This short post by Michael of Res Ipsa is worth quoting in full:
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES & MISCEGINATION Gallagher’s piece (see below) has gotten me thinking about Miscegination. I think an interesting question to ask the pro-marriage movement is whether their social conservative allies would have been opposed to mixed-race marriages if they had been around 40 years ago. My guess is that we would have heard nuanced arguments opposed to mixed-race marriages from the likes of Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition, the Arlington Group, and Focus on the Family if they had been around during those times. White fundamentalists were never marching with Martin during the civil rights movement and the anti-mesceginationists had their roots in fundamentalist and evangelical Southern churches, just like the current social conservative movement.
One also wonders if the “read the research” crowd would have been making anti-miscegination arguments if they knew that some research shows that children of interracial marriages have poorer outcomes then kids from same-race marriages? Would the research on “one mom and one dad” have been nuanced to mean “one mom and one dad of the same race” since there was undoubtedly no research on interracial couples included in those studies, just as no data on same-sex parents is included in the “one mom and one dad” research?
Also check out Michael’s post critiquing Maggie Galligher’s latest. (You may need to scroll to the bottom of the page). Via Family Scholars Blog..
Not only did these same type of baying, Bible-thumping jackasses make the very same arguments against interracial marriage, they made the very same arguments against voting rights for women, college education for women, and anesthesia for women in childbirth. Yes, the Bible clearly prohibits all of these practices. Look how women’s suffrage and education has destroyed this country!
Of course they would have opposed inter-racial marriage (the very word “miscegenation” implies that one’s against it).
Just look at how conservatives from GHW Bush on up opposed the Brown decision in 1954. Good for them that they changed their minds later, but shame on them for hiding their previous views, and for not realizing that this was a transferable lesson.
Is this really true about marching with Martin Luther King? There were a lot of churches involved on both sides in the civil rights struggle. Does the current distinction between fundamentalist and other churches make sense when talking about the 60s, and which churches were actually involved?
Dylan’s question is a legitimate one. First, fundamentalism did exist in the 60s and there were fundy churches and non-fundy churches. On a whole the fundamentalist sects were united against civil rights, interracial marriage, etc. The exception was understandable — blacf fundamentalist churches were for civil rights. But then they would be wouldn’t they?