marriage is not just about rights; it’s about security, health, and respect. Regardless of how opponents of equality try to spin an anti-gay narrative, same-sex couples can and do benefit from marriage just like everybody else.

A new report from the Williams Institute shows that legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois could bring as much as $103 million in new spending to the state’s economy within the first three years, including $66 million in just the first year. This estimate is based on how many same-sex couples will marry and the tourism from their visiting friends and family. It does not include out-of-state couples who may also come to the state to wed. State and local coffers could expect to bring in an additional $8.5 million in tax revenue over the first three years.

A new analysis of exit polls conducted by pollsters representing both political parties found that opposition to marriage equality is concentrated in a few specific population groups: voters over the age of 65, white evangelical Christians, and white voters who do not have a college degree. African American voters who identify as evangelicals were pretty closely split on the question, but all other groups were quite supportive. Here’s a breakdown of how the opposition compares with other groups:

• Voters over age 65 oppose same-sex marriage 58-37.
  • Voters under 65 favor marriage equality 52-44.
• White evangelical Christians oppose same-sex marriage by nearly 3 to 1.
  • African-American evangelical Christians narrowly oppose marriage equality 47-45.
  • All non-evangelicals, including other white Protestants, white Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, African American non-evangelicals and Jewish voters, support marriage equality by double-digit margins.
• White voters who do not have a college degree oppose marriage equality 56-40.
  • Non-white voters without a college degree support marriage equality 54-38.
  • White college graduates support marriage equality 56-41.
  • Non-white college graduates support marriage equality 58-35.

It’s thus unsurprising that legislators who support marriage equality are not likely to endanger their re-election prospects by doing so, as the voters who might punish them for their vote are isolated to these three pockets. This also demonstrates how ineffective the National Organization for Marriage’s efforts to drive a wedge between racial groups have been. Polling has consistently shown that nationwide support for marriage equality continues to grow, and these new data confirm that the freedom to marry is embraced quite widely.

The First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled Wednesday that homophobic epithets are not protected under the nation’s “freedom of expression” laws. The case dealt with two rival journalists who publicly criticized each other’s work using such words as “maricones” (“faggots”) and “puñal” (“faggot rapist/predator”). According to a press release from the Court (translated by Andrés Duque), such language is discriminatory even if it is used jokingly:

The First Chamber determined that homophobic expressions or — in other words the frequent allegations that homosexuality is not a valid option but an inferior condition — constitute discriminatory statements even if they are expressed jokingly, since they can be used to encourage, promote and justify intolerance against gays.

For this reason, the Chamber determined that the terms used in this specific case — made up of the words “maricones” and “puñal” — were offensive. These are expressions which are certainly deeply rooted in the language of Mexican society but the truth is that the practices of a majority of participants of a society cannot trump violations of basic rights.

In addition, the First Chamber determined that these expressions were irrelevant since their usage was not needed in resolving the dispute taking place as related to the mutual criticism between two journalists from Puebla. Therefore it was determined that the expressions “maricones” and “puñal”, just as they were used in this specific case, were not protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada similarly ruled last month that anti-gay rhetoric is a violation of the country’s hate speech laws.

These landmark rulings by the America’s North American neighbors come as the United States Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases related to same-sex marriage.