According to this piece, interracial marriage continues to decline.
Are you surprised? In a culture where it’s still largely forbidden and frowned upon to marry someone who does not resemble an immediate family member, interracial marriage is not acceptable. It’s okay to date (because you might break up and there’s no legal committment), but marriage is a no-no, still.
It takes courage to marry someone others disapprove of, and most people break under the pressure; and that’s why interracial marriage is on the decline, although interracial dating is fine.
The question to me is, is this piece linked to above accurate?
While it may came as a surprise to some that a) Clarence Thomas does much of anything at all as he seldom if ever speaks and b) never dissents or does much of anything for anyone else with his great lifetime appointment job. Yes, he from time to time can’t help but acknowledge simple truths.
The Sentate confirms Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In this brief CSPAN interview, it’s finally revealed that not only does “Uncle” Clarence Thomas speak, but clearly reveals more than a little bitterness…but speaks the truth that in order for a black President to exist that person must be approved by The Elite and that in his estimation, Obama was assuredly approved before being given the nod.
As the battle over whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry in the United States (which quite honestly makes me fee ashamed and embarrassed to even admit that in this day and age there’s a debate raging as to whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry), many lawyers are comparing the issue of gay marriage to that of interracial marriage.
English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
While the two are certainly not the same, there are similarities, the primary one of which being that we’re discussing (and debating) essentially whether or not said gay individuals are human and hence deserving of full human rights under the law. This is what makes it ridiculous.
Malcolm X and Dr. King knew that for for racial equality to stand a chance in the U.S. they had to make it an international human rights matter and involved other nations into shaming us.
Civil Rights March on Washington, leaders marching from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
They took it beyond the localized political debate realm. It was no longer a matter of local opinion, but a global human rights violation. This is why there were so many iconic photographic images of the civil rights movement. Dr. King wanted photos. Lots of photos. So did Brother Malcolm. The more photos of unarmed peaceful civil rights protestors being beaten and attacked, the better.
So it is (to me) in many ways with marriage equality. I don’t know if gay people protest for equal rights on the same level as African Americans did during the civil rights movement, but if gay marriage equality is denied or simply ignored by the Supreme Court I’d say peaceful protests should be a no-brainer. And there should be photos. Lots and lots of photos. Especially when police freak out over the appearance of crowds of protestors and commence beating anyone in sight (as they did with the Occupy movement and every other peaceful protest movement in the past). Failure to enlarge the scope of the issue is to keep it in the “ghetto” where it can never be resolved.
Whether or not gay people are entitled to marry is a resounding – of course they should be allowed. They’re human and this is a human rights issue – not a local political issue. When we see this is a human rights violation and not a political issue more progress will be made in my humble estimation.