La Shawn Barber

In 2003, Massachusetts became the focal point of the homosexual “marriage” controversy when the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that the state’s ban on so-called same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

To prevent Massachusetts from becoming the “Las Vegas of same-sex marriage,” Governor Mitt Romney invoked a 1913 law that prohibits the state from marrying out-of-state couples if the marriage would not be legal in their home state. In March, the SJC upheld the law, ruling that plaintiffs (same-sex couples) from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont could not legally marry in Massachusetts because those states clearly prohibit homosexual “marriage.”

For homosexual activists, hope comes in the form of Deval Patrick, who seeks to become Massachusetts’s first black governor. Patrick, who served as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under President William J. Clinton, has criticized the 1913 law. He said its origins are “questionable” and “discriminatory” and it “ought to come off our books.” The law was enacted to prevent interracial marriage, Patrick and others argue. If he wins, he will try to repeal it.

Whether or not the law’s original purpose was to ban interracial marriage, a state has a legitimate interest in marriage and a right to place reasonable restrictions on it. Preventing a man and a woman of different races from marrying obviously wasn’t a reasonable restriction, and this country has long since rectified the error. This is where Patrick comes in. His race affords him license to exploit America’s anti-interracial marriage shame in order to cloak a radical effort to redefine and pervert the institution of marriage in civil rights language. Patrick likely will win the governor’s race.

I find it offensive that homosexuals equate black Americans’ struggle to be treated as first class citizens to their “struggle” to normalize perversion, and I’m sure many blacks felt the same way when middle- and upper-class white women co-opted the Civil Rights Movement to pursue their family-destroying agenda in the 1970s.

Civil rights refer to those found in the Bill of Rights and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Blacks were denied these rights, and the Civil Rights Movement extended them to blacks. It did not seek to redefine nor add to these rights. That affluent white homosexuals consider themselves oppressed in the same way because they can’t “marry” is an insult to my grandfathers and their fathers and grandfathers.

They endured the indignity of having to enter a store through the rear “colored” entrance simply because they were black. They were barred from certain jobs and schools because they were black. They were considered second class Americans because they were black.


La Shawn Barber

Freelance writer La Shawn Barber blogs at the American Civil Rights Institute blog.