DNC adds marriage redefinition to platform


The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 criminalized marriage between blacks and whites in Virginia. In 1958, interracial couple Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving left the state and married in Washington, D.C. When they returned to Virginia, they were arrested for violating the state's ban on interracial marriage.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional. The court in Loving vs. Virginia contended there must be a "permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate" to uphold racial classifications and that Virginia had no "legitimate overriding purpose" to outlaw marriage between interracial couples.

It should go without saying that a ban on interracial marriage is fundamentally different from a law that recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Loving didn't redefine marriage; it struck down racial restrictions on marriage. Racial distinctions are not comparable to complementary sex distinctions that characterize the institution.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Homosexuals represent maybe 3 percent of the population, yet their lobby has convinced people in power that sexual behavior is equivalent to race. For the first time in its history, anonymous sources told Politico, the Democratic National Committee will add homosexual "marriage" to the party platform. The Democrats will present this endorsement at the convention in September in Charlotte, N.C.

Although North Carolina had a law recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman, lawmakers wanted to strengthen it with a constitutional amendment. In May, 61 percent of the people voted to add such language to the state constitution. Black voters supported Amendment One by a 2-1 margin. In a state where a marriage protection law achieved decisive victory and significant support from black voters, expect sparks to fly in September.

Until that point Barack Obama had been noncommittal on the issue. Perhaps he didn't want to alienate black Christians (95 percent of black voters chose Obama last presidential election) or maybe he genuinely struggled with the issue. But after Amendment One Obama threw caution to the wind and went on record supporting the redefinition of marriage to include two people of the same sex.

A Tennessee-based group called the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) has publicly criticized the president's view on the issue. "We were once proud of President Obama," CAAP president Reverend William Owens said in a press release e-mailed to U.S. News, "but our pride has turned to shame. The man holding the most powerful position in the world is stooping to lead the country down an immoral path." USA Today reported that black churches are "conflicted" about Obama's radical and unbiblical stance.

(As an aside, I don't like the term "African-American." There's no such race, color, or nationality. I'm not African. I'm an unhyphenated American-a native American-of African descent. If you must refer to my race, the colloquial "black" is good enough for me.)

Will the president see an erosion of support among Christ-professing blacks who voted for him in 2008? I predict he won't. Many still will choose the Democrat over the Republican.

La Shawn Barber
La Shawn Barber

La Shawn writes about culture, faith, and politics. Her work has appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Christianity Today, the Washington Examiner, and other publications


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Power campaigns

    The GOP is fighting to maintain control of Congress…


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…