These Anti Gay-Marriage Bigots are just like the anti interracial marriage Bigots of the 60s

[KansasVoter]

There is no difference.

40 years from now they will look as stupid as the anti interracial marriage folks do now!

And how many of these people would tell you to your face that they are OK with Gay marriage and then vote different?

[LonePirate]

1. Pundits and other people need to call these people on their bigotry

[VMI Dem]

2. You do realize that some of those anti gay-marriage bigots are running this country?

And there is a difference. All different kinds of people find common cause in hating gays.

[dolphindance]

3. There is a difference. Gay marraige is harder to accept than interracial. (eom)

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Is that a personal statement?

Because when interracial marriage was made legal, a vast roiling majority was highly opposed to it. So I think you need to speak for yourself, not in bigoted generalities.

[dolphindance]

8. Cause I think deep down people know that ultimately individuals count -- not their color.

A woman is still a woman. A man is still a man.

But with gay marriage, cultural and societal expectations are being challenged. This simply cannot be won quickly.

[Unvanguard]

48. So racism doesn't extend "deep down"... but homophobia (and our culture's gender norms) do?

Do you have a basis for that assertion?

[NMMNG]

52. You do realize

The arguments being used against same-sex marriage are typically similar, if not identical, to the ones used against interracial marriage?

And as with same-sex marriage, interracial marriage challenged cultural and societal expectations. People are just going to have to get over their issues.

Don't try to pretend it's anything different or make excuses for today's bigots. It's not going to work for anybody but the bigots and their apologists.

[ruggerson]

11. When the SC banned anti-interracial marriage laws, 70%+ of the country opposed interracial marriage

so your argument is demonstrably false. Current polling on marriage equality runs about 55-45.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. That's a bullshit excuse

furthermore, if you took Doc Brown's DeLorean back to 1965 right about now, I'll bet you would find a lot of people not accepting "interracial" marriage either. And a lot of them would be the same people excusing homophobia now.

Well goddammit, if God H. Almighty had meant for the races to mix, He would have made Jesus a negro!!11!1!11!

[Withywindle]

38. According to whom?

Harder to accept by whom?

Stop using the passive voice. If YOU find it harder to accept, own it and take responsibility and defend that position.

It's not some kind of natural law. The racists who used selective Bible quotes to justify slavery, and oppose interracial marriage with the bogus argument that God meant the races to be separate because He put them all on separate continents to begin with (still in force of law in many places as recently as the late 60s - within my lifetime) certainly thought it was, though. Those arguments were specious and offensive, but the people who believed in them certainly did so passionately and thought they had all the force of divine and natural law.

Who cares what they thought? (or still think - white supremacists are certainly still out there pushing that idea)

And who really cares what anti-marriage-equality people think now? Their arguments are just as bogus and just as firmly rooted in ignorant superstition, no matter how passionately they may feel them. It's just not a position that deserves respect, any more than being anti-interracial marriage does. And I'm biracial myself, so I know what it means to say that.

[QC]

44. Dolphindance sleeps with the fishes. n/t

[Withywindle]

45. Throwing pearls before swine, I see.

Not the first time.

[QC]

46. Oh well, it's always worth the effort to inform people. n/t

[vaberella]

5. To be clear the Anti-interracial marriage bigots are still existent today and in full affect.

Secondly...homosexuality is not a race...there are interracial gay couples as well----they get a double dose.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. they exist today, but they are not functioning with the power of

law. The anti gay people are empowered by the bigoted and unjust laws and by the vile statements of so called 'leadership'. Nothing can stop the individual from being a bigot, but removing from those bigots the ability to discriminate with impunity is vital. It is legal in most states to refuse to rent to a gay couple, and it is very illegal to do the same to an interracial couple. Does it happen? Sure. Is there recourse? Yes. But not for the gay couple, be they black, white or a lovely mix. They can say "we don't rent to your kind" directly to their faces. I'm sure you can comprehend the difference. That interracial gay couple can be denied housing and employment for being gay, but not for being this race, that one, or all of them.

[vaberella]

18. You're wrong.

This judge was in power until he recieved media attention recently. This was going on for years while he was in power---DECADES most likely. Most people never reported it or just ignored it. However it went on and there is not even a number on how many countless other officials in power who are denying marriages based on race. So please don't sit there and act like you know, when you don't. It's the same thing with lynchings...they go on, but they're either not making national news or barely reported.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

Of course, after the unsavory media attention he has now left.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=50923

By the way I'm surprised you weren't aware there were videos up in the video section and of course several topics talking about this in GD.

In regards to your statement on renting homes, you also ignore the fact that Blacks (excluding the presence of interracial couples) are still facing what is called "redlining." Actually it's still fully in effect and it's defacto. People can say it's illegal but it means nothing. It's similar to the phemonon where Blacks on average pay more for mortgage fees than other racial groups. But my point is to say that what is going on is not exclusionary to homosexuals. Many groups face the same thing. On the face there is this and that, that relatively protects groups that homosexuals do not have. But this is not something respective to homosexuals as institutionalized racism is extremely prevalent. Because there is a Black President, doesn't mean we have a panacea for racism that is part of the system. You seem to make this argument that things are exclusionary to homosexuals they are not. Further more, you again make it seem as though homosexuals are their own race or separate, they are not.


I can't tell you the horror stories I know of being Black and homosexual or Latino and Homosexual or Asian and homosexual. What we have to realize is that bigotry has not gone in the way of th do-do bird and that irrespective to sexuality and race there are racist/prejudice problems going on in our nation. Shit...I have friends who have even gotten racist shit by white homosexuals---what would you say then?! It's ridiculous but it goes on. And don't get me wrong there are things that are done ONLY in regards to sexuality---laws like DADT and DOMA are most definitely not to be ignored. Nor will I say it is nearly impossible for interracial couples to get married, unlike the case for homosexuals. Even more so, to have the marriage recognized to the full extent of the law when it's in effect for heterosexual couples. These are of course specific issues and I respect that.

However, again not everything is exclusionary though.

And as for your last statement. As a matter of fact they can be denied for all of the above. That's the whole extent of bigotry, it can go a variety of corners. If you weren't aware...I think TYT had the greatest video on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaW2TztmaaM

Note when Cenk mentions the teacher says Black Gay----making race as derogatory to exemplify the extremism. This is actually quite often done to Blacks. I've been called a Black Bitch many a time, because Bitch wasn't demoralizing enough....Black added onto it...was even more significant.

However, my whole point in posting is to say that intteracial bigotry is not a thing of the past as so many may claim or think. Just to like racism is not in the past...it's very much alive and part of the system. Homosexual persecution in this country is not the "new" form of segregation, as others have liked to say, or "racism/prejudice" as you equated it as being. It's very much so alive today and the only reason you think it's of the past is probably because YOU are, probably, not directly affected. And that's my point of clarification. And on another point, homosexuals have been facing persecution for as long as time has begun, much like women and people who are deemed "different" from the status quo.

[polmaven]

12. You have put your finger on it!

I fully believe that, if inter-racial marriage had been put on ballots to be voted up or down, it would have been rejected....I am really not sure that, had that been the case, it would fare much better today.

I said in another post today that people's civil rights do not belong on the ballot.

[MadMaddie]

36. Not just interracial marriage but the "equal rights ammendment

would have failed if put to a popular vote.

There is a reason why the majority should not be voting on the rights of any minority group.

[Withywindle]

37. The ERA certainly failed at the time.

Probably STILL wouldn't pass if put to a popular vote. And women aren't even a minority - we're the majority, but there is still a not-insignificant number of women who buy into the crudest and most backward of patriarchal bullshit.

Totally agreed. No one's basic rights should be put up to a popular vote. Either human rights are "inalienable, as endowed by the Creator" (and that applies regardless of whether you believe in a Creator God or in Creator Chemical Reactions Leading to Evolution and Encoding of DNA) or they're not

[BR_Parkway]

50. "Inter-racial marriage would have been voted down" seems like a bumper

sticker that a lot of people could support - both those on our side who believe in marriage equality - and the ignorant tea-baggers that would consider it something that they'd be proud to vote on if only someone would put it on the ballot.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Anti equality bigots include Party Leadership

Will you please inform them of your point of view about those who hold the opinions they hold?

[phleshdef]

9. What baffles me is why do people even get to vote on this shit. Unless you are gay...

...its none of your business in the first place. Why do straight people (who may stand a chance of being homophobic bigots) get the power to choose whether or not a certain group of people get to have a right, a right that doesn't effect them at all.

[FloydianSlip]

13. I just hope the 29,000+ bigots who voted FOR medical marijuana but AGAINST gay marriage

get refused a prescription. They should suffer.

[mkultra]

41. i think the answer to that is clear

the reason is because it was not included in the constitution. Same reason white people voted to free the slaves.

[ruggerson]

56. When did white people vote to free the slaves?

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that there were ballot initiatives on slavery.

[mkultra]

57. that would be the thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865.

[ruggerson]

59. That was effected by the usual process

The Congress passed it by a 2/3rds majority and then the state legislatures ratified it.

As far as I know, gay citizens are the only group of Americans who have achieved equality through the usual legislative process, only to have them then repealed by a ballot initiative.

White Americans never got to vote in plebescites or referenda on the hard fought victories of the civil rights movement, thank God.

[mkultra]

63. half true

some states ratified the amendment by vote, some ratified in the legislature.

[ruggerson]

10. And some are right here on DU

[jesus_of_suburbia]

33. quite a few, actually.

[and-justice-for-all]

14. Voting on basic civil rights is disgusting....

If person A can do it, then so should every one else.

[Jenny_D]

15. You're right

Bigots are bigots are bigots. And no, civil rights shouldn't be up for a vote.

But I would go so far as to say that a large chunk of the anti-gay marriage bigots aren't just LIKE the anti-interracial marriage bigots -- they ARE the same anti-interracial bigots from the '60s. And their days are numbered.

Even here in the South, I see a huge difference in attitudes between generations. Senior citizens (Silent Generation and very early Boomers) seem to be the most vigorously opposed to gay marriage, and are also the most consistent voting block. My parents and their friends (Boomers born in the 1950s) are much more live and let live than their parents. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, each succeeding generation seems more and more open minded and accepting.

:hug: The day is coming, and I definitely don't think it will take 40 years. I give it 10 years tops.

[smalll]

17. Sorry, no, there is a lot of difference.

Anti-interracial marriage laws first appeared in the colonies of Virginia and Maryland in the 1690s, and slowly spread to other colonies/states. Neither Europe nor any other region of the world had a strong tradition of banning intermarriage between races. The U.S. laws against it emerged as part of the poisonous tradition of slavery. And certainly no major religion -- neither Christianity, Islam, nor any other you could name ever banned intermarriage between races -- between believers and non-believers, maybe, but not between races.

On the other hand, I can think of NO society or religion that has ever allowed same-sex marriage. Don't get me wrong, I support extending marriage rights to gay people. But I object to the ahistorical and absolutist position that a lot of people around here, such as yourself, take when it comes to this issue.

[Cleobulus]

19. That's fucking stupid, they weren't talking historically, the attitudes are the same...

regardless of their source. Its outright bigotry, period.

[dolphindance]

20. I agree. Gayness really is a completely different animal. (eom)

[Starry Messenger]

22. Gayness?

Being gay is how someone is born. Discriminating against people for the way they are born is wrong. It's just that simple.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Metric System]

24. Ugh.

[QC]

25. Careful...this is the issue that got all your earlier personas tombstoned. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

27. is that bottomfeeder a sockpuppet? nt

[QC]

28. More avatars than Vishnu. n/t

[dolphindance]

29. I am not a 'pub. I am a strong supporter of Obama and a comon sense Democrat.

Apparently, this seem to infuriate some of the radicals around here.

[QC]

43. Tombstoned again.

But I'm sure he's back already.

[jonnyblitz]

55. a strong supporter of Obama PLUS a raging homophobe?

NO WAY is that possible :sarcasm: glad to see your TOMBSTONE.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

26. I believe you were born an asshole, but now you have a choice:

1) Stop being a homophobic jerk

or

2) Get the hell off this progressive website.

[Starry Messenger]

30. Wow, I rarely say this to anyone

but you're a real asshole. A "normal life"? And I guess a bigoted freak like you gets to be the judge of normal.

[Withywindle]

40. Educate yourself.

Loving vs. Virginia, 1967. Possibly the most aptly-named Supreme Court case of all time. That's the one that struck down anti-interracial marriage laws on a federal level.

Here's what Mildred Loving herself, a brave fighter who spent 9 years fighting for the right to be with her husband, had to say about full marriage equality shortly before she passed away in 2007:

"When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

She didn't think it was very different. She was a true fighter for love in all its forms. I have no doubt that in her belief system, Jesus knew her and welcomed her as his own. You'll pardon me if I take her life experience and the conclusions it led her to over your "because I said so."

[Veruca Salt]

60. Wow, that is beautiful

:cry: How I wish I could rec this comment!

[NMMNG]

53. What bigot train dragged you in?

:wtf:

Did you get lost on your way to Free Republic?

[Ratty]

21. Specious

They are the same thing. There is no meaningful difference between anti-miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws. You are inventing a reason why you think there is a significant difference. You are claiming a tradition is somehow of special significance. Why do you decide to choose that metric? Because slavery was a tradition in most ancient cultures does that make it any less immoral? I look at gay marriage and laws forbidding inter-racial marriage as a moral issue and as such they are on par with one another. For some reason you are objecting to people who don't consider the historical background ("ahistorical" and "absolutist") as important as you do. You claim to support "marriage rights"--whatever that means--for gay people but I have a hard time understanding the point of your post or the strong objection to comparing gay marriage and miscegentation just because historical context isn't as important to some people as it is to you.

[Politicub]

32. We gay folk were virtually invisible until the last century

But we have been around since the beginning of recorded history.

So if there were LGBT groups in the colonies and out and proud gays who wanted to be married, I can guarantee you that there would be some bigoted group who would pass a law to ban it.

Besides, I don't give a flying fuck if a society has ever allowed same sex marriage or not. The world goes round and things change.

[Unvanguard]

49. I'm not sure "They do it too" versus "They don't do it too" is really much of an argument.

It's probably true that certain kinds of prejudice are more salient and durable than others, especially ones tied to gender roles and the oppression of women, which may well be the most universal of all. But this hardly indicates that opposing same-sex marriage is any less absurd than opposing interracial marriage: it only indicates that opposing same-sex marriage expresses a more common kind of irrationality.

And plenty of societies have allowed same-sex marriage. Look it up.

[Teaser]

51. It's a much more ancient bigotry

you got that right.

[polmaven]

58. Massachusetts...

Yes, we really are a society of real people here, and marriage equality has been legal for years, and the state has not yet fallen into the ocean to be gobbled up be a whale......A religion? Unitarian Universalist, for one, just off the top of my head.

[Orsino]

31. ...only even less educated, possibly...

...and certainly even less willing to learn from history.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

34. You are correct... no difference. But there are fucking homophobes on DU who will disagree.

Usually they are religious.

And I'm gay and interracial.

[ruggerson]

35. Well, they'll lie and say they "support" gay equality

But the only time they EVER show up in gay rights threads is when the civil rights struggle is compared to the gay equal rights movement.

They start with the disclaimer that they're "for equality" or "have gay friends," and then go on to write very disturbing posts about how demeaning and wrong it is to even remotely compare the two movements. You can literally see the venom and anger and, yes, prejudice flying off their keyboards.

These posters almost NEVER show up in regular threads supporting gay equality. The only interest they seemingly have in gay equality is to ensure it never gets compared metaphorically or otherwise to the civil rights movement.

[Leo The Cleo]

39. I don't know if they are the same . . .

but I do know that it is ridiculous. I think gay marriage bigots have a different platform and that the breadth of the argument is different. So, I really wouldn't say that they are the same. I think it would be a bit silly to say that they are "the same." It's certainly similar, but not the same. However, both are equally wrong.

[ruggerson]

42. From the original trial judge in Loving Vs Virginia

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sound familiar?

[NMMNG]

54. You tell me

Look at the arguments against same-sex marriage and the ones against interracial marriage. Tell me they're oh-so different.

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They're attempting to deny us rights using their "religious beliefs" and pseudo-scientific bullshit they pull out of their asses, with a good heaping dose of OMG SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

[polichick]

47. They already look pure stupid! nt

[Veruca Salt]

61. Sometimes small reminders are all we need...

[Azathoth]

62. It's not the same

The argument against interracial marriage was that a black person and a white person ought not to be married because "mixing of the races" is immoral (i.e. it offends racists).

The argument against gay marriage is that, according to a definition shared by virtually every culture and religion throughout history, it isn't actually marriage. Having the government declare otherwise, that same-sex unions are in fact identical to heterosexual marriages, effectively redefines a fundamental religious/cultural tradition.

There's a reason why civil unions are relatively uncontroversial whereas any bill or referendum that mentions the term "marriage" immediately creates a political firestorm. Unlike many of those opposed to gay marriage, the good ol' boys who opposed interracial marriage would have been equally opposed to interracial civil unions.

(Since I'll undoubtedly get flamed for this, I might as well say up front that I support gay marriage, but I have also had long conversations with relatively moderate and reasonable people who oppose it.)