Same-Sex Marriage: Playing the Race Card

The Labor Party in Queensland has just come out of the closet, supporting same-sex marriage. At its weekend state conference a motion was passed to see homosexual marriage legalised, and they called on both Federal and State Labor to move in this direction.

The Queensland branch president Andrew Dettmer said this in support of the decision: “The point I think we are all agreed about in our party is that discrimination against people on the basis of their gender or their sexual orientation is just as abominable and just as unsupportable as discrimination on the basis of race.”

This is as predictable a remark from the activists as it is a totally fallacious remark. Indeed, we hear this brought up time and time again by the radical social engineers, but it happens to be dead wrong. There is absolutely nothing similar about these two areas, and seeking to play the race card here is simply dishonest and utterly far-fetched.

Indeed, this is just another way they seek to deceive the public by the use of sham analogies. They want to convince us that racial segregation and policies which prevented people of different races from marrying (anti- miscegenation laws) are equivalent to laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman. They claim that just as we have renounced discriminatory laws regarding marriage between the races, so too we should stop the restriction on same-sex marriage.

But there simply is no comparison between racist laws and defending heterosexual marriage. Even black activists have rejected such a disingenuous analogy. For example, Jesse Jackson told a group of Harvard Law School students in 2004 that “gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”

Apartheid and laws banning inter-racial marriage are about keeping races apart. Marriage is about bringing the sexes together. Heterosexual marriage has been around for millennia. Talk of same-sex marriage has been around for a few short decades. Marriage was thus not created to discriminate against anyone, as apartheid was.

Laws banning interracial marriages were unjust, and overturning them did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it. Men and women should be allowed to marry regardless of skin colour, as this does nothing to alter the one man, one woman aspect of marriage. Same-sex marriage however is completely different, and it is a redefinition of marriage.

As Greg Koukl notes, “Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.”

Or as Sherif Girgis, Robert George and Ryan Anderson argue in an important article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about; and sex, unlike race, is rationally relevant to the latter question. Because every law makes distinctions, there is nothing unjustly discriminatory in marriage law’s reliance on genuinely relevant distinctions.”

Francis Beckwith makes clear these distinctions. He is worth quoting at length. He argues that anti-miscegenation laws “were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition – sameness of race – that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

“It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.

“In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.”

Even some homosexual activists admit that this is a bad comparison. Says one, “I am uneasy with the frequent equation of the prohibition of same-sex marriage with interracial ones: in the latter case racism prevented marriages that were indistinguishable for any other reason. Same-sex partnerships are as valid and as significant as heterosexual ones, but they are also different, and maybe we should celebrate, not deny the difference.”

Racial segregation is wrong, and is an example of unjust discrimination. But the colour of one’s skin is far different than sexual behaviour. Societies have good reasons not to embrace any and all types of sexual activity. While skin colour is a benign and unalterable condition, this is not true of various sexual behaviours. No black person can cease being black, but plenty of homosexuals have ceased being homosexual.

The truth is, a society can get along without same-sex sexual relationships if need be. But no society can get along without heterosexual marriage and family. As two family researchers put it, “There is no research saying biracial parents are developmentally harmful to children. But there are thousands of definitive studies showing motherless and fatherless families limit every important measure of children’s physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development.”

So somebody needs to tell the morally and intellectually challenged folks in the Queensland ALP that the main plank of their attempt to destroy the institution of marriage is a rotten one, and not worth raising, let alone standing on.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/qld-labor-backs-same-sex-marriage/story-fn7x8me2-1226078001582

[1113 words]

24 Replies to “Same-Sex Marriage: Playing the Race Card”

  1. Bravo, Bill. Good luck keeping this disgrace out of Australia.

    Here in the UK the last labour government forced “civil partnerships” down the throats of the straight majority; all so that queers could parade around claiming to be the same as everyone else. It’s a national disgrace. Now the conservatives are in you would think they would repeal this legislation, but they’re too cowardly to do it. There are homosexuals pushing their agenda in all walks of life, so it looks like we’re stuck with Godless homosexual “marriages” here in the UK now. God help us.

    Barbara Murray-Leach, UK

  2. Obviously, complete nutters have taken over the ALP in Queensland. Last I heard, people were born male or female, and despite the proliferation of the idea that such as thing as sexual orientation as identity exists, the human body persists in giving 100% lie to this idiocy.

    The simple demonstration of this is that in defiance of their homosexual feelings – even if an individual may have had these feelings for decades – a male can have sex with a female just once and beget a child. Therefore their own bodies argue the case against them. So much for ‘orientation’ being a meaningful concept. Sexual identity – male or female – obviously counts for much much more. What you do with it is behaviour, not identity.

    It is an act of utter stupidity to hold to a view that stands in complete opposition to the process that has conceived of almost seven billion people alive on the planet today and a big fat zero to any alternatives. The ALP in Queensland should be mocked and publicly harangued for their compliance to politically correct madness, where they have absolutely no evidence to back up their warped idea of reality. Normal sensible people should not be force-fed this rubbish and bullied into accepting complete lies as if they were true. Marriage is marriage of two different yet complementary elements, not two things that are the same.

    What next? Will the Queensland ALP be expecting people to consider a rusted out Datsun 120Y as if it was a Mercedes Benz?

    Mark Rabich

  3. May I ask the ALP, in the case of a child being adopted by two so-called “Fathers” and the hapless baby needs breast feeding, is the task given to one of the “fathers” or do they take it in turns? “A silly comment” the ALP might say – but no sillier than the suggestion that same sex “marriage” and “adoption” are normal procedures.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  4. Any time the “race card” is played in matters not relating to racial issues, it usually means someone’s argument is looking pretty shaky.

    It is a red herring to divert attention and enlist sympathy where it’s not warranted.

    We need to be careful in allowing others to frame the terms of a debate by accepting their terminology.

    Unwittingly, you help them to soften people’s apprehension by repeatedly hearing terms favourable to their argument. In public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate usually wins.

    If you were an abortion rights activist, would you rather defend an argument for a positive sounding idea like “choice” or the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies? Hmmm, let’s make the debate all about “choice” and use the mother’s right to choose as the victim.

    Does the government talk only in terms of a “carbon price” or a “carbon tax”. Which do you think sounds more favourable to keep talking about if you were the government? Price is positive sounding, tax is negative sounding.

    Which sounds nicer, “we want marriage equality” or “we want to redefine what marriage is” ? One paints the picture of a victim, the other, a picture of forcing acceptance of a point of view.

    I would think it helpful that in all forms of communication, we stop using “marriage equality” and call it for what it actually is. Turn the tables around and make those who disagree, use our terms for a change. Otherwise we will be forever on the backfoot.

    The SSM argument is not about rights. It’s about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that those that wish to partake in SSM can be comfortable in their “lifestyle” without having to be disturbed by reality.

    The victim is not the SSM partners, it is the child and the further breakdown of the traditional family unit which has been under attack for decades now in various forms.

    David Gee

  5. I use a very simple moral compass for big issues — “If all human society took this course of action, what would the outcome be — blessing or anarchy/disintegration?” The answer is always obvious and (surprise, surprise) I have another very simple, easily memorised set of instructions which keep that compass on track for me to reach home safely. They’re called the ten commandments (OF GOD). There is also a very useful guidebook which yields immense benefits when studied daily!!
    Anna Cook

  6. We are stuck with Godless homosexual “marriages” here in the UK now. We can fight all we want but I fear this is coming no matter what. The church MUST move beforehand. While Bill is doing a stunning job, the church needs to get off its backside and withdraw under protest from government sanctioned marriage. Burn all their celebrant papers and refuse to marry Christians under Government marriage that even contemplates endorsing un-lawful marriage. Even in the UK where it is already legal the churches are still obediently disobeying GOD. How can the church be an example of morality when they force believers to be married under apostate laws. It is a joke. Leadership is more interested in getting their 10% than doing anything that may rock the status quo. I would love to see the national council of churches grow a spine and support the truth.
    Russell Boden, UK

  7. I agree with you Russell

    It’s a pathetic hopeless joke. No one’s church is prepared to stand up and be counted. It seems we are like moths with the light in our eyes drifting aimlessly towards the fire.

    Daniel Kempton

  8. Thanks Bill for continuing to highlight these issues!
    Shame on Queensland’s Labor Party! Their compromised position is leading people to hell and they will stand to account before God for their actions in undermining the family unit in Australia!!!
    As Christians, we have to rise up in our authority in Christ, and name it for what it is – Sin.
    For those from the UK who’ve contributed comments, take heart, you are standing up for Jesus, when you speak the truth in love and TRUTH sets people FREE; You are on the winning side – Jesus has already won the VICTORY! Praise Jesus.
    Barb Hoc

  9. Bill, This is a well-written piece. I would love to send it to ALP members in Qld. You know, they will be absolutely canned in the next election.
    Jane Petridge

  10. Another excellent article, Bill. Thank you for this great food for thought which will be served up to many politicians in the weeks ahead. Clearly we cannot leave this vitally important issue in the hands of those elected to protect our society. How will politicians who support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples justify excluding another popular preference – polygamy? Are any of them thinking about the logical societal consequences of their actions?
    Karen Bos

  11. One of the best examples of “discrimination” I’ve personally come across is when you donate blood. Each time you donate, you have to sign a form which states “I have not had unprotected male-to-male sex in the last 12 months”. What dreadful discrimination! I feel like going and committing suicide! But how absolutely necessary for the protection of society from the consequences of this perversion.
    Ian Brearley

  12. G’day Bill,

    Russell Boden is saying, if I have him right, that Christian ministers who are celebrants should refuse to marry Christians under government marriage laws. Russell, I don’t get it. Wouldn’t that disadvantage godly couples who want to get married? Could you explain how ministers could opt out of the civil marriage arrangements and not honour marriage as we see it? As a minister I’d love to find a way to protest, but I don’t think this is the way forward.

    (Rev) Andrew Campbell, Wagga Wagga

  13. Thanks Bill,

    We all can use this article to write to our local members to oppose any moves in this direction. I have.

    Denis Colbourn

  14. Extremely well written article showing the utter bankruptcy of reason in these fallacious arguments to destroy marriage.
    Warwick Marsh

  15. When God is rendered irrelevant and man devises his own standards it is all down hill.

    A very frightening Q&A this week with generation Y making up the panel and unanimously supporting same sex marriage without a blinking of the eye as if it is normal.
    What a testimony to our godless education system and the failure of the church.

    Rob Withall

  16. Andrew, without hijacking this page; Better to withdraw now before sliding further down ‘the slippery slope’. Then the church can remain separate and concentrate on setting an example. It is no disadvantage to Godly couples to keep the sanctity of marriage.
    Russell Boden

  17. G’day Bill,

    Russell what I’m asking is how ministers of the gospel like me can make a valid protest. If I were to reject being a celebrant, then a Christian couple, to be married in the eyes of the law would have to go to a civil celebrant to be ‘married’ in the eyes of the laws of Australia. Same problem. I would have a Christian service, sure, and they would say they’re married, but I think there are other implications. Like they wouldn’t they have to say they’re ‘partners’ on government forms because they aren’t legally ‘married?’ Might they even have to register as a ‘civil partnership’ to get some benefits? Wouldn’t they have to apply and pay to change names to one? Can anyone answer my questions? I’m willing to make a protest this way, but I want to know the legal outcomes of opting out of the civil system as rotten as it is. Perhaps it’s analagous to paying our taxes. We have to, Jesus said, and that means even in the case (as it is) that our taxes pay for abortions.

    Andrew Campbell

  18. Interesting piece again Bill.
    How does our uniting church minister think about SSM ?
    He argued that civil marriage may be okay for homos and lesbians. But he thinks that the same sex lobby will not push for marriage within the church and ministers will never be forced to marry gays in church.
    I don’t know if that is the policy position from the uniting church but it may be!
    In short I think he is wrong. If same sex lobby wins the right to civil marriage ministers of the gospel will eventually be forced to marry gays.
    In terms of the labor party in Australia. They do not have the mandate to push for SSM or a carbon tax. But there are a large part of the population who are appalled by Labor Party and their incompetence and lies.
    I like many am disgusted.
    regards
    Phil Browne

  19. Hi Bill,
    David Gee’s comments are excellent.
    The same sex lobby are setting the agenda and Christians must be proactive and explain truthfully that homosexuals want to redefine marriage. The truth is homosexuals and lesbians don’t give a stuff about the rights of children.
    I was almost in tears reading some of the testimonials of children on the exodus international website yesterday who are struggling with their sexuality. We are heading for a generation of children that are no longer having a normal childhood. Degradation, indoctrination and perversion of children’s minds is becoming all too common.it’s tragic and as same sex relationships become more legitimate it’s going to get worse. Regrettably the church in most cases does nothing.
    blessing to you Bill
    Phil Browne

  20. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines marriage as the legal union of a man with a woman for life. God’s creation order is the union of a man and a woman for life. Why deviate from or redefine what has worked for over two thousands of years? Namely one man with with wife for LIFE.
    Judith Bond

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: