(NAME-MCE) Equality v. Equity

[Warren Blumenfeld]

Equality v. Equity
A Commentary by Warren J. Blumenfeld

I have been reading with interest the on-line discussion that has 
transpired around the Iowa State Daily article, "Gay right debate 
inspires discussion, no solutions," (Monday, September 29, 2008) by 
Rashah McChesney covering the debate between Dr. Hector Avalos of the 
Religion Department at ISU and Jan Mickelson, talk show host on WHO 
radio.  Their debate question was: "Should Gay Rights Prevail over 
Traditional Biblical Sexual Ethics," conducted in the Sun Room at the 
Memorial Union on Sunday, September 28.

Within the on-line discussion, I have discovered a basic 
misunderstanding on the part of some of the participants who oppose 
same-sex marriage regarding the difference between the terms 
"Equality" and "Equity."

I like to use my friend Vernon Wall's metaphor to differentiate 
between the terms: Equality is providing everyone with a pair of 
shoes. Equity is providing everyone with a pair of shoes that fit.

Arguing against those who favor same-sex marriage rights, Craig 
Lowell, for example, in the on-line discussion asserts: "You DEMAND 
special rights. YOU [as a man] have the right to marry a woman and I 
don't care if you want to or not, that's not the point. You do not 
have the right to 'marry' a person of the same gender as you, and 
neither does anyone else, so there is no special discrimination going 
on, whether you think there is or not."

In this argument, Craig is saying that we all are being provided with 
a pair of shoes, and he is indeed correct. If you happen, for 
example, to wear a size 10 men's or women's shoe, and you are given a 
pair of size 10 shoes, all is possibly fine and fair if the shoes fit 
comfortably and you like the style and shade. However, how fine and 
fair is it for those who do not wear a size 10 shoe at all?  Though 
we can equally attempt to fit into these shoes, when we attempt to 
walk, we either inadvertently step out of the shoes and possibly 
fall, or we develop bruised and battered feet.

Let's look at the following analogy to Craig's argument. Prior to 
1967, nine states within the U.S. prevented consenting adults from 
engaging in sexual activities, let along marriage, with anyone from 
another so-called "race." One could argue that these laws treated 
everyone equally: White adults could have consentual sex with and 
marry other White people, but they could not have sex with or marry 
people of any other so-called "race." Black adults could have 
consentual sex with and marry other Black people, but they could not 
have sex with or marry people of any other so-called "race," and so on.

In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme 
Court of the United States, however, disagreed with the above 
scenarios codified in law, ruling against equality and in favor of 
equity. They declared the state of Virginia's anti-miscengenation 
statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924," unconstitutional, 
thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based 
legal restrictions on adult consentual sexual activity and marriage 
throughout the U.S.

The plaintiffs in the case were Mildred Loving (born Mildred Deloris 
Jetter, a woman of African descent) and Richard Perry Loving (a man 
of White European descent), both residents of Virginia who married in 
June 1958 in the District of Columbia to evade Virginia's "Racial 
Integrity Act." Upon returning to Virginia, they were arrested and 
charged with violating the act. Police entered their home and 
arrested them while they slept in their bed. At their trial, they 
were convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment with a 
suspended sentence of 25 years on the condition that the couple leave 
the state of Virginia. At the trial, the judge, Leon Bazile, used 
Biblical justifications to convict the couple:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, 
and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the 
interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such 
marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not 
intend for the races to mix." ( 
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html ).

Can we learn any lessons here? I say we can. Both then and now, 
opponents of equity in marriage laws are claiming that these laws are 
treating people "equally." And in both of these instances, Biblical 
justifications are used to deny people the right to shoes that fit.

Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Assistant Professor
Multicultural and International Curriculum Studies
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
wblumen at iastate.edu
515.294.5931 office
515.232.8230 home