The Folly of Jim Crow: Rethinking the Segregated South

6. Is Marriage a Civil Right? The Politics of Intimacy in the Jim Crow Era

CHAPTER฀6 Is฀Marriage฀a฀Civil฀Right?฀The฀Politics฀of฀Intimacy฀in฀ the฀Jim฀Crow฀Era jane dailey Over฀the฀past฀fi ฀fteen฀years฀the฀right฀to฀marry฀has฀moved฀to฀the฀center฀ of฀discussions฀about฀civil฀rights฀in฀contemporary฀America.฀The฀argument ฀over฀gay฀marriage฀rights,฀for฀example,฀is฀founded฀in฀part฀on฀the฀assumption ฀that฀marriage฀is฀both฀a฀human฀and฀a฀constitutional฀right.฀As฀historian ฀George฀Chauncey฀explains฀in฀his฀book฀Why฀Marriage?฀The฀History฀ Shaping฀Today’s฀Debate฀over฀Gay฀Equality,฀“The฀freedom฀to฀marry,฀and฀ above฀all฀the฀freedom฀to฀choose฀one’s฀partner฀in฀marriage,฀has฀come฀to฀be฀ seen฀by฀the฀courts฀and฀the฀American฀people฀as฀a฀fundamental฀civil฀right.”1 Ever฀since฀the฀Civil฀Rights฀Act฀of฀1866฀introduced฀the฀concept฀of฀“civil฀ rights”฀into฀American฀politics,฀freedom฀of฀choice฀in฀marriage฀has฀been฀a฀ lightning฀rod฀of฀political฀controversy.฀Most฀of฀the฀skirmishing฀over฀marriage ,฀same-฀ sex฀or฀otherwise,฀has฀taken฀place฀at฀the฀state฀level.2 ฀Until฀passage ฀of฀the฀Fourteenth฀Amendment฀in฀1868,฀marriage฀was฀considered฀to฀ lie฀entirely฀within฀the฀realm฀of฀the฀state;฀after฀passage,฀the฀posture฀struck฀ by฀the฀Court฀remained฀one฀of฀obeisance฀to฀local฀custom.฀With฀two฀exceptions3 ฀the฀Supreme฀Court฀refrained฀from฀ruling฀on฀marriage฀law฀until฀ after฀ the฀First฀World฀War,฀and฀when฀it฀did฀it฀bundled฀together฀marriage ,฀procreation,฀and฀childrearing. 4 ฀In฀a฀series฀of฀Fourteenth฀Amendment ฀cases฀stretching฀from฀ Meyer฀v.฀Nebraska฀in฀1923฀through฀ Skinner฀ v.฀Oklahoma฀in฀1942฀(holding฀unconstitutional฀the฀forced฀sterilization ฀ of฀inmates);฀Griswold฀v.฀Connecticut฀in฀1965฀(holding฀unconstitutional ฀ the฀denial฀of฀contracep tives฀to฀married฀couples);฀ Loving฀v.฀Virginia฀in฀ 1967;฀Boddie฀v.฀Connecticut฀in฀1971฀(on฀divorce);฀Zablocki฀v.฀Redhail฀in฀ 1978฀(holding฀unconstitutional฀a฀law฀denying฀marriage฀to฀people฀in฀arrears ฀on฀child-฀ custody฀payments),฀to฀Turner฀v.฀Salfi ฀฀in฀1987฀(holding฀unconstitutional ฀a฀law฀denying฀marriage฀to฀prisoners),฀the฀Court฀has฀used฀ a฀ combination฀of฀due -฀ process,฀ equal-฀ protection฀ fundamental-฀ interest,฀ and฀equal-฀ protection฀suspect-฀ classifi ฀cation฀arguments฀to฀fi฀nd฀marriage฀a฀ Jane฀Dailey฀ 177 constitutionally฀protected฀interest฀in฀a฀wide฀variety฀of฀contexts. 5 ฀In฀Loving ,฀for฀example,฀the฀Court฀objected฀to฀the฀Virginia฀antimiscegenation ฀ statute฀both฀on฀the฀grounds฀that฀it฀involved฀an฀invidious฀racial฀classifi ฀cation ฀and฀on฀due-฀ process฀grounds฀that฀it฀violated฀a฀fundamental฀freedom .6 ฀Loving฀also฀established฀the฀modern฀standard฀of฀“strict฀scrutiny,”฀in฀ which฀a฀law฀that฀singles฀out฀a฀group฀of฀people฀has฀to฀be —in฀contemporary ฀usage—“narrowly฀tailored฀to฀achieve฀a฀compelling฀governmental ฀ interest.”7 ฀Complicating฀matters฀further,฀in฀Zablocki฀the฀Court฀turned฀to฀ the฀fundamental-฀ interests฀branch฀of฀equal -฀ protection฀doctrine฀(and฀not ฀ due฀process)฀when฀it฀held฀that฀“the฀right฀to฀marry฀is฀of฀fundamental฀importance ฀for฀all฀individuals.”8 Because฀marriage฀crosses฀all฀these฀jurisprudential฀boundaries฀and฀might฀ therefore฀be฀a฀substantive฀due-฀ process฀right฀and฀an฀equal-฀ protection฀fundamental ฀interest฀and฀be฀implicated฀in฀a฀suspect฀or฀quasi -฀ suspect฀classi- fi ฀cation,฀the฀jurisprudence฀is฀messy.฀This฀can฀work฀to฀the฀advantage฀of ฀ those฀looking฀to฀expand฀the฀borders฀of฀legally฀recognized฀marriage,฀and฀ same-฀ sex฀marriage฀advocates฀have฀often฀tied฀their฀cause฀to฀earlier฀debates฀ over฀interracial฀marriage.฀Two฀recent฀California฀cases,฀for฀example,฀relied฀ heavily฀on฀the฀antimiscegenation฀precedent.฀In฀April฀2008฀a฀bare฀majority ฀of฀the฀California฀Supreme฀Court฀affi฀rmed฀that฀marriage฀was฀a฀“basic,฀ constitutionally-฀ protected,฀civil฀right”฀and฀ruled฀that฀a฀state฀law฀defi฀ning฀ “marriage”฀as฀the฀union฀of฀a฀man฀and฀a฀woman฀was฀unconstitutional. ฀ Following฀the฀lead฀of฀the฀NAACP฀argument฀in฀asserting฀that฀“the฀debate฀ over฀same-฀ sex฀marriage฀is฀no฀different฀from฀the฀debate฀a฀half-฀ century฀ago฀ over฀interracial฀marriage,”9 ฀the฀decision฀in฀ In฀re฀Marriage฀Cases ฀rested฀ heavily฀on฀a฀1948฀California฀Supreme฀Court฀antimiscegenation฀case,฀ Perez฀ v.฀Sharp,฀which฀declared฀that฀marriage฀was฀“more฀than฀a฀civil฀contract ฀ subject฀to฀regulation฀by฀the฀state;฀it฀is฀a฀fundamental฀right฀of฀free฀men.”10 ฀ The฀Marriage฀Cases฀decision฀was฀overturned฀by฀Californians฀at฀the฀polls฀ the฀following฀November,฀but฀a฀successor฀case฀denying฀any฀state฀interest฀ in฀the฀prohibition฀of฀same-฀ sex฀marriage฀was฀decided฀by฀the฀United฀States฀ District฀Court฀for฀the฀Northern฀District฀of฀California฀in฀August฀2010. ฀ Sooner฀or฀later฀the฀same-฀ sex฀marriage฀issue฀will฀appear฀before฀the฀United฀ States฀Supreme฀Court.11 The฀ “฀ ‘prohibitions฀ against฀interracial฀marriage’฀equals฀‘prohibitions ฀against฀same-฀ sex฀marriage’฀ ”฀analogy฀suggests฀a฀smooth฀legal฀and฀ political฀trajectory฀from฀one฀debate฀to฀the฀other...