A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement. Learn More >
Nimocks: Bans on Interracial Marriage Were Wrong Because They're Discriminatory, But Bans on Same-Sex Marriage A.O.K.
After his testimony at last week’s DOMA hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund has been doing the rounds in the right-wing radio circuit. In a recent interview withthe Concerned Women for America’s radio show, Nimocks hit all of the classic anti-marriage-equality arguments, claiming that marriage between a man and a woman “naturally builds families,” and that children do best with two heterosexual parents. Nimocks then tried to discredit the comparison of DOMA to the laws against interracial marriage during the civil rights movement.
“Interracial marriage and the racism that underscored the prohibitions on interracial marriage in this country have nothing to do with the question of same-sex marriage, and for multiple reasons. When you look at it from a big picture, we understand what racism was about. It was about white supremacy and about keeping people apart. And there was an underlying bad associated with that doctrine and that policy that found its way into our laws. Marriage is not about keeping people apart. It’s about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, men and women, for a deep, deep social good. And the drastic difference in those two things cannot be overlooked. And then you look at that and say wait, marriage is about bringing people together, and it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of people’s skin color.”
Hold on a second, Nimocks. So bans on interracial marriage were about keeping people apart, but the bans on same-sex marriage are about bringing people together? And there was an “underlying bad” associated with racism, but there isn’t one associated with homophobia? And marriage shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of skin color, but it should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Excuse me if I’m not exactly compelled to the case you’re making.
It comes as no surprise that the Concerned Women for America or the Alliance Defense Fund are making illogical arguments and holding moral double-standards, but the logical leaps they’re making are becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.
Filed Under
Organizations:
Alliance Defense Fund , Concerned Women for America, Senate Judiciary Committee, undefinedPeople:
Austin NimocksShare this post
Related Items
RWW Social Media
Most Popular
-
Radio Host Frequented By Gun Activists Calls For Shooting of Bush Family & Obama, Sexual Violence Against Hillary Clinton
5/17/13 @ 2:37pm
-
Bachmann: 9/11 and Benghazi Were God's Judgment
5/10/13 @ 12:16pm
-
Robertson Tells Woman Whose Husband Cheated to Remember 'He's a Man' and be Grateful She Lives in America
5/15/13 @ 12:30pm
-
Bradlee Dean Has Epic Meltdown over Minnesota's Gay Marriage Law
5/16/13 @ 2:15pm
-
Matt Barber Tweets Homophobic Cartoon of Gay Man Tricking Boy Scout into Sex
5/14/13 @ 3:10pm
On Twitter
- RT @jmattbarber: Hey, @BoyScouts, check out my timeline. Meet your new supporters: foul-mouthed, godless, perverse, anti-American commie dr…4 hours ago
- RT @BryanJFischer LDS leadership (not laity) may support gay Scouts because advancing the gay agenda may lead to the return of polygamy.4 hours ago
- RT @BryanJFischer BSA now stands for Boy Sodomizers of America, because that's what will happen. Mark my words.5 hours ago

