Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council spokesperson who once said he wants to deport gay people, is out with a new column that bizarrely equates marriage equality with racial segregation. As Alvin McEwen points out, this is one of the more bizarre and twisted arguments you’ll ever hear:
The clear purpose of the bans on interracial marriage was to build walls between two groups of people in society, blacks and whites. Such laws were designed to reinforce a system of racial segregation, keeping the races apart from one another.
In contrast, defining marriage as the union of male and female has exactly the opposite intent and effect. Rather than building walls between two classes of people, it creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women in marriage is common to all human civilizations, and serves the good of society.
Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage, and laws against interracial marriage had as their only purpose preserving a social system of racial segregation.
Homosexual “marriage,” on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: male-only unions, female-only unions, and opposite-sex unions.
Uh, right. Because allowing people who aren’t currently allowed to marry get married, you’re segregating marriage. That is one seriously stupid argument.