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

To: CutePuppy
guest host Jonathan Karl tried pulling the race card into the discussion by asking about interracial marriage.

Don't fall into their trap. A person who is personally opposed to inter-racial marriage, or who even privately supports campaigns against it, should not be punished by destroying his career, particularly if he has religious reasons for his beliefs.

I don't happen to share those beliefs, but he should not be punished for holding them, unless of course he commits actual discriminatory acts.

It is, BTW, possible to be opposed to interracial marriage without being at all racist, in the genuine meaning of the term.

FTM, I don't believe a person holding genuine racist beliefs should be persecuted simply for his beliefs, as opposed to actions.

25 posted on 04/07/2014 12:06:58 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
guest host Jonathan Karl tried pulling the race card into the discussion by asking about interracial marriage.

Indeed, it was a clumsy misdirection. Interracial marriage has existed for millennia because marriage has never been defined in terms of race.

Marriage has always been defined in terms of sex/gender - a sacred union between one man and one woman.

Though it was not specifically defined as such in the Bill of Rights, because it would be ridiculous and unnecessary to do so — to define what has already been defined and well understood. A Constitutional Amendment to codify it — after Speaker Gingrich has pushed and Congress overwhelmingly passed DOMA by veto-proof majorities in 1996 (same year Bob Dole lost badly in Presidential elections) — was discussed briefly but went nowhere fast.

There have usually been some [localized] constraints on marriage — such as age, mental capacity, health and genetic considerations etc. — but they didn't in any way [seek to] redefine or expand the meaning of marriage.

Redefining marriage by sex renders it meaningless and leads to potential of redefining it by number of ways, including by number of participants, such as bigamy (why is that "unconstitutional" now?) and polygamy or "communal marriage."

That would be a much better comparison than interracial marriage, and a good question to ask back the "tolerant" - why is the same-sex "marriage" just fine with them but not the other forms of "marriage," like "Big Love" or "communal"? Because race never had anything to do with marriage - only with some cultures.

33 posted on 04/07/2014 2:34:02 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

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