Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Star Parker, JC Watts and Bishop Harry Jackson file amicus brief for Prop 8 Proponents

Timothy Kincaid

September 23rd, 2010

Three organizations (consisting primarily of three individuals) which represent socially conservative African-Americans have provided an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit for their consideration in the appeal to Judge Walker’s finding in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8 is a violation of the US Constitution. All three have long been opponents of equality for gay people.

The High Impact Leadership Coalition (Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr.), The Center for for Urban Renewal and Education (Star Parker), and the terribly misnamed Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. (former Congressman JC Watts, R-OK) weighed in to argue that “civil rights of parties to same-sex relationships are not advanced by reliance on legal principles that otherwise have served to further the civil rights of African-Americans.”

The history of marriage in the constitutions and laws in America clearly demonstrates that the American people, their elected representatives, and their legal charters flatly reject any assertion that racially segregated marriage (as in Loving) is somehow comparable to sexually integrated marriage of a man and a woman.

Miscegenation laws were based on Supremacy and invidious discrimination, you see. Ummmm….

And besides, as not all states had miscegenation laws, then the core purpose of marriage wasn’t tied to race like it is to gender. To make their point, they offer a numbers exercise.

To begin, of the thirteen States that never had antimiscegenation laws, ten now protect man-woman marriage by positive law or interpretation of statute. Four of the thirteen also protect man-woman marriage by constitutional amendment, which requires approval by at least a majority vote of the people of the State.

Seven States once had antimiscegenation laws but repealed them before Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1948). Today, five of those states expressly protect the institution of man-woman marriage, using both statutes and constitutional amendments.

Fourteen States repealed their antimiscegenation laws after Perez and before Loving. Today, all of those States protect man-woman marriage, most of them with both statutes and constitutional amendments.

So obviously, marriage as a fundamental right only applies to black people and not to gay people.

They go on to rant about the procreative aspect of marriage (citing cased from the 1880s and 1920s) never realizing that their quotes about individuals having the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” or about marriage being “the foundation of the family and of society” actually serve to further our argument rather than their own.

Operating under the presumption that family=heterosexual, they only reveal their bias and that it is presumption of heterosexual superiority that is behind every anti-gay marriage argument.

And they go on and on about the intents and appropriateness of the Loving decision, never noting that Mildred Loving herself saw her fight to marry the person she loved as comparable to the fight of gay men and women to marry the person they love.

This fundamental distinction lies at the heart of the point that Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter made on the thirtieth anniversary of Loving. He wrote: “One of the beauties of Loving v. Virginia was precisely that it was very easy to see how these were people trying to do a very ordinary thing, and got in trouble for it.”

That distinguishes Loving from the position of advocates of same-sex marriage who are trying to do a very extraordinary thing—to redefine the institution of marriage.

In their conclusion, they claim that using Loving v. Virginia as support for the fundamental right to marry, is just another example of “an illegitimate attempt to appropriate a valuable cultural icon for political purposes.” They don’t note the irony.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Ray
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

So cultural icons are like hallowed ground that can’t be touched? Only for black people?

I recall a story about how drinking fountains were the hallowed ground of whites.

TomTallis
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Lucky us. In our congressional district we have a choice between the Democrat, Laura Richardson, tagged as one of the most corrupt in congress (but who is pro same sex marriage) and the abysmally stupid, Star Parker.

I’m holding my nose and voting for Richardson, because Parker would be sooooooooooo much worse, and given the chance I’m quite sure would surpass Richardson in corruption. She IS a Republican, after all…

Lindoro Almaviva
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Hallowed ground… Where have I heard that phrase used to deny people their right of free association and free enterprise? I am wrecking my brain to figure out where I have heard this before; different context though. (/sarcasm)

TampaZeke
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

You mean “Bishop” Eddie Long didn’t get in on this?

cd
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Bayard Rustin is looking down from Heaven with his face in his hands, saying “Martin, have a look at this crazy sh-t.”

Alex
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Am I the only one who thinks it’s time to stop playing coalition politics with gay-bashers in the Af-Am and Hispanic communities?

Why should gays pay extra taxes to support health care for urban voters who hate us? No to Obamacare on that basis alone.

Why should gays support immigration reform that would import third-world homophobic church fodder into our country? Oppose immigration reform for those reasons.

Remember the Prop H8 exit polls, Mormons+blacks+hispanics=anti-gay. SO let them go back to the Mormons for health care, I ain’t paying for Obamacare.

customartist
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

IF their “definition” of Marriage doesn’t include Gays, this is only for the simple fact that they (Jackson and the likes) have historically Failed To Recognize both the existence and the validity of Gays in society. They excluded Us. They also excluded Women, and Blacks, Jews, etc, etc, etc.

NOW Jackson, and others, SAY that Marriage is the only area of concern for them, claiming that they support fair and equal treatmentfor Gays in all other areas, but i say that his is merely camoflage for their real feelings, put out there only temporarily for the purpose of forwarding their current cause. Religious folk, generally, oppose even the concept that being Gay is a valid human condition. Jackson will return to his hate-preaching as soon as this issue is resolved. How many, I wonder, Gays does Jackson have in his church to hold up as an example of his kindness and consideration?____________

If resolved in our favor then there will be little that he or others can (legally) do;

If resolved against us, then we must brace ourselves for reconstituted attacks on fronts other than Marriage – for certain, from the tax-exempt “Christians”.

Rob San Diego
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Oh never mind, in my previous post in regards the the Liberty Counsel filing a brief, I had mentioned that the picture of the Liberty Counsel folk seemed pretty “white”.

I guess that in today’s law firms even though “blacks” have won the right of equality and self respect through the courts, that they still hold their own law firms and don’t mingle with the “white folk”.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.