Pilot Editorial: Virginia’s ugly past rears its head again

https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/vp-ed-editorial-marriage-race-0927-20190927-e6ao4knzjraejfabl3ykdmwbw4-story.html

Today’s editorial is objectionable on a number of different levels, but what stands out to me is the triumph of ideological theory over common sense.

The editors argue that it is not politically correct to document the race of adults who wish to marry, therefore it must not be done. Political correctness is the sum and substance of their concern. How pitiful!

The more substantive question is, Why does the state require marriage licenses to begin with?

And if we’re going to have marriage licenses, why not document various demographic facts about those who seek them? It may, after all, be of some scientific or sociological interest to know this information. It makes no sense to avoid collecting it simply because the sensibilities of some citizens might be violated.

The editors engage in trivial thinking.

29 thoughts on “Pilot Editorial: Virginia’s ugly past rears its head again

      1. “The editors argue that it is not politically correct to document the race of adults who wish to marry, therefore it must not be done.”

        I did not see the phrase “politically correct”.

        I think they argued that it is a pointless question on the marriage application. And with the number of mixed marriages, what are all the classifications going to be anyway?

        Here is a bit about Tiger Woods when he was asked about his race.

        “Woods’ mother, Kultida, is a native of Thailand whose own ancestry includes Chinese and Dutch. She once referred to herself as “half-Thai, one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter white.”

        Woods’ father, Earl, was an African-American whose heritage included white, Asian and Native American ancestors. Earl Woods once called himself, “half-black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese.”

        “t was as a child, Woods explained to Oprah, that he created the portmanteau Cablinasian:
        Caucasian Black Indian (Native American) Asian
        Ca + bl + in + Asian = Cablinasian”

        https://www.liveabout.com/tiger-woods-ethnicity-1566365

        And the revelation that Rockbridge County still used “mulatto”. “quadroon” and “octoroon” is both hilarious and needlessly insulting. Adding in “Aryan” and “Jew” is best left to the history books also.

        Heck, why not Dago and Guinea? How about Half-breed?

        I think the editorial was just fine. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but a respectful thing to change from the days of apartheid.

        IMHO

        Liked by 2 people

  1. There are plenty other areas in which demographic information is collected. However, since Loving v VA was decided, there is no call whatsoever to collect racial information on marriage licenses.

    And did you notice some of the “race” choices listed on licenses in certain parts of the state. “Rockbridge County, where one of the couples filing suit sought a marriage license, listed such choices as Aryan, Jew, Mulatto, Teutonic, Quadroon and Octoroon.”

    From merriam-webster.com: “quadroon dated, now offensive: a person of one-quarter black ancestry. Seriously?
    Or ‘teutonic” of Germanic or celtic race Seriously?

    Your comment only shows how shallow and narrow-minded your thinking is.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “since Loving v VA was decided, there is no call whatsoever to collect racial information on marriage licenses.”

      Why not? Would it not be more accurate for scientific study than having to cobble together the same information from other sources?

      Like

    1. RE: “Did you miss that part or something?”

      Not at all. It strikes me as a trivial issue, since there’s no chance miscegenation laws are coming back to Virginia.

      Like

          1. Well John, perhaps your day is coming.

            Perhaps someday you may violate some inane should-have-been-stricken-from-the-books law and be hauled before a judge who begins every court session with a pray-along prayer to Allah, then maybe you’ll understand that symbolism is reality.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “then maybe you’ll understand that symbolism is reality.”

            No, I will never understand that, since symbolism is by definition not reality. In fact, pretending that things are what they are not is the main reason I object to the editorial.

            Like

  2. Why so much emotion about a simple change to purge a pointless anachronism from the law? I suppose you just don’t like to see the remnants of the “good old days” of white male hegemony go into the dustbin of history?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As stated, my issue is with the editors for engaging in trivial thinking. The law in question may be pointless and anachronistic, but there is no profound or substantial moral reason for getting rid of it. I find that the editors are only virtue signalling in this case.

      Like

      1. “there is no profound or substantial moral reason for getting rid of it”

        True; for those who can’t be profound or understand the need to take overdue moral stands.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Not surprisingly, you have it exactly backwards –

        “There is no profound or substantial moral reason” TO KEEP pointless and anachronistic laws on the books.

        YOU are not exactly “virtue signalling” on this case. The opposite in fact – kind of like a shout out to Pepe.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “The law in question may be pointless and anachronistic, but there is no profound or substantial moral reason for getting rid of it.”

        How do you feel about the anachronistic laws concerning sodomy. In Virginia’s case only missionary position is legal, and only between spouses. Anything else can get you tossed in the pokey.

        It’s none of my business what a man and woman, be they married or not, do in the privacy of their bedroom. Nor is it that of the government’s. Find the anachronistic laws on the books and get rid of them through the legislative process and be done with it already.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “How do you feel about the anachronistic laws concerning sodomy.”

          As a rule, I’m in favor of removing anachronistic laws. The law in question, however, doesn’t strike me as anachronistic. Apparently, all it does is require the collection of demographic data via marriage license forms. Given how often marriage records are used in historical research, it seems to me this particular law doesn’t hurt anyone and it might do some good.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s