PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2016-03-14 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Is Kentucky Banning Interracial Marriages? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • On 12 March 2016, the web site Winning Democrats published an article reporting that the Kentucky state senate had passed a bill legalizing discrimination against mixed-race couples: That article story referenced a SB 180, a bill introduced into the Kentucky state senate on 18 Feb 2016, and the mention of allowing discrimination against interracial couples led some readers to infer that the bill in question had made (or would make) mixed-race marriage illegal in Kentucky. The bill made no mention of interracial couples, however. Instead, it sought to clarify that under the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enacted by Kentucky in 2013, businesses could not be punished for violating local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity if the discriminatory practices were based on sincerely held religious beliefs: The Kentucky Legislature's official SB180 page summarized the bill as follows: The bill's three pages make no mention of race in general or of interracial marriage in particular. The argument advanced by critics is that the bill is so vaguely worded that it would allow officials (both public and religious) to refuse to sanction mixed-race marriages, or businesses to provide service to mixed-race couples, simply by citing a religious objection to racial blending: However, the provisions of this bill have not actually been passed into law in Kentucky, nor — contrary to what is asserted above — has the bill even been approved by the Kentucky senate (it has simply cleared committee, paving the way for it to be voted upon). The measure would have to be passed by both houses of the Kentucky legislature, and signed by the governor, before becoming law. Moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that a state's allowing its residents to engage in racially-based discrimination (in the form of denial of services) by citing sincerely held religious belief would pass constitutional muster if challenged. That doesn't mean citizens shouldn't be concerned about the potential deleterious effects of such a broadly or vaguely worded law, though. For example, a 29 February 2016 editorial published in Kentucky's State Journal, written by a former lobbyist familiar with Kentucky's recent legislative history, detailed concerns about the bill's potential to advance discriminatory laws and practices: Many instances of this controversy appeared to stem from a 3 March 2016 article posted to the web site Progress Kentucky, which contained a clarification at the end about a potentially misleading headline: In short, SB 180 was primarily interpreted as a bill that would allow individuals to cite their religious beliefs as a legally valid reason for discriminating against same-sex couples, but some critics attempting to warn the public of the bill's implications broadened its hypothetical scope to encompass legalized discrimination against mixed-race couples as well. On 15 March 2016, SB180 passed in a 22 to 16 vote and moved on to the state house. It was not codified into law on that date. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url