Obviously I disagree with this particular church's beliefs — but I support their decision, as a private belief group, to define their own membership rules.
The only reason I point this out is that the question all too often comes up about whether the growth of anti-discrimination laws against gays and the spread of gay marriage laws will lead to government crackdowns and persecution of churches that disagree with gay marriage. Not only has such persecution not been demonstrated to date with for churches that condemn homosexuality, but even a socially more extreme case like this (which is not unique) demonstrates it's a non-issue.
The local sheriff, or the state police, or the FBI, aren't going to prosecute or shut down the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church about this, even though interracial marriage is legal in Kentucky and recognized by the Federal government. Any results will all be social, not legal (people pointing and laughing, or condemning, or quitting the congregation, or perhaps their larger baptist organization kicking them out). Which is as it should be. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples
Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church votes on resolution that says the church 'does not condone interracial marriage'
I blogged about this yesterday…what bothers me isn't that they did it…it is that they did it then claimed that they aren't racist. At least own that you are a bigot. They can do what they want in their own house of worship. That espcially burns my biscuites becuase I hear that shit all the time from my own family, "I'm not racist! I have black friends! Not all N*rs are black!" Then turn around and threaten a black and white couple in a pizza shop (yes, I witnessed that once). Just admit it and move on.
And since it is a private org can the Gov't really do anything? If private Christian schools can fire a staff member because premarital sex, can the Gov't really say that the the church, which is a private organization not affiliated with the govt, really say they can't make up their own rules, even if they are wacky? Even the KKK aren't forced to change their rules governing their group, they just aren't allowed to beat people up and vandalize things to get their point accross.
I can intellectually appreciate that one might not consider oneself a racist regarding individuals but not approve of their getting married, but I agree it's a fine line that doesn't bear examining in 99.9% of the cases that people make the statement.
All the government can (and, I think, rightly so) do is regulate their public interractions, not their private internal activities. Thus, if they made their chapel or parish hall or whatever open to the public, they could not discriminate against interracial couples renting it (as a "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act).
I have noticed that interracial couples have gorgeous children.
I wonder, if immediate offsprings of interracial couples were to seek membership or participate in a church function, whether they would be allowed?
How about a light-skinned black, whose parent are apparently black themselves? What if two black people of different shades want to join–could it be argued (falsely) that they were an interracial couple?
Questions, questions, questions.
I'd be interested to hear the opinions of all those who cry 'separation of church and state' if the government were to try to regulate something in this case. If you want the church out of government, the reverse also has to apply.
On a personal note, I would never attend a church that had a policy like that and I'd tell everyone I knew not to, as well.
Well, I'm one of those "separation" fanatics, and, as noted, I defend their right to internally act like … very misguided people.
Mingling church and state usually harms both of them.