In 2016 the acclaimed movie Loving, about Mildred and Richard Loving, who defied their state’s prohibition against interracial marriage, was nominated for two Golden Globes. I haven’t had the chance to watch it but it does present a similar problem to the stuff we discussed in class.
The facts of the case are that Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in 1958. Mildred had black and Cherokee ancestry; Richard was white. They lived in Virginia. Virginia at that time had anti-miscegenation laws that forbade the marriage of whites and non-whites. The Lovings appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court and the court found in their favor. The court found that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
But clergymen are different. Shouldn’t clergymen be able to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to marry intersex couples? A similar question would be: shouldn’t clergymen be able to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to marry inter-race couples?
Yes. I feel that all citizens of America have these rights. However, this should be an individual and case-by-case choice only. I don’t feel like it’s ethical to have it mandated by law to forbid intersex or interracial marriage, as affirmed by Loving v. Virginia. Similarly, I think that clergymen shouldn’t be persuaded by their constituents or hard-line religious fundamentalist groups that they must refuse to marry intersex couples.
What I’m trying to say, is that the law should protect clergymen that are bold enough to defy the religious scriptures to do what they feel is ethical. I do not think that other racist laws or narrow-minded people or lobbyists should legally be able to influence their decisions. Of course, the vast majority of clergymen would choose to stick with the teachings of their scriptures and that is their choice. But the freedom of choice must be given to those who choose to defy scripture and follow their conscience.
And on a hopeful note, I think that we are moving towards a more inclusive and tolerant society. This has been shown by Loving v. Virginia and the virtual mainstream acceptance of interracial marriages. This has also been shown by the Supreme Court ruling in 2015, legalizing gay marriage. I really hope that our nation is becoming more tolerant and in the near future intersex marriages will be accepted because no one can remember a time when it wasn’t.
***One thing I forgot to mention: marrying inter-race and intersex couples has one important difference. Intersex marriages are prohibited by Christian scripture but I don’t think that inter-race marriages are. Like I think all they need to be is Christian. The Bible condemns homosexuality however.
Hi Will,
I found your take on the clergymen’s role on same sex marriage very interesting. I also liked how you incorporated the movie “Loving” into your blog and compared it to the the issue of whether or not clergymen should be officiating same sex marriage. I agree with you in the sense that these clergymen should have a choice as to whether or not they want to officiate a same sex wedding. I believe that they should not be bounded by laws and should feel free to do what they think is ethical. In this country, we have the freedom to express our rights and I don’t think that clergymen should be excluded from them. If clergymen want to officiate a same sex marriage, it is their own choice. Conversely, if they don’t want to officiate a wedding, it is their own choice as well. Though most clergymen would probably abide by what is in the scripture, it would be nice for them to have a choice as to whether or not they would want to officiate a same sex wedding, and not be restricted by some sort of law.
The case of clergy refusing to officiate at a gay wedding is easy. Of course they should be allowed to refuse. It gets much harder when the party refusing to provide a service is a commercial business like a bakery or photographer.