Paging George L. Metcalfe!!

Hoo-boy, fresh from testifying as a character witness for Hank Adorno, Herald outside counsel Sand "Sandy" Bohrer takes to the Herald editorial page to shoot a Cheney-sized load of buckshot straight into the handsome-but-not-in-that-kind-of-way kisser of none other than our own George L. Metcalfe:

For almost 200 years of our history in many states, marriage was not simply restricted to a man and a woman, but had to be racially pure. If you were white, your spouse had to be white; if you were ``colored,'' your spouse had to be ``colored.'' It became complicated, as who is ``white'' and who is ``colored'' was not so clear, given the number of people whose parents were not racially ``pure.''

Seemingly intelligent people confidently justified these prohibitions, claiming (1) the regulation of marriage is exclusively within the power of the states, and thus immune from attack under the U.S. Constitution, (2) the framers, those white men of the 18th century, several of them slaveholders, never intended for there to be interracial marriage, and (3) it was psychologically and sociologically inappropriate.

Lawyers for Virginia, asking the Supreme Court in 1967 to uphold its prohibition against interracial marriage, pointed to ``scientific opinions'' supporting the ``desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological and sociological point of view.'' They left out religious, but the Virginia trial judge did not: ``Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.'' And: ``The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.''

The children, it was feared, would be harmed by all these problems, and by reason of being ``mixed race'' children. How could we inflict such a fate on our children? Certainly they could never succeed in life, such as by becoming president.

The Supreme Court made short work of Virginia's statutes.

Now we debate not interracial marriage, but gay marriage and gay adoption. And we hear the same ``reasons'' we heard before.

Hmm, so you're suggesting those who oppose gay adoption are like those who opposed interracial marriage?

Sandy, are you aware of certain direct quotes from God or the numerous laws prohibiting garments made of mixed animal materials?

I thought not -- I rest my case.

Gee, I wonder if anyone will write a letter about this.