Over the weekend, the New York Times Editorial Board — 16 liberals, who lack ideological or geographical diversity — ran a predictably shallow pro-abortion staff editorial.
I perused it so you don’t have to, and one paragraph caught my attention for its sheer fallaciousness:
“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.”
This is a mindblowingly dumb claim, which is insulting to their insular readers. There’s as much a chance of this occurring as my starting at shortstop for the Los Angeles Dodgers tomorrow.
Are the parochial editors seeking shock value, since they should understand the reality of last week’s illegally-leaked draft and hoping to prey on the ignorant?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I once took a college class on the subject. There is a 1967 case called Loving v. Virginia, which declared that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment and couldn’t stand.
More than a half-century ago, fewer than 10% of American adults approved of interracial marriage; today 94% approve of marriages between black and white people, which is up seven points just from 2013.
These are record highs, unsurpassed by any other country too. Bravo to us.
For what it’s worth, approval of interracial marriage is even universal across U.S. regions: 97% in the West; 94 in the East; and 93 in the Midwest and South.
And no, there isn’t a racial gap. Whereas 93% of whites concur and 96% of non-white adults do, that sits within the poll’s margin of error.
I wonder if the monolithic New York Times folks realize how emphatically the data betrays them. Do they read or have they traveled around America by car?
And who will be the right-wing impetus for this incipient interracial marriage ban?
I heard a podcast over the weekend say in jest that Justice Clarence Thomas has been itching to nullify his marriage to Ginni Thomas, a white woman from Nebraska.
Maybe Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, whose wife, Elaine, is of Taiwanese descent, wants to place interracial marriage on the chopping block? What about some racial segregation from J.D. Vance and his Indian-American wife, Usha? Are Nikki Haley and her Caucasian husband gearing up for outlawing miscegenation?
For nearly 50 years, Roe has hung heavily over the judicial confirmation processes and is debated intensely in political halls and the public square. There are presidents who flip on the issue for political expediency. The matter is up for serious discourse on its merits, not sloganeering or emotional manipulation by a cadre of elites in Midtown Manhattan.
A.J. Kaufman is an Alpha News columnist. His work has appeared in the Baltimore Sun, Florida Sun-Sentinel, Indianapolis Star, Israel National News, Orange County Register, St. Cloud Times, Star-Tribune, and across AIM Media Midwest and the Internet. Kaufman previously worked as a school teacher and military historian.