Main Page - Latest News

online casino

Gay Marriage was Inevitable New Team…

By James Edwards

The cultural conservatives like to say that the courts in MA and CA have begun tinkering with the age old definition of marriage, but that’s not the case at all. The courts in this country began tinkering with the commonly accepted definition of marriage way back in 1948, when the California Supreme Court declared the state law banning interracial marriage unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution in the Perez case. At that time, interracial marriage was extremely rare, and the vast majority of states didn’t allow the practice. After the ruling, Gallup took a national poll, and 95% of white Americans said they disapproved of interracial marriage. They were as disgusted and outraged with interracial marriage as today’s Christians and conservatives are with gay marriage. Even in 1967, when the US Supreme Court invalidated all anti-miscegenation laws anywhere as unconstitutional in the Loving vs. VA case, the vast majority of white Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage.

The Focus on the Family types also like to say that homosexual marriage came about because of our rejection of God, and flows naturally from the same judicial activism that gave us legal abortion. But they never mention the rulings on interracial marriage that set the very precedents that the gay marriage ruling are based on. They can’t; unlike previous generations of Christians, today’s evangelicals profess to love interracial marriage. They condemn anyone who opposes it as a “racist” or a “hater” or a “bigot”. (Never mind that that means just about 100% of the Christians in America in 1948 were racists and haters and bigots.) So they have to deny the obvious, and they do – they claim that legalizing interracial marriage was not only just and fair and the Christian thing to do, but also that it in no way led to gay marriage being legalized.

Which is simply absolute nonsense. Anyone can go read the full opinion of the case in Massachusetts that led to gay marriage being legal there. Here’s the ruling. Go through and see how many times the judges refer to Loving vs. VA. I’ll save you the trouble – it’s 25. (They also refer to the Perez case 12 times.) It’s no exaggeration to say that the Goodridge ruling was clearly based on the precedents set in Loving and Perez rulings. And not only are the rulings the same, the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants are almost exactly the same in both cases.

Read Article

Don’t Forget the Return of the Political Cesspool, Sunday June 1st at 4:00pm CDT