Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, apparently never learned anything about Loving v. Virginia. Or more specifically, the Conservative darling never leared anything about the climate surrounding the Loving v. Virginia case and the stuff that was said about Blacks during the era of desegregation.
While Carson is willing to no longer speak at the upcoming commencement for Johns Hopkins University, his naked homophobia is getting even to his own party. On Sean Hannity’s show, Carson stated “My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman, it’s a well-established uh, fundamental pillar of society. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in beastiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition. So it’s not something that’s against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”
When he talked to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, he offered the standard non-apology-apology by saying that did not really actually apologize except to those who might be offended. This is not surprising given that the Republicans are less about actually being less homophobic and more about appearing to be less homophobic.
Carson said on Mitchell’s show that “As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people — and that includes people who have other sexual orientations — and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone. What I was basically saying — and if anyone was offended I apologize to you — but what I was basically saying is there is no group…I wasn’t equating those things, I don’t think they are equal. If you asked me for an apple and I gave you an orange, you would say ‘well that’s not an orange.’ And then I’d say well there’s a banana…’that’s not an apple either.’ And there’s a peach…’that’s not an apple either.’ But it doesn’t mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way, I’m not equating those things.”
Carson tried to rewrite his statements again at the Baltimore Sun saying “I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying. First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has. What I was basically saying is that, as far as marriage is concerned, that has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and nobody should be able to change that. Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone.”
While the people battling interracial marriage did not use quite such a fruit-laden analogy, they did tend to say that interracial marriage could never rise to the same level as same-race marriage.
Regarding being a Christian, the trial judge who upheld the conviction of the Lovings wrote “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
According to the trial judge, Carson had no right to marry whomever he wanted. What is more, as a Black man, he was lesser than the judge who issued that order.
In the dissenting opinion in Perez v. Lippold, Judge Shenk wrote that “[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void. . .The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
against incest and incestuous marriages.”
The reality is that same-sex marriage predates one-man/one-woman marriage. In fact, the form of marriage that men like Carson claim is “traditional” has only been in practice throughout the majority of the world since the mid-1800′s. Prior to AD 500, “traditional” marriage was only practiced among the Romans and Greeks. Marriage between only one woman and one man was not practiced by the Jews where polygamy was common prior to the Roman Conquest.
This is, of course, a rather simplified version, but the reality is that same-sex marriage is not even native to Christianity where same-sex marriage was commonly practiced among the earliest Christian sects.
Just don’t tell Carson that. It might blow his mind.
Still, if this is the savior of the Republican Church now…you might as well get use to a Republican Party that will no longer exist again as it is soon.