Editing 1431: Marriage

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
The comic notes a curious inversion between the timing of legal and popular opinion trends for interracial marriage vs. same-sex marriage. In the 11 years between {{w|same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts first legalized}} same-sex marriage and the comic's publication, at no point had there been more people living in states where it's legal than there are people who support its legality. This stands in stark contrast to interracial marriage, which was legal for the majority of the population for over 50 years, and for the whole country for 28 years, before it was [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx approved of by the majority].
 
  
Note that poll questions are slightly different: "Do you approve of interracial marriage?" vs "Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?" It could be argued that fewer people would approve of these marriages than would support legalizing them, which may explain part of the discrepancy. But there are more factors at work, the effects and relative importance of which are not clear.
+
{{incomplete|What is the point made in the title text and how is it supported by the comic?}}
 +
 
 +
The comic is noting a curious inversion between the legality of interracial marriage and the legality of same-sex marriage.
  
===Recent developments===
 
 
Two days before this comic came out, the United States Supreme Court [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html declined to hear] appeals to decisions that had legalized same-sex marriage in five states. The court's refusal to hear the appeals was widely considered a surprise, and had the immediate effect of pushing the percentage of people living in states where such marriages are legal [http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s/ past 50%]. The decision has also led to considerable speculation that there will be a surge of similar decisions applying to other states, especially to the six states that are in the same {{w|United States courts of appeals|appeals circuits}} as the previous five, and to the three in the same circuit as Idaho and Nevada, where same-sex marriage bans [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/us/same-sex-marriage-bans-struck-down-in-idaho-and-nevada.html were struck down] a day after the Supreme Court's decision (although the decision in Idaho and Nevada has yet to take effect).
 
Two days before this comic came out, the United States Supreme Court [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html declined to hear] appeals to decisions that had legalized same-sex marriage in five states. The court's refusal to hear the appeals was widely considered a surprise, and had the immediate effect of pushing the percentage of people living in states where such marriages are legal [http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s/ past 50%]. The decision has also led to considerable speculation that there will be a surge of similar decisions applying to other states, especially to the six states that are in the same {{w|United States courts of appeals|appeals circuits}} as the previous five, and to the three in the same circuit as Idaho and Nevada, where same-sex marriage bans [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/us/same-sex-marriage-bans-struck-down-in-idaho-and-nevada.html were struck down] a day after the Supreme Court's decision (although the decision in Idaho and Nevada has yet to take effect).
  
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States of America {{w|Obergefell v. Hodges|ruled in a 5-4 decision}} that access to same-sex marriage was a right protected by the Constitution, thus raising the percentage of states with legal same-sex marriage to 100%.
+
This comic notes that, in the 11 years since {{w|same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts first legalized}} same-sex marriage, at no point have there been more people living in states where it's legal than there are people who support its legality (although this may soon come to pass). This stands in stark contrast to interracial marriage, which was legal for the majority of the population for over 50 years, and for the whole country for 28 years, before it was [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx supported by the majority].
 +
 
 +
=== Interracial marriage trend line explained ===
  
===Interracial marriage trend line annotated===
 
 
:''See also: {{w|Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|Wikipedia: Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States}}''
 
:''See also: {{w|Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|Wikipedia: Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States}}''
  
 
Legal controls concerning interracial marriage in the US (known since 1863 as {{w|miscegenation}}) have been significantly harder to track as a single statistic, due in part to the fact that such controls existed in several of the American British colonies before the United States formed, and complicated somewhat by the changes in territory claimed by and fluctuations in overall population (and methods of counting the population) of the United States over that time period. Depicting this as a simple percentage of US population over these earlier times would be far less meaningful outside of the context of these other fluctuations.
 
Legal controls concerning interracial marriage in the US (known since 1863 as {{w|miscegenation}}) have been significantly harder to track as a single statistic, due in part to the fact that such controls existed in several of the American British colonies before the United States formed, and complicated somewhat by the changes in territory claimed by and fluctuations in overall population (and methods of counting the population) of the United States over that time period. Depicting this as a simple percentage of US population over these earlier times would be far less meaningful outside of the context of these other fluctuations.
  
;Start of line: Prior to ca. 1940 and continuing to 1948: Since the establishment of the United States, most states have had anti-miscegenation legislation in one form or another. Only nine states (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii) and the District of Columbia never enacted such legislation. Earlier repeal dates range from 1780 in Pennsylvania to 1887 in Ohio, though none were repealed between 1887 and 1948.
+
;Start of line: Prior to ca. 1940 and continuing to 1948: Since the establishment of the United States, most states have had anti-miscegenation legislation in one form or another. Only nine states and the District of Columbia never enacted such legislation. Earlier repeal dates range from 1780 in Pennsylvania to 1887 in Ohio, though none were repealed between 1887 and 1948.
  
 
;First rise: October 1948: Supreme Court of California overturns the state anti-miscegenation law in ''{{w|Perez v. Sharp}}''.
 
;First rise: October 1948: Supreme Court of California overturns the state anti-miscegenation law in ''{{w|Perez v. Sharp}}''.
  
;General upward trend: 1951–1967: (in order of repeal by year) 13 states repeal anti-miscegenation laws prior to rulings at the federal level of government, largely encouraged by comparisons to similar laws promoted by opponents in World War II and other civil rights movements and victories.
+
;General upward trend: 1951–1967: (in order of repeal by year) 13 states repeal anti-miscegenation laws prior to rulings at the federal level of government, largely encouraged by comparisons to similar laws promoted by opponents in World War II and other civil rights movements and victories.
  
 
;Last spike: 12 June 1967: The U.S. Supreme Court rules in ''{{w|Loving v. Virginia}}'' that the 16 remaining state-level anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, rendering such laws thereafter ineffective.
 
;Last spike: 12 June 1967: The U.S. Supreme Court rules in ''{{w|Loving v. Virginia}}'' that the 16 remaining state-level anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, rendering such laws thereafter ineffective.
  
===Same-sex marriage trend line explained===
+
=== Same-sex marriage trend line explained ===
  
 
:''See also: {{w|Same-sex marriage in the United States|Wikipedia: Same-sex marriage in the United States}}''
 
:''See also: {{w|Same-sex marriage in the United States|Wikipedia: Same-sex marriage in the United States}}''
Line 36: Line 37:
 
;Start of line: 2003: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules in ''{{w|Goodridge v. Department of Public Health}}'' that the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
 
;Start of line: 2003: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules in ''{{w|Goodridge v. Department of Public Health}}'' that the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
  
;First rise: May–October 2008: The supreme courts of California and Connecticut make similar decisions based on their states' constitutions.
+
;First rise: May–October 2008: The supreme courts of California and Connecticut make similar decisions based on their states' constitutions.
  
 
;Drop: November 2008: The voters of California overturn their supreme court's decision by constitutional amendment on {{w|California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8}}. California is the most populous state in the Union, hence the large size of the drop here.
 
;Drop: November 2008: The voters of California overturn their supreme court's decision by constitutional amendment on {{w|California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8}}. California is the most populous state in the Union, hence the large size of the drop here.
  
;Second rise: 2009–2010: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia legalize same-sex marriage, the first by state supreme court decision, and the latter three by legislative action.
+
;Second rise: 2009–2010: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia legalize same-sex marriage, the first by state supreme court decision, and the latter three by legislative action.
  
;First acceleration: 2011–2012: New York legalizes same-sex marriage by legislative action. Washington State, Maine, and Maryland do so by voter referendum.
+
;First acceleration: 2011–2012: New York legalizes same-sex marriage by legislative action. Washington State, Maine, and Maryland do so by voter referendum.
  
;Second acceleration: 2013–2014: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ''{{w|Hollingsworth v. Perry}}'' re-legalizes same-sex marriage in California. Seven states legalize it by legislative action or state court decision. The Supreme Court's decision providing federal benefits for same-sex marriages in ''{{w|United States v. Windsor}}'', while not saying that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is widely cited as precedent by judges who do say so. Oregon and Pennsylvania decline to appeal such decisions, and five states' appeals are declined by circuit courts, and declined to be heard by the Supreme Court.
+
;Second acceleration: 2013–2014: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ''{{w|Hollingsworth v. Perry}}'' re-legalizes same-sex marriage in California. Seven states legalize it by legislative action or state court decision. The Supreme Court's decision in ''{{w|United States v. Windsor}}'', while not saying that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is widely cited as precedent by judges who do say so. Oregon and Pennsylvania decline to appeal such decisions, and five states' appeals are declined by circuit courts, and declined to be heard by the Supreme Court.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
Line 62: Line 63:
  
 
==Trivia==
 
==Trivia==
*Though rendered ineffective by the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the constitutions of South Carolina and Alabama still contained language prohibiting miscegenation until the turn of the century; the language was removed by a majority referendum in 1998 for South Carolina and in 2000 for Alabama.
+
* Though rendered ineffective by the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the constitutions of South Carolina and Alabama still contained language prohibiting miscegenation until the turn of the century; the language was removed by a majority referendum in 1998 for South Carolina and in 2000 for Alabama.
  
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
 
[[Category:Comics with color]]
 
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)