When the subject of gay marriage comes up, as it always seems to do these days, I am struck by one particular aspect of the debate: how is it that opponents of gay marriage can get away with recycling the same arguments (and I use that term generously) that were used by racists 50 years ago? Why is it that so many people are unable to learn from history, and are unwilling to recognize that today's homophobes will, in the end, be regarded with the same disgust that we now feel toward racists?

I’ve outlined the parallel arguments I have noticed so far, but there are probably more.

1. Argument of God's will.

This is, quite simply, the idea that the Christian God doesn't want “unnatural” marriages, and thus we shouldn't want them either. The religious homophobes of today are precise echoes of the religious racists from yesteryear; a lovely example is the 1959 case in which a mixed-race couple was put on trial for violation of laws against mixed-race marriage. The trial judge confidently asserted, "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."

This argument is the easiest to throw away, since we all know that speculation about what an unsubstantiated Creator-being may want is not considered sufficient grounds for law in America.

2. Argument of "equal oppression."

This is the idea that since all people are allowed the freedom to marry only a person of the opposite sex (or of the same race), it doesn't count as discrimination because gay/black people labor under the same restriction as straight/white people. The Virginia State court made this same argument in support of its laws prohibiting mixed-race marriage:

"The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

This argument wasn't good enough for the US Supreme Court back then, and I don't see any reason why it should be good enough for us today.

3. Argument that it is in the best interests of the State, and the people, to defend racism/homophobia.

In Naim v. Naim (1955) the Virginia State Court of Appeals concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." It is easy to see the similarities to today, when it is often claimed that the government must protect the "sexual purity" of its citizens, prevent the corruption of sexuality, and the obliteration of traditional sexual values. Given the preponderance of evidence that homosexuality itself does not in any way harm society, we can confidently return to snickering at the obvious hate-mongering and sexual insecurities of anybody who attempts this line of argument.

4. Argument of tradition.

This is the claim that marriage has always been defined a certain way, and therefore we shouldn't change it. This was exactly the same argument raised by those who saw no reason to overturn laws against mixed-race marriage; such mixed-race marriages had been prohibited since the founding colonies, so why make them legal and violate the traditional definition? Fortunately this argument was tossed aside by the courts, proving that our definition of marriage is not graven in stone, and that we can--and do--change our traditions for the better.

5. Argument of States’ rights.

Many libertarian-leaning conservatives, like Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX), assert that gay marriage is an issue that should not be decided by the federal government, and that “activist judges” should not have the power to dictate the form of a societal practice such as marriage. During the era of miscegenation debates, numerous cries for the protection of “States’ Rights” were heard as well, particularly from Southern states that resented federal interference in their grand tradition of racism and inequality.

The notion that individual states should be responsible for regulating marriage is certainly reasonable insofar as the Constitution places the states in charge of regulating such social institutions. However, there is one glaring limitation that cannot be overlooked: no state is entitled to maintain unconstitutional laws, and the federal government is empowered to over-rule any such laws that a state passes. As the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1967, “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.” The states may not choose to ignore the unions of mixed-race couples, demonstrating that there is clear legal precedent for denying the states the right to ignore gay unions. The claim that “activist federal judges” should not have the power to assert such restrictions on the states is clearly untrue because they have both the power and the responsibility to do precisely that.

6. Argument from inability to procreate.

Supposed "biological evidence" was often referred to that claimed mixed-race couples could not produce children and, therefore, that their marriages had no value. This is quite similar to the current claims that homosexual couples cannot have children or make families, a lie that is often cited as a reason to deny marital status. The reality is that homosexuality and infertility are not correlated at all, and homosexuals can have biological children through a variety of means. This argument also is an insult to all adopted children and adoptive families because it totally devalues the wonderful act of welcoming an otherwise unwanted child into a loving home.

This argument also supposes that inability or unwillingness to produce children should disqualify a couple from marriage, yet that is not a standard currently applied to heterosexual couples; infertile couples are permitted to wed or to remain married, and a study from the late 90s showed that over 4 million married couples in America described themselves as "childless by choice," with no intent to ever have children.

7. The infamous "slippery slope" argument.

This is the one you see most often, the claim that if we allow gay people to wed then next we will be allowing people to marry animals or toasters or whathaveyou. History has proven how pathetic this sort of fallacy is, since it was claimed that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead instantly to legalized polygamy, incest, bestiality and necrophilia...more than 50 years later, we can all see how stupid those claims really were. Not to mention the fact that we can, and do, draw the line in all our legal judgments; if permitting gay marriage will lead inevitably to legal unions between humans and their pets, then we are also forced to conclude that by allowing adults to drive cars we are beginning the inexorable slide down a slope to providing drivers' licenses to cats and dogs.