Daughter Speculates on Ronald Reagan’s Gay-Rights Views

New York Times ^ | 04/04/2013 | SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

[justiceseeker93]

Morgan, who’s Catholic, said he understands the religious argument against same-sex marriage, but added that he believes it’s the same argument that was used to prohibit interracial marriage. He then noted the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in which the court ruled that states’ laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

Memo to Morgan: (1) One can be an atheist and object to gay marriage on social and economic grounds only. (2) You don't understand the meaning of the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was part of a post-Civil War amendment designed specifically to equalize the legal status of newly freed black slaves with that of unenslaved Americans. It was extended in subsequent court rulings to apply to other racial and ethnic groups as well. So the "equal protection" clause applied appropriately in the Loving case (racial differences among persons engaging in the same behavior: heterosexual marriage) but it never has applied to the equalization under law of individuals' behavioral differences. There lies the obvious distinction between the two.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear justiceseeker93!