Supporters of gay marriage have asserted that opposition to gay marriage is analogous to opposition to interracial marriage.
No. The analogy is the opposite.
After Reconstruction, many states, including all of the Democrat states of the South, outlawed racial miscegenation, which included outlawing interracial marriage. The anti-miscegenation movement, which included support for racial segregation, was a Progressive movement that grew with particular fervor following the election of President Woodrow Wilson, the first Progressive president who, in keeping with Progressive ideology of government social engineering, was a fervent segregationist.
Shortly after assuming office, Wilson segregated the federal government, banning blacks from many positions. The federal government had been integrated by the Republicans during the half-century following the Civil War. It was segregated by Progressives.
Marriage itself, obviously, has nothing to do with race. Men and women of different races have married for millennia. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage were Progressive social engineering.
The Supreme Court in 1967 banned anti-miscegenation laws, ruling correctly that the imposition of racial engineering schemes on marriage had no basis in reason or natural law.
Laws against interracial marriage was marriage-meddling, which is the social-engineering.
In the past decade, another Progressive social engineering project has risen to meddle with marriage, by the same Progressives who imposed the last social engineering scheme on marriage.
The addition of same-sex criteria to marriage is no more apropos of real marriage than was the imposition of same-race criteria on marriage.
Conservatives are right to reject both same-race and same-sex criteria on marriage, and defend true marriage, which is simply the union of a man and a woman, without regard to race.
Social engineering schemes-- racist or gay-- have no place in marriage, which is the most important and fundamental human institution.
No. The analogy is the opposite.
After Reconstruction, many states, including all of the Democrat states of the South, outlawed racial miscegenation, which included outlawing interracial marriage. The anti-miscegenation movement, which included support for racial segregation, was a Progressive movement that grew with particular fervor following the election of President Woodrow Wilson, the first Progressive president who, in keeping with Progressive ideology of government social engineering, was a fervent segregationist.
Shortly after assuming office, Wilson segregated the federal government, banning blacks from many positions. The federal government had been integrated by the Republicans during the half-century following the Civil War. It was segregated by Progressives.
Marriage itself, obviously, has nothing to do with race. Men and women of different races have married for millennia. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage were Progressive social engineering.
The Supreme Court in 1967 banned anti-miscegenation laws, ruling correctly that the imposition of racial engineering schemes on marriage had no basis in reason or natural law.
Laws against interracial marriage was marriage-meddling, which is the social-engineering.
In the past decade, another Progressive social engineering project has risen to meddle with marriage, by the same Progressives who imposed the last social engineering scheme on marriage.
The addition of same-sex criteria to marriage is no more apropos of real marriage than was the imposition of same-race criteria on marriage.
Conservatives are right to reject both same-race and same-sex criteria on marriage, and defend true marriage, which is simply the union of a man and a woman, without regard to race.
Social engineering schemes-- racist or gay-- have no place in marriage, which is the most important and fundamental human institution.
Egnor attempts to rewrite history again. In contrast to Egnor's lies, the ban on interracial marriage was in fact deeply conservative and religiously inspired.
ReplyDeleteThe Georgia Supreme Court in 1869 based its interracial marriage ban on natural law, observing that "the God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it."
Hear the 1871 Indiana Supreme Court quoting an 1867 Pennsylvania decision: Racial separation is enacted not because of "prejudice, nor caste, nor injustice of any kind, but simply to suffer men to follow the law of races established by the Creator himself, and not to compel them to intermix contrary to their instincts."
From here.
Both Georgia and Indiana were Democrat states in the mid and late 19th century.
DeleteThe view that races should not mix was a view held by some Protestant denominations, and not by the Catholic Church.
Why would the views of Protestant Democrats be considered "conservative"?
Republicans and Catholics were the folks who had no problem with racial miscegenation.
Egnor: "Republicans and Catholics were the folks who had no problem with racial miscegenation."
DeleteMaybe they didn't in the 19th century. I will have to check that.
Closer to home, in the second half of the 20th century, William F. Buckley, a prominent Catholic Republican, wrote: "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."
Hoo
Hoo:
DeleteBuckley was wrong, and he did not speak for the Catholic Church. I point out that he was expressing the opinion of the Democrat party since its inception.
The Catholic Church was the first organization in the world to proclaim slaves as human beings with equal dignity-- Paul "Neither slave or free... but all one in Christ Jesus."
The Church was the first to condemn as a mortal sin chattel slavery based on race-- it was condemned in Sicut Dictum in 1435 by Pope Eugene IV.
This is a quote from the 1435 Bull:
"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."
Sublimis Deus in 1537 condemned slavery, as did In Supremo in 1839.
This from Pope Gregory in 1839:
"The slave trade, although it has been somewhat diminished, is still carried on by numerous Christians. Therefore, desiring to remove such a great shame from all Christian peoples ... and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery () Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. Nor are they to lend aid and favor to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not humans but rather mere animals, having been brought into slavery in no matter what way, are, without any distinction and contrary to the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold and sometimes given over to the hardest labor."
Saint Katherine Drexel was a rich Catholic in the late 19th century who gave up her wealth and devoted her life to educating black and Indian children.
From its inception until the 1960's, I point out, the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and segregation.
Learn some history: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
Oh, and Pope Callistus I (d 223 A.D.) was a slave himself.
DeleteLOL. Egnor throws everybody under the bus.
DeleteSouthern Protestants were racists? They are not on my team. Buclkey and National Review? They don't speak for me.
It's always us vs. them, isn't it, Mike?
Hoo
Hoo:
DeleteProgressivism emerged from the southern protestant Democrat "Social Gospel" movement.
The Progressive movement was a social engineering movement, and it's centerpiece was segregation in the South. The first Democrat Progressive president-- Woodrow Wilson-- was a virulent southern racist who re-segregated the federal government 50 years after Republicans desegregated it.
Republicans and Catholics were the most consistent enemies of Progressive racism, segregation, and eugenics.
Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics" is a fine intro to the history of the Social Gospel movement and Progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Educate yourself.
And speaking of Popes and slavery, what are we to make of the 1455 papal bull Romanus Pontifex, in which Pope Nicholas V grants the Portugal King Afonso V permission
Deleteto invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit ?
Hoo
Nicholas was referring to the state of war, which was being waged against Christians by Muslims. Enslavement of conquered aggressors was commonplace in war. The Bull was issued one year after the Muslims took (and enslaved) Constantinople.
DeleteThe Church has a long history of strenuous opposition to chattel slavery based on race.
Slavery as punishment for war against Christians is another matter, and was (on all sides) routine for the times. The Saracens had taken millions of Christian slaves.
Egnor, have you noticed Hoots never actually reads what he Googles up?
DeleteThe Catholic Church wasn't always opposed to slavery, though they should have been. They did, however, get with the program before the British Empire, the United States of America, China, and the Muslim World.
DeleteJQ
So slavery is OK as long as it is for a good cause, gentlemen? Esp. if blessed by the Pope?
DeleteHoo
the church was against slavery long before the democratic party was.
Deletethe dems haven't changed that much. they're still racist, they've just decided to change up the color they despise and discriminate against.
naidoo
Hoots: "So slavery is OK as long as it is for a good cause, gentlemen? Esp. if blessed by the Pope? "
DeleteNeeding some attention, are you? What a ridiculous mischaracterization. One might even think it was a.... rabbit trail.
“the dems haven't changed that much. they're still racist, they've just decided to change up the color they despise and discriminate against.”
DeleteHow did that happen? Did black people say to the Democrats “Hey, if you stop despising us and join us in being bigoted against your own race we’ll join your party”, and the white racists said “Sure, great Idea!”?
Only a fool would believe that people would collectively decide to change what race they’re going to be bigoted against. The racist southerners used to be prodomitally Democrats, but they’re Republicans now, and the progressive Northerners, who literally fought a war to end slavery and championed the civil rights movement, used to be predominantly Republicans, but they’re Democrats now.
-KW
How did that happen? Did black people say to the Democrats “Hey, if you stop despising us and join us in being bigoted against your own race we’ll join your party”, and the white racists said “Sure, great Idea!”?
Deleteyeah, it's called power politics. ever heard of it?
i guess you're suggesting that the democratic party changed. in a very fundamental sense, it didn't. it's still the party of racism.
but even if they had changed, so what? in the hundred and fifty years since slavery ended, they were still the party of lynching and the jim crow. only in the past four decades or so have they supposedly changed.
why should be cut them some slack when you're still digging up the misdeeds of the catholic church some five centuries ago? why are the 1500's more relevant than the 50's?
naidoo
Just ask yourself this question, KW. Which political movement wants to see an end to racial seperateness and special treatment based on race? Is that conservatives or librals? Which political movement wants to see it perpetuated from now until eternity? Conservatives or liberals?
DeleteThat ought to help you see which side is in fact racist.
Joey
So the tricky Dems bought off the lazy Blacks with Government Cheese? My God listen to yourselves, your racism racism is built right into your argument.
Delete-KW
“why are the 1500's more relevant than the 50's?”
DeleteThey’re not, I was merely pointing out that Egnor is once again full of shit when he claims that “love for gay people, is 2000 year old Catholic doctrine” He was making a specific historical claim.
Much of the history pointed out here is absolutely correct, but ignores the fact that the white racists abandoned the Democrats and are now firmly in the Republican camp. Egnor can’t point to any explicit Democratic racism after about 1970 because by then the racist’s flight to the Republican Party was in full swing.
-KW
KW, it isn't me who said that "lazy" blacks could be bought off with government cheese. It was the progressive Democrat Lyndon Johnson, father of the American welfare state. Attribute the words to the man who said them, not me.
DeleteThe point is that you forgive the Democrats because they've "changed" on matters of race, but the Church's support of slavery--some half a millenium ago--is still relevant. Here's a news flash: the church has changed its position on slavery, and they did it long before most of the world.
Joey
“Just ask yourself this question, KW. Which political movement wants to see an end to racial seperateness and special treatment based on race?”
Deletethat would be the party of whiny losers who blame their own failures on the inferior minority that took what was rightfully theirs, and who want to be free to discriminate against anybody they want.
-KW
KW, I don't know what whiny losers you're talking about, but if you mean people who are pissed about affirmative action, they have every right to be angry. Or maybe I should say 'we', since I count myself among them. Affirmative action is an honest to goodness case of blatant and official racial discrimination. Those who fall victim to it are not racist for speaking out against it. We merely want to be evaluated on our merits. We are crusaders against discrimination. We want a colorblind hiring process, unlike you.
DeleteSo now who wants to discriminate against whoever they want? Obviously, it's you again.
Joey
I noticed you had nothing to say about Lyndon Johnson, other than to put his words in my mouth and call me racist. Face it--the father of the modern welfare state was a well known racist. His tune changed but did his heart? We know that it didn't.
DeleteThe Republican Party sucks in a lot of ways, but they have consistently stood against discrimination, regardless of whether it was whites discriminating against blacks or blacks discriminating against whites.
Here's a short list of things they were against, and which Democrats have been for: slavery, the first Klan, lynching, Jim Crow, poll taxes, anti-miscogination laws, the second Klan, affirmative action, affirmative grading, racial separatist clubs, and hate crime hoaxes.
Democrats have been the party of Japanese internement camps, forced sterilization, Tawana Brawley, Damion "Football" Williams, and the Mike Nifong. Democrats are the party of Ray Nagin, the incompetent mayor of New Orleans who remarked that Hurricane Katrina would have a silver lining if it resulted in New Orleans becoming a "chocolate city."
Joey
Black man shots and kills four whites because of their race:
Deletehttp://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/09/25/greenville-wal-mart-shooter-picked-victims-by-race/
I fully expect the anti-racism party, which KW assures me is the Democrats, to be all up in arms.
No, they won't do that. They'll say that anyone who talks about the absurd amount of black on white crime is obviously racist.
Joey
I didn’t put Jonson’s words in your mouth, you brought him up to demonstrate that blacks where bought off. Do you still believe that or not? If you do, you’re falling prey to the Whole “lazy black man” stereotype.
DeleteYou are more racist than Johnson however, because as you pointed out, Johnson said those things in regard to civil rights legislation. You’re the one who said it was for the free chesse, not him.
-KW
Still pissing into the wind I see. I’d say follow your Pope’s example and reel in your bigotry, but then I wouldn’t get the enjoyment of watching bigots like you destroy the church from within. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete-KW
Pope Francis led the fight in Argentina against gay marriage when he was a Cardinal.
DeleteOpposition to gay marriage, and love for gay people, is 2000 year old Catholic doctrine, and remains unchanged.
Francis has merely reminded us of the "love" part, along with the "opposition" part. He is right to do so.
“…love for gay people, is 2000 year old Catholic doctrine”
DeleteLOL, you really crack me up sometimes. I guess they didn’t get the memo when the church was burning sodomites alive for acts “detested by God”
-KW
The pope's comments on same sex marriage changed nothing. The Church hasn't changed its position one iota.
DeleteJQ
KW: "Still pissing into the wind I see. ..."
DeleteOh, why not just admit it? You're (ahem) intrigued with "golden showers".
I disagree with you that SCOTUS was right to overturn the racist marriage laws of some southern states. Until that time, marriage laws had always been state laws. It was a tenth amendment issue.
ReplyDeleteI don't say this because I am opposed to marriage between races. I just think that the laws should have been changed by fighting and winning state by state.
The court overreached with Loving v. Virginia.
JQ
Joey: "Just ask yourself this question, KW. Which political movement wants to see an end to racial seperateness and special treatment based on race? Is that conservatives or librals? Which political movement wants to see it perpetuated from now until eternity? Conservatives or liberals?
ReplyDeleteThat ought to help you see which side is in fact racist."
The question, so put, presupposes that KW is an honest person honestly seeking the truth on the matter. But, in fact, KW is a leftist and a liar.