One Man, One Woman = Hate

Could anyone imagine a mere generation ago that supporting marriage as it was ordained by God and defined throughout history–a union between one man and one woman–would get the person labeled a hater?

Stanford University has declared a conference on heterosexual marriage–also known as marriage–hate speech. The Stanford Graduate Student Council refused to provide the Anscombe Society, a conservative student group, the requested $600 in funding after some decidedly intolerant students complained. The College Fix also reported that the undergraduate student government earlier refused to hand over $5,000 in funding to the Anscombe Society.

Aren’t institutions of higher learning supposed to encourage the free flow of ideas and intellectual discourse? Check out this gem from the minutes of the council meeting:

Dan Ashton — assu presidents, i need to give personal opinion, i would hope that 65 years ago and the last year before blacks could marry whites, he could stand up there and say that althought we do have the responsibility to hear the speech that is free, we do not have the responsibility to fund hateful speech.

Ah, the old interracial-marriage-is-akin-to-homosexual-marriage canard. I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it again (why reinvent the microchip?):

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court [in Loving v. Virginia] declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional. As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no “legitimate overriding purpose” to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman other than blatant racial discrimination. As racial classifications are suspect, states must demonstrate a “permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.” The court added that denying the couple “this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes…is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.:

One could argue all day whether the state should be involved in marriage at all, but one thing is certain: a man and a woman of different races marrying is not even close to the idea of two men of any race “marrying.” There is no such thing as marriage equality. If there were, children could marry. Individuals could be married to more than one person at the same time. Loving provided people the freedom to marry without racial restrictions.

Words have meanings, and reasonable people understand that opposing the redefinition of marriage doesn’t make one hateful.

(Hat tip: Chris Agee)

Have an idea for a story? Send us tips.