Samuel Sarfo and Ashley Ramkishun have lived in Virginia for 10 years
Recently, three couples in the state of Virginia have filed lawsuits stating that on marriage forms, there should not be a question asking for one's race in order to receive their marriage license. The couples stated that this is "unconstitutional" and "reflective of [America's] racist past" through having some of the race options being Aryan, Moor, Octoroon, and Mulato. Some of these phrases are from interracial descriptions of Africans and English, each describing a certain percentage of each race. Some of these categories have left couples, such as Brandyn Churchill and Sophie Rogers, uncomfortable and have made them leave the licensing office. Now, this mandatory question has now become optional in Virginia, allowing couples to gain marriage licenses without the need to categorize/identify themselves in a specific racial manner. Couples can write "decline to answer;" however, the lawsuit is still being filed.
Now, the argument is if in reality this law is deemed as "unconstitutional." The attorney defending these couples, Victor Glasberg, quoted that in the Virginia law, it stated that “for each marriage performed in the Commonwealth, a record showing personal data, including but not limited to age and race of the married parties . . . shall be filed with the State Registrar.” It is true that the 14th amendment was added to provide equality to all African Americans and is interpreted to mean that no individual is discriminated through race in this day and age. Also, the 15th amendment was added to prevent people from not have voting rights due to their racial background, but does stating one's race on this form lead to one's rights being infringed upon? So is it constitutional or not? How does this relate to state power versus federal power? However, allowing couples to not disclose this information is a quick and easy solution to people who do not feel comfortable and brings into question whether or not this case needs to be brought to the courts. This concept arises from the previous court cases we have read in class regarding the interpretation of the constitution.
The other side of the argument is that the necessity for Virginia couples to state their racial background originally came from the state's banning of interracial marriage, which was overturned in a court case a century ago called Loving v. Virginia. The couple states that this reference to the previous racial discrimination should be removed. Moreover, they argue that it should be one's choice to answer this question and not be mandatory.
I think that what these couples did was a great start to having the choice about what an individual wants to share with the government. However, that brings up the idea - how much information should the government know about the people? Definitely, race is a category that is used to have statistical data about how each group is doing and if there is a pattern with one group being on the less fortunate side in the country.
Is this a case that is alarming and needs to act with great urgency at the state courts or even the national courts? State your thoughts in the comments below.
The other side of the argument is that the necessity for Virginia couples to state their racial background originally came from the state's banning of interracial marriage, which was overturned in a court case a century ago called Loving v. Virginia. The couple states that this reference to the previous racial discrimination should be removed. Moreover, they argue that it should be one's choice to answer this question and not be mandatory.
I think that what these couples did was a great start to having the choice about what an individual wants to share with the government. However, that brings up the idea - how much information should the government know about the people? Definitely, race is a category that is used to have statistical data about how each group is doing and if there is a pattern with one group being on the less fortunate side in the country.
Is this a case that is alarming and needs to act with great urgency at the state courts or even the national courts? State your thoughts in the comments below.
10 comments:
Virginia allowing people who want marriage licenses to choose whether or not to declare their race is a good idea. People should be able to decide whether they want to state their race, similar to how some forms allow people to say they do not want to state what gender they identify as. I do think it is a good idea that those three couples have decided to speak out for their disagreement with the marriage form asking what races the couples are. After all, terms like "Mulatto" are definitely racist and a reminder of the US' racist past. I do think those terms are unconstitutional, but I'm on the fence about asking people's race being unconstitutional. Maybe the state needs a consensus of the amount of certain races in the state, who knows. My question is when couples do check off what race they are, what happens? It's not like after they check off two different races, for example, anything happens or that their marriage is canceled. I did see in the article an ad for another article stating that a wedding venue wouldn't hold a wedding for an interracial couple.
While I agree that it is a good thing that Virginia stopped requiring race on forms for marriage licenses, I don’t think that it would be unconstitutional for them to ask for race. I definitely think that terms such as “Aryan, Moor, Octoroon, and Mulatto” should be removed as they historically have been used in very racist ways. However, I think that this isn’t quite an urgent case as no one is really being harmed or benefiting by putting their race on their marriage licenses. I don’t really see a problem with asking for someone’s race as it is a pretty standard question on official documents. Also, as someone with parents who are different races, I feel that people are generally accepting towards interracial couples nowadays, although I can’t speak for what interracial couples in Virginia experience. Racism in general is a very prevalent issue in America, but I’m not entirely sure if no longer requiring couples to list their race will really have a meaningful impact because that question is probably just used collect data about the couples that live in Virginia.
In my opinion, asking a couple to declare their race on their marriage licenses is not necessarily "reflective of [America's] racist past" as the couples have stated. This statement doesn't necessarily mean anything, and is more likely than not a data metric for states unless, like Sarah mentioned, the races to be declared have known racist connotations. While this lawsuit may be justified because of the racist racial descriptions used on the marriage licenses, I feel like this could be a potential bandwagon liberalism moment. While this measure is a little more harmless, where the government only loses a small data metric, it is slightly reminiscent of the left wing protests that misgendering someone should be a federal crime. While racism may be an ongoing issue in America, it is not necessarily helpful to completely ignore races on government documents.
In my opinion, I believe that it is good that the state of Virginia gave a choice whether you could state your race or not. Some people might be insecure or scared to state their ethnicity and Virginia did a great thing by giving the choice to the newly wed couple. Although this is a good way for Virginia to state their acceptance, it necessarily isn't that urgent of a change. The time spent on trying to change the marriage license could be used on other things. Moreover, people are more accepting of interracial marriage and forcing people to enlist their race wouldn't really make sense.
I think that the couples in Virginia are overreacting a little, although I can see why they are uncomfortable with giving their personal information about race. I believe it is equivalent to having an ID photo on a license. This short description of race and age can actually be used less to indicate something about a person than an actual photo like every driver's license requires. Virginia's use of this marriage description is most likely just for identification and not meant to be discriminatory at all.
On the other hand, some people will always discriminate and if adding the option to not add one's race makes people more comfortable, than it is worth it.
While I wouldn’t go so far to say that asking for race is “unconstitutional” or “reflective of America’s racist past”, I do think adding an option to abstain from the question is a good move. Race has nothing to do with marriage and should not be a required question; although it’s sad that some don’t feel comfortable or safe sharing their race, people have a right to privacy, and if they don’t want to reveal their race, they shouldn’t have to. With a long history and even occurrences today of violence and overt discrimination against interracial couples, it’s understandable that some couples take offense or are wary of the presence of such a question, especially if there are racist terms included in the document, like “Aryan” and “Mulatto”, that have no place in our world today. While this is a valid issue, at the end of the day, I don’t think that it’s worth so much agitation and time. There are so many other instances of racism, in which people are directly discriminated against and/or hurt, that deserve more of our attention than a question on a marriage document, and I believe it would be worthwhile for more people to turn their attention toward those issues than this small problem in a big picture.
As many comments before me have stated, I don't believe it's inherently unconstitutional for them to ask for information regarding their race. However, what the issue ultimately comes down to is the necessity and purpose of the requirement, which could potentially be for data collection and identification. This could be to varying degrees, but perhaps a reevaluation of such processes is necessary. I believe that the lifting of the requirement serves more of a symbolic role above all else. I don't think there will be substantial social ripples from it, however at the very least it could be seen as a statement about race being beside the point when it comes to the institution of marriage. I don't think it can particularly be considered the right move, nor the wrong move, it was just an act which means something to some people, yet ultimately won't have long lasting consequences. Honestly I sort of like it. It's just nice knowing that people can love whoever they want without legally having to declare their race to marry them. Was it absolutely necessary? No, but it provides a nice sentiment.
Does anyone believe that this question should be optional in states or the nation? How would this help shape our culture?
This question should definitely be optional nationwide. The declaration of "race" as a mandatory question on a marriage license, is, I think, inherently bad. Giving an institution like the US government more personal information is somewhat dangerous - being forced to do it in order to get married only justifies more biopolitical control that the government exerts. The required race question can serve as a precedent for the expansion of state power, such as requiring race for major economic decisions, which could be potentially problematic.
Like Albert, I think that the question should be optional amongst the states. The question about race may not be the most relevant or necessary, but it may be good for state statistics. I also think that if states do wish to include the question, they should do so with appropriate language in order to ensure that no citizens are offended by the language used like Churchill and Rogers felt. I also don't believe that the case is absolutely urgent for state or national courts. Although it is important that one's race should not interfere with their legal entitlements such as a marriage license, I think that perhaps issues involving physical harm may be better to be brought to the court in order to decrease such harm to others.
Post a Comment