Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Interracially Married Couples Insulted By Comparison of Their Relationships to Gay Marriage
February 20, 2004 | ComtedeMaistre

Posted on 02/20/2004 2:32:42 PM PST by ComtedeMaistre

Over the past week, I had conversations with two long-time friends who are interracially married, over the ongoing controversy over gay marriage in Massachussetts and San Francisco. One is a next door neighbor in Louisiana, who is a white man married to a Vietnamese woman. The other is a black man from Seattle whom I have known since college, and he is married to a white woman from Alabama, and they are now living in Salt Lake City, Utah (we talked over the phone).

Both men are very conservative Christians and very pro-family, and they feel deeply insulted when they hear their loving, healthy, and normal relationships, being compared to the depravity of homosexual sodomy. And both are raising their children with strong traditionalist family values.

I suggested to both, that if several interracially married couples would speak out publicly, opposing the likening of their relationships to homosexuality, the comparisons that the homosexual activists are making by comparing themselves to interracially-married couples, would be rendered null and void.

Both thought it was a good idea. But they felt that, because interracially married couples still have to endure so much racial prejudice, it would be hard to find couples with the guts to speak out publicly in opposition to the homosexual agenda. My black friend in Utah has had it much worse than my white friend in Louisiana, because his white inlaws in Alabama have never accepted him as part of the family. His wife's parents have never even seen their own daughter's biracial children, and seem to have no interest in ever meeting them.

But I still feel that it is important for interracially married couples to speak out publicly against the homosexual agenda, in order to prevent gay activists from morally blackmailing this country, by accusing their pro-family opponents of bigotry. Such statements from interracially married couples who know real prejudice, would be taken more seriously by moderate swing voters, and help to mobilize them in supporting a constitutional ammmendment defining marriage as a man and a woman.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; US: Alabama; US: California; US: Louisiana; US: Massachusetts; US: Utah; US: Washington; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: alabama; california; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; insult; interracial; interracialmarriage; louisiana; marriage; massachusetts; massachussetts; samesexmarriage; sanfrancisco; utah; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
I have talked to several Democrats from union households as well, and their party's refusal to oppose gay marriage disgusts them even more than it disgusts me.
1 posted on 02/20/2004 2:32:42 PM PST by ComtedeMaistre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
someone on another post said he was in interracial marriage and I replied that this must really insult him and that I was sorry that he had to endure this sorry comparison
2 posted on 02/20/2004 2:35:15 PM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
I've always thought it to be offensive the way the left lumps gays and minorities together.
3 posted on 02/20/2004 2:37:27 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Interracial marriage bans are motivated by racial purity. Their supporters did not want mixed children to dilute the race. Marriage remains an institution to produce and rase children. Skin pigment does not change that fact.

There is no evidence that homosexuals of differnet races were prevented from having orgasms with each other.

An orgasm is not the equivalent of raising a child.
4 posted on 02/20/2004 2:37:31 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
ping
5 posted on 02/20/2004 2:38:55 PM PST by wjcsux (Who do you want to pick the next SCOTUS Justices, GWB or Ketchup Boy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Yes, it's insulting and I'm looking forward to volunteering for the Bush/Cheney New Mexico campaign. I'm the pale half of a white male/black female marriage, and my wife and I are both quite tired of the comparison.
6 posted on 02/20/2004 2:42:37 PM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Being against people getting married who are different skin pigmentation is totally bizarre and has no source in the Bible.
7 posted on 02/20/2004 2:43:27 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Gay marriage versus interracial marriage has only one thing in common ..both were not approved of by the majority of the public.
I'd be livid if I were an interracial couple to be used as an example.I am appalled by the gay use of interracial marriage in this manner.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
8 posted on 02/20/2004 2:45:20 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
A bit off the subject,but not all interracial marriages suffer the same discrimination as others.Sad but true.

One of my children is in an interracial marriage and they have never had any problems,yet I know that this could be a problem in some cases.

Not all races,or minorities,are treated in the same way.
9 posted on 02/20/2004 2:46:30 PM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
I was waiting for this to come around. I'm not surprised that interracially married people are tired of being compared to degenerate same-sex couples. This is yet another story you won't see on the alphabet networks (including Fox, which is becoming more liberal by the day).
10 posted on 02/20/2004 2:47:18 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (If I had all the money that I had ever spent on beer, I'd go out and get some beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
...my wife and I are both quite tired of the comparison.

I can't imagine why that would be. /sarcasm

11 posted on 02/20/2004 2:48:30 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (If I had all the money that I had ever spent on beer, I'd go out and get some beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre; All
I am a white male married to a black female. I am very conservative, while my wife considers herself to be in the middle. Neither of us appreciates the comparisons between homosexual marriages and interracial marriages.

I suspect that this issue will end up hurting the Democrats in a way that they'd never consider. Many of their normal everyday supporters (not the lunatics running the Democrat party) are vehemently opposed to the concept of gay marriages. Since most of the black people I know are strongly opposed to gay marriages, I think this issue will harm Democrats with one of their core constituencies - black voters. Blacks do not like being portrayed as something un-natural, nor do they like their strong Christan values to be questioned. If enough black people are made aware of the far Left's stance, the gay marriage issue could seriously harm Democrats. I can't say that such a thing would bother me in the least.
12 posted on 02/20/2004 2:49:56 PM PST by Tahts-a-dats-ago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
If you believe that homosexuals are hardwired from birth to be gay - then the comparison is more than valid - it is spot on. If you do not believe the 'gay from birth' camp then the comparison is with out merit.
13 posted on 02/20/2004 2:54:17 PM PST by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
This reminds me of the gays in the military issue when clintoon was running in 92. They compared gays in the military to how blacks used to be discriminated against. I was in the army at the time and was in korea I was on a bus at camp casey and I heard a group of black soldiers complaining about how offended they were of the comparsion between them and gays.
14 posted on 02/20/2004 2:58:47 PM PST by smadurski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
"Interracially Married Couples Insulted By Comparison of Their Relationships to Gay Marriage"

Then the progeny of the former slaves should be really pi$$ed off when they learn that homos are being accorded a higher status than blacks because Congress or the court didn't re-define the word, 'Citizen' as defined in the Constitution to include them the way homos are being included in the re-definition of the word, 'Marriage.'

Why didn't the government re-define the word, 'Citizen' to include blacks? Because the word was already defined and they had to invent a new word for 'Citizen' which had essentially the same meaning. This they did with the 14th Amendment.

What has changed since the Civil War that would influence the government to by-pass the amendment procedure? It's because the homos in government know damn well that an amendment to equate marriage with same-sex unions with a new word would fail.

So the court hijacked the word, "Marriage" and circumvented the amendment process completely.

15 posted on 02/20/2004 2:59:03 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DSHambone
Marriage is between a man and a woman.It has nothing to do with whether one believes in hardwired from birth homosexuality or chosen homosexuality .
16 posted on 02/20/2004 3:00:23 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Don't need to get married to have an orgasm........
17 posted on 02/20/2004 3:01:50 PM PST by dirtbiker (Solution for Terrorism: Nuke 'em 'till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
What an absolute insult to an interracial couple.
18 posted on 02/20/2004 3:04:09 PM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Gay people have the same rights to marry or not to marry that I have.........I, as a male, can marry a female.......just as any gay man can marry a female. And, just as I cannot marry another man, neither can a gay man. What the homos are proposing are new, special "rights" exclusively for themselves!!!!! So, in other words, in order for them to feel "normal", I have to be discriminated against!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 posted on 02/20/2004 3:08:39 PM PST by dirtbiker (Solution for Terrorism: Nuke 'em 'till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
This whole discussion doesn't make sense. Faggots, by definition, can't mary. They can call what they want, but it is marriage.

Marriage is an ancient formalization of the relationship between a male and a female (in some cultures, more than one female) with two basic gender related issues in mind. First, it gives the males exclusive access to the reproductive capapbility of the female; no constant fights or ceremony to woe her. Second, it helps assure that her children are actually his and, therefore, encourages the investment of his time and resources in protecting and raising them.

This is a no-brainer! You don't simply start calling a bunch of pigeaons ducks just because these pigeons think that ducks get a better deal in life. Allowing fairies to force normal people to redefine an old word just to fit the fairies preferences doen't make sense.

20 posted on 02/20/2004 3:09:17 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DSHambone
Even if "wired" the homosexual behavior does not rise to marriage because homosexual sex does not produce children. marriage has always been about raising children and providing for subsequent generations.

Homosexuals are only about sex.

Besides, if homosexuals are truly wired, then it can be cured or prevented as a birth defect.

It is not genetic. There is no "gay gene". Homosexuals recruit. This is why there is GLSEN and the GSA in schools recruiting children.
21 posted on 02/20/2004 3:10:54 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ought-six; Excuse_My_Bellicosity
I think that was sarcasm..as stated and tongue in cheek,noting that the outrage is not only understandable but the comparison is so twisted it has no credibility for anyone but an extremist.

It is a laughable comparison in my view.....a stretch way too far to be taken with any seriousness.
22 posted on 02/20/2004 3:13:33 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Even if "wired" the homosexual behavior does not rise to marriage because homosexual sex does not produce children. marriage has always been about raising children and providing for subsequent generations.

In an ideal world, they would (and should) become extinct!

23 posted on 02/20/2004 3:13:33 PM PST by dirtbiker (Solution for Terrorism: Nuke 'em 'till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
"You don't simply start calling a bunch of pigeaons ducks just because these pigeons think that ducks get a better deal in life."

Well said, and the perfect metaphor for the problem. To allow 'pigeons' to be called ducks would be tantamount to legally allowing bottled hosspiss to be labeled and sold as 'Coca-Cola.' To allow lemons to be labeled and sold as peaches.

24 posted on 02/20/2004 3:14:37 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Clearly the interracial couples are homophobes. In retaliation, after the revolution, the gays will declare all interracial marriages invalid. That'll teach 'em! </s a r c a s m>
25 posted on 02/20/2004 3:14:40 PM PST by Ronly Bonly Jones (The more things change...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
No, from Caesar's (the government) point of view, marriage is a set of privileges and rights bestowed on those that enter into a binding contract in order to provide for children and develop something it (the government) values - families. And with our equal protection clause and if the hardwire camp is right, then to deny these privileges and rights based on an uncontrollable status would be unconstitutional.

At one time your man and woman argument held only if they were of the same race, an uncontrollable status.

To end the argument - end government sanctioning of marriage. Let only the secular organizations marry people. For the governmental benefits - have folks be "registered". The government could says it values monogamy and families, and limit registration to two adults in order to encourage what it values.
26 posted on 02/20/2004 3:15:39 PM PST by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DSHambone
"If you believe that homosexuals are hardwired from birth to be gay..."

I was thinking about this today, and I was thinking that it doesn't really matter. People can claim to be, and maybe are, "hardwired from birth" to be a lot of things, but that alone doesn't make those things acceptable.

For example, there are some violent people who have been violent for their entire lives, right back to their childhoods. It is entirely plausible that they are "just born that way", but what's the difference, society will not approve of their going around committing violence.

I don't mean to equate homosexuality per se with violence, but I certainly can't equate it with race or ethnicity as it is defined by behavior, nevermind the queer theorists and their gobboldey gook.

Marriage exists because it is via heterosexual coupling that offspring are produced. The fact that many married couples never have, or cannot have, children doesn't change this.

The only option I can support in this debate is somekind of "household" plan, where two (I think we better keep it to two, or the record keepers of the world will show us what a REAL revolution is like) persons can form a civil union (to borrow a phrase) without regard to whether they are lovers or not. This will protect the homos and serve their purposes (most of which are pretty understandable), it will distinguish such arrangements from true marriage, and as the boomers age it may well help some ordinary single folks get through life a little more easily.

For what it's worth!
27 posted on 02/20/2004 3:16:45 PM PST by jocon307 (The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Spot On!
28 posted on 02/20/2004 3:20:30 PM PST by DSHambone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
The left is taking these comparisons very serriously. The homosexuals who work at the courthouse are chatting about SF and Mass. They want this state to be next. (the marriage license clerk did turn them away)

The left and Democrat party true believers are buying all of this hook line and sinker.

You could tell the left that spagetti is the reason to allow homosexuals to marry and the true believers would agree. (and the dumies would start a thread displaying why spagetti is the obvious reason.)

No soap radio.
29 posted on 02/20/2004 3:20:34 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
"Interracially" married? Is that when the bride and the groom are both white and the preacher is black? No wonder they feel insulted.
30 posted on 02/20/2004 3:21:47 PM PST by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mel
How did you know that his companion was sorry?
31 posted on 02/20/2004 3:22:41 PM PST by Chris Talk (What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
My mother is beginning to sound like a Saudi mullah talking about these gay marriages.
32 posted on 02/20/2004 3:25:20 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chris Talk
DUH!
33 posted on 02/20/2004 3:28:43 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtbiker
That's what they have always wanted.

Special rights for gays.
34 posted on 02/20/2004 3:29:08 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philetus
So will two straight same sex people who marry for finacial advantage be arrested because they have the "wrong feeeelings"?

35 posted on 02/20/2004 3:32:02 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Cinnamon Girl
That's right! In later years, Moses had a black wife.
Aaron & his sister, Miriam, criticized Moses for this.
God struck Aaron and Miriam with the inability to speak.
What could be clearer than that example? (Moses had to pray
for them for it to be lifted!)

Bigots try to give the example of the "mark" on Cain. No one
knows what the mark on Cain was. - Those who claim to
believe scripture; in the time of the flood, EVERYONE in the
world was on the ark. EVERYONE (eight people) started over
populating the earth. We are all kin to each other.
Proximity to the Equator as these people spread out over
the earth dictated skin color. I am medium toned because
most of my ancestors were in Europe. Someone else may be
black because most of their ancestors had to genetically
cope with living nearer the Equator. Someone else is fair
& blonde because their ancestors were Vikings from the
northern climates. (Ann Coulter, for instance, who is
also tall, slim, fair, blonde and beautiful, blast her!)
37 posted on 02/20/2004 3:36:15 PM PST by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: right-left
Welcome to FR!.....enjoy your visit.
38 posted on 02/20/2004 3:37:03 PM PST by wardaddy ("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Give mom a big hug ...she's spot on.
39 posted on 02/20/2004 3:37:40 PM PST by wardaddy ("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DSHambone
I disagree

One's sexual conduct is the product of free will and not an immutable, morally neutral characteristic like one's ethnicity or gender. Even if you could somehow prove that one's sexual orientation is genetically predetermined the capacity for free choice in terms of behavior still remains.

40 posted on 02/20/2004 3:45:07 PM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: right-left
Welcome to Freerepub... oh nevermind...
42 posted on 02/20/2004 3:50:11 PM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
The Bible certainly makes no comparison.
43 posted on 02/20/2004 3:51:35 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: right-left
bless your heart dearie
44 posted on 02/20/2004 3:51:50 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: right-left
>>I think in a decade or two people will look back on this as an historic time like we look back on the legalization of interracial marriage in 1967<<

Interracial marriage was legal in most Northern states before 1967. And the legalization of such marriages was brought about by state legislatures.

But such marriages were illegal in 16 Southern states. However, after the 1964 civil rights act, most Americans did not feel that such prohibitions on intermarriage served a legitimate purpose. This new national consensus on race that was reached in the 1960s, influenced the 1967 Loving V. Virginia Supreme Court ruling. Such a national consensus has not been reached with regard to gay relationships.

It may surprise you, that interracial marriages were legal in some parts of this country for centuries. Whites and Native Americans have been intermarrying since the time of Pocahanthus. The black abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who lived in the nineteenth century, was legally interracially married, and he served for a time as an American diplomat in San Domingo. There are even legal (though rare) black/white marriages that took place in colonial America (before 1776).

Therefore, the concept of black/white marriage was not unheard of, before 1967. There were only regional restrictions on such relationships.
45 posted on 02/20/2004 3:52:44 PM PST by ComtedeMaistre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Spok
Even the most offensive minority didn't make the choice to be one (and there's nothing wrong with being one, I might add). All homosexuals have chosen to be queer--mainly because it's easier to be an ersatz woman (who doesn't even have to worry about menstruation or childbirth) than to be a real man.
46 posted on 02/20/2004 3:53:52 PM PST by Miles Vorkosigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
I have talked to several Democrats from union households as well...

My dad is a hard-core dyed in the wool "labor Democrat". I can't wait to ask him the next time I talk to him, "Dad, how come the Democrats are pushing gay marriage so hard?" This issue is bound to drive a wedge between a lot of Democrats and their party.

47 posted on 02/20/2004 3:54:31 PM PST by Califelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: right-left
"This is a clear civil rights issue."

Bull$hit! This is a judicial pro-activism issue. Wait til the courts start re-defining what's left of the Bill of Rights and you will understand.

Enjoy your short visit.

48 posted on 02/20/2004 3:55:00 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Two straight same sex can't marry.
49 posted on 02/20/2004 3:56:15 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Long John Silver in Treasure Island was married to a black woman, so I would assume that the idea wasn't considered particularly bizarre in 19th century England, at least.
50 posted on 02/20/2004 3:57:06 PM PST by Miles Vorkosigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson