The GAY Marriage Debate is NOTHING New

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on

marr 1Yesterday, friend and Right Side Patriots radio partner Diane Sori wrote and published an op-ed regarding the obtuse silliness regarding the leftist media’s line of questioning to Republican candidates…”Would you attend a gay wedding?”

It’s a great op-ed and worth the read but it got me to thinking…haven’t we been through something very much like this before?

Until about 50 or 60 years ago…wasn’t there an element of society that was dead set against ANOTHER type of weddings?

Indeed there was.

It was deemed by some, mostly by those on the far uber left and by some on the far fringes of the uber religious right to be…unnatural…an affront to the natural course of things and something that people of good standing ought NOT to participate in.

Why…it was hard…nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get some bakeries to provide a cake for such weddings.

It was hard or nearly impossible to find a photographer to record such an event…and in many cases…churches were REFUSING to hold such ceremonies in THEIR places of worship.

But people got married anyway…

Sometimes they had to resort to a justice of the peace and once married, they lived with the marr 2scorn and ridicule that society…those individual bastions of righteousness had to hurl at them.

They were run out of neighborhoods…barred from attending functions or forced to endure whispers and overt finger pointing. Some places of worship wouldn’t accept them…some places of business wouldn’t serve them and there were those who wanted laws passed to stop the practice altogether.

Yes…we HAVE been through this before and it was as stupid then as it is now but for the most part, society came to accept it and the outrage has, again…for the most part, died down. Oh, there are still some…idiots…who hold to the inane notion that such partnerships, whether in marriage or simply dating are…against the laws of nature but…morons will always cling to their absurd beliefs.

That’s right…50 or 60 years ago…interracial marriage or interracial dating was thought to be WRONG just like some misguided fools believe that gay marriage or gay dating is wrong today.

Back then, the thought of a black woman and a white man or a white woman and a black man or any color of person with someone of another color together was seen as wrong and no credence at all was given to matters of the heart. If it wasn’t something that certain individuals would engage in…IT WAS WRONG…in the eyes of society and pretended by some to be wrong in the eyes of God.

Yes…this whole business of gay marriage IS set for a Supreme Court decision in the next couple of months…and the uber religious, holier than thou fringe right is praying that the Supremes will uphold the right of individual states to set their own restrictions regarding it but…there is something they need to know…

marr 3Precedent may be against them.

In 1967…that’s correct…1967…the United States Supreme Court decided that anti-miscegenation laws…state’s laws preventing or banning mixed-race marriage…were unconstitutional and I suspect that precedent will play a major role in the upcoming Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage and individual state’s laws that ban it.

In Diane’s op-ed yesterday, she provided several statistical observations and there are statistics regarding interracial marriage as well. For instance…In 1970, interracial marriage accounted for only 2% of all marriages but…by 2010…that figure had risen to 8.4% but that number may well have been low.

A Pew Research Center Report issued in 2010 found that 15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were between people of different races or ethnicities. A 2008 Pew report discovered that, “more than a third of adults (35%) say they have a family member who is married to someone of a different race. And, most Americans say they approve of racial or ethnic intermarriage – not just in the abstract, but in their own families. More than six-in-ten say it would be fine with them if a family member told them they were going to marry someone from any of three major race/ethnic groups other than their own and over 70% approve of interracial marriage in general.”marr 4

In fact…”In 2010, 15% of new marriages were interracial. In 2010, 25% of Asians, 25% of Hispanics, 17.1% of blacks, and 9.4% of whites married interracially. Of the 275,500 new interracial marriages in 2010, 43% were white-Hispanic couples, 14.4% were white-Asian, 11.9% were white-black, and the remainder were other combinations.”

Yes…there were or are those who will attempt to pervert biblical passages from Deuteronomy 7:3–4 or 2 Corinthians 6:14 to back their belief that the races shouldn’t be mixed by marriage just as they now latch onto scripture to stand against gay marriage but one must remember these are the words and ideas of men…not the words of God and those words, all of them, have suffered miscarriages of translation over the last couple of thousand years.

One must also remember that the words of the bible are NOT the law of our nation while the Constitution IS and NONE of our founding documents have a single thing to say either regarding gay OR interracial marriage but those same founding documents DO contain certain language that IS appropriate to BOTH situations.

marr 5Jefferson wrote…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Further…from our Bill of Rights…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

So, even as certain religious doctrine may hold against gay marriage…our government is barred from making THAT the law of the land and while the U.S. Supreme Court has never chomped at the bit to get involved with social or religious criteria…they WILL when that criteria or the decisions of individual states is challenged by CONSTITUTIONAL law.

On the topic of interracial marriage…the Supreme Court deemed that it was NOT a matter of MORALITY but a matter of Constitutional equality and therefore, subject to federal law. Gay marriage can only be seen differently IF the Supreme Court determines MORAL issues ARE subject to federal intervention.marr 6

That makes it a local or state issue and not a federal issue and it seems unlikely that the federal high court would mandate that individual churches be forced to comply with something against their individual doctrine.

The fact of the matter is this…marriage, in any form, is not a political issue nor should it ever be but, it IS an issue of EQUALITY and since none of our founding documents, i.e. the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were ever meant to set MORAL code…just POLITICAL code…equal rights under the CONSTITUTION would indicate that the same decision that barred anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 will be used as precedent to ban anti-gay marriage laws in 2015.

EQUALITY was also the basis for the 2013 Supreme Court decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage law as that section denied the legal benefits extended to opposite sex spouses and married couple to same sex spouses and married couples.

IF the upcoming Supreme Court decision bans anti-gay marriage laws…it will most likely leave the decision regarding whether or not to sanction or perform such marriages up to individual churches omarr 7r clergy as per their individual doctrines as THAT is THEIR business and NOT that of the federal government provided such churches can cite such doctrines…if they can’t, then they will be in danger of losing their tax exempt status.

For those who insist that banning anti-gay marriage laws is forcing the “gay agenda” on the nation as a whole, it should be noted that banning anti-interracial laws never forced anyone to marry outside their racial or ethnic demographic that didn’t want to in the first place and to those who insist that gay marriage weakens the “moral” fabric of our nation…I say that our national values…our TRUE moral fabric is based in Constitutional equality for ALL Americans.

If you are among those who believe that somehow, gay marriage weakens the institution of traditional marriage…I challenge you to explain how exactly divorces in traditional marriage…statistically 50%…can be attributed in any way to gay marriage.

While more and more evidence has been compiled suggesting that certain genetic factors DO play a key role in sexual orientation, the official scientific jury is still out regarding the existence of a “gay gene.” Whether people are born gay or whether it is a choice is still an open question but one thing is certain…the way people who aren’t gay react to those who are…IS a choice…and as a Conservative…a TRUE Conservative…I marr 8will hold with the Founders and Framers who told us that……”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Asking a candidate whether or not they would attend a gay wedding is equally as stupid as asking them if they would attend an interracial wedding and basing one’s vote upon the answer may well be the most stupid determining factor ever but it IS the one liberals are hoping for.

4 thoughts on “The GAY Marriage Debate is NOTHING New

  1. You can’t be serious equating interracial dating and marriage to gay lifestyles and gay “marriage,” surely you’re kidding us. ARE YOU FROM ANOTHER PLANET? Who, unless from Mississippi or Alabama, or some other equally redneck state, would EVER equate the two? For we know how some from the two last-mentioned states would feel about the white and African-American (or maybe East Indian) races dating and marrying, but, come on, who cares about their very racist views? So, unless one is totally clueless and has been brainwashed by P.C. attitudes, when we’re talking SAME-SEX relationships involving sexuality, the main concept that naturally arises would be the MARRIAGE of two males and/or two females to each other. One entity relates to skin color and related matters, the other relates to the very unnatural notion that two people of the same sex should be able to marry. No civilization in the whole history of the world, pagan, Judeo or Christian, Confucian, Islamic, Zoroastrian or any other,
    has ever sanctioned joining either two men or two women in MARRIAGE, and it’s just not there. Never Ever. Not one. The closest it gets is the Stonewall Declaration arising from the gay meeting place/bar, and the Stonewall Riots of 1969, in New York City, pushing the concept of state-sanctioned gay “marriage.” And that’s the whole enchilada. Nada before or since. So, let’s make it plain and simple. No-one anywhere can ever stop a white man and a black woman or a black man and a white woman from marrying, there’s NOTHING WRONG with it, and no state in this union should ever try, because it’s normal and natural to do so. End of story. But to try and make interracial marriage the EXACT SAME THING as same-sex marriage, then legalize it, is delusional and ludicrous. And if one Craig Andresen doesn’t GET what I’ve written, hey buddy, vaya con Dios, but this is my first AND LAST visit to your website. Because as my sainted dad used to say, “you know what, you haven’t got the brains to rattle around in a mustard seed”, Craig .

    • Mark…while I rather doubt your dad was actually a saint, I’d say his description fits you to a tee and you, whether or not you realize it, have proven my point to a tee as well. Thanks.

Comments are closed.