Same-sex Marriage & Interracial Marriage Parallel?

Frank Beckwith makes an excellent point in this legal analysis that refutes the parallel that is drawn between banning interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.  The parallel, of course, trades on the obvious offense of the former in our history and the sense of fair play and equal rights that good people cherish.  But the parallel drawn is a false one, though there is a parallel that actually works against the proponents of same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim that legal efforts clarify the definition of marriage is a ban on same-sex marriage, but that isn't the case at all.  A ban requires something already be in effect, have a history of practice.  Same-sex marriage isn't being banned, and that's a significant difference with the supposed parallel with interracial marriage.  That was a ban in fact. 

Legal restrictions of interracial marriage was a revision to millenia of human history.  Race had never been part of the definition of marriage, so the efforts to ban it were revisionistic not an effort to conserve and protect marriage as an institution.  Of course, same-sex marriage is revisionistic, also overthrowing the definition of marriage for all of human history.  And this is, ironically, the actual parallel between the two.

Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't seeking to ban any practice of common law well-established in human history, such as was the case in banning interracial marriage.  It was a revision of current law, just as the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are revisionistic and revolutionary.  In both cases, those that sought to protect the institution of marriage from revision are consistent in the efforts to keep marriage from being fundamentally changed, to maintain a definition well-established in law.

So there is a parallel between the two, but not the one advocates of same-sex marriage think there is.  The parallel isn't in their favor because the two efforts compare in their efforts to change the institution of marriage.  Based on that legal parallel, it actually illustrates how revolutionary and, frankly, cavalier such efforts are to fundamentally redefine an institution that has served humanity and society very well since the dawn of human history.

Melinda Penner