Pro-Abortion Fanatic Democrat (but I repeat myself) Wendy Davis, running for governor of Texas, is throwing everything she can at the Democrats’ low-information voter base and hoping something… anything… sticks. First, she accused her Republican opponent … who is confined to a wheelchair… of being hostile to handicapped people. Now, she is accusing her Republican opponent… who is in an interracial marriage, of being secretly opposed to interracial marriage. It’s like the accusation that Mitt Romney wanted to outlaw tampons, put women in binders, and give his dog a gay haircut; the LIV’s will believe anything and fact-check nothing.
Greg Abbott won’t say whether he’d defend an interracial marriage ban—troubling but not surprising from someone who defends a “poll tax.”
The thing that Wendy Davis is twisting to get to that misinformation biscuit is the evasive answer Greg Abbott gave to a gotcha question during an interview with a San Antonio newspaper.
When I said I wasn’t clear if he was saying he would have defended a ban on interracial marriage, he said, “Actually, the reason why you’re uncertain about it is because I didn’t answer the question. And I can’t go back and answer some hypothetical question like that.”
Asked about the similarities some see between the ban on gay marriage and past prohibitions on interracial marriage, Abbott said, “Well, the Supreme Court has disagreed with that” by holding that sexual orientation isn’t due protected-class status in the way that race is.
Bad answer, Greg. Maybe I can say this because I’m not a politician, but equating gay marriage and interracial marriage is an utterly false equivalence. Interracial marriages do not fundamentally alter the concept of marriage the way gay marriage does. Interracial heterosexual marriage maintain the unique and critical role of marriage in Western culture in binding families together, creating secure environments for the raising of children produced by the marriage, and providing fundamental social stability.
Gay marriage – as some of its advocates admit – is about fundamentally redefining marriage, gaining access to social benefits, and assuaging the egos of gays. Children and family are just props to get to the result. Traditional marriage is about what is best for the whole of society, gay marriage is only about what’s best for Teh Gheys.
(Yeah, I know, I’m on the losing side of the argument, just like the people in Salem who said, “I don’t think those girls are actually witches” were on the losing side of the argument.)
Whatever the affirmative case for gay marriage may be, it has nothing to do with civil rights, and is no way equivalent to interracial marriage.