Two attorneys from opposing political camps, David Boies, a Democrat, and Ted Olson, a Republican, announced last month that they plan to challenge California’s ban against gay marriage all the way to the Supreme Court. One of the cases Boies and Olson are using as a precedent is Loving v. Virginia, which, in 1967, ruled that it was unconstitutional for any state to have a law prohibiting marriage on the basis of race.
The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving, a Black woman, and her husband, Richard, a White man, had married nine years earlier in the District of Columbia. However, upon moving to Virginia, the couple challenged the state’s laws and wanted their marriage to be recognized as legal.
The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral. This was a marriage between a man and a woman and the key issue was that, because Blacks had been denied full citizenship rights for more than 300 years, including the right to vote, many laws had to be challenged or changed. Yet, the use of legal cases, laws and the legacy of African Americans is the Trojan horse gay activists and their supporters have used to promote their political agenda.
Nearly every historical example used by gay activists to demonstrate why gay marriage should be legalized is based upon African-American oppression. Blacks were forced to settle for “separate but equal” schools; therefore, two men should be able to marry each other. Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus; therefore, gay couples should be able to adopt children. Blacks were denied access to public accommodations; thus, we should take the unprecedented step of redefining marriage and mandating that a homosexual relationship is the equivalent of a traditional, nuclear family. One wonders what arguments gay activists would use if the legacy of Black oppression was not at their disposal.
The comparisons would be laughable if their promotion had not achieved some level of success. Yet, liberals and some moderates have bought into the idea that taking a moral position regarding homosexuality is tantamount to discrimination and that, if gay marriage is legalized nationwide, there will be no societal impact from such a radical shift in America’s moral standards. And for anyone who claims there is no difference between the histories of Blacks and homosexuals, they need only reference the recent case in Philadelphia where a white woman falsely accused two black men of abducting her and her 9-year-old daughter. As in so many cases in the past, a generic black man was falsely accused of a crime so the real culprit could escape detection by the authorities.