By Charles C. W.
Cooke
Monday, May 09,
2022
Over the weekend, the New York
Times’ editorial board submitted this paragraph for public consumption:
Imagine
that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white
people to marry. Some states would permit such marriages; others probably
wouldn’t. The laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer,
legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived.
The people who wrote these words are
stupid — yes, stupid — and they should all be unsurpassingly
ashamed of themselves.
Yes, yes. I understand that it’s supposed
to be a shocking analogy. But the claim here is concrete. The Times’
editors aren’t merely suggesting that we wouldn’t want X, so we shouldn’t want
Y, either, and nor are they making specious legal arguments about the likely
consequences of restoring Glucksberg. They’re contending that,
absent the (entirely safe) ruling in Loving v. Virginia, some U.S. states would move
to end interracial marriage, such that “the laws would be a mishmash, and
interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status
depending on where they lived.”
This is nonsense. It is ignorant. It
is stupid.
The debate over Roe v. Wade has
been a fixture of American politics for fifty years. It dominates
our judicial confirmation processes; it is debated constantly inside and
outside of state legislatures; it has been a mainstay of both parties’
platforms since it was decided. It is a live question.
Interracial marriage? Not so much.
Here’s Gallup, from September of last year:
WASHINGTON,
D.C. — Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between
Black people and White people, up from 87% in the
prior reading from 2013. The
current figure marks a new high in Gallup’s trend, which spans more than six
decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.
This approval can be observed everywhere
in the country:
In previous
decades, Americans living in the East, Midwest and West were generally more
approving of marriages between Black people and White people than those living
in the South.
At this
point in the trend, however, approval of interracial marriage is nearly universal
across all regions, almost closing the regional gaps that existed in earlier
parts of the trend.
Those numbers, for the record, are:
·
East (94%)
·
Midwest (93%)
·
South (93%)
·
West (97%)
There isn’t even a racial gap:
Today, the
three percentage points that separate approval among White (93%) and Non-White
adults (96%) is within the poll’s margin of error.
From where, exactly, does the New
York Times’ editorial board believe that the impetus would come for “some
states” to ban interracial marriage? And who would send the signals from on
high? Would Mitch McConnell, the husband of of Elaine Chao, who was born in
Taiwan? Would Justice Clarence Thomas, the formerly segregated black man who is
married to Ginni Thomas, who is white? Perhaps JD Vance and
Usha Chilukuri are gearing up for the role?
Sometimes, I wonder if the editors of
the New York Times have actually been to the
United States. Now,
I must conclude that they have not.
No comments:
Post a Comment