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.
Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else. The clamor for marriage isn’t about rights; it’s about acceptance of a lifestyle. Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character and fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote in the Opinion Journal
"[G]ay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof--a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma."
That we actually are discussing so-called marriage between two men is evidence of how far the culture has declined. If Deval Patrick becomes governor of Massachusetts, he’ll contribute to that decline by attempting to repeal a law that protects marriage against efforts to render it meaningless.
I wonder what black men and women who died fighting for justice so that a man like Patrick could run for governor would think of such a “civil rights” victory?