Well said, Sistermadly.

Ok first of all...heterosexual isn't WHO I AM..its WHAT I DO..its a lifestyle....I AM AFRICAN AMERICAN...I don't just DO AFRICAN AMERICAN...It is a difference..we're really classifying a class of people based on who they sleep with..this is craziness!

Second, marriage IS a religious institution..the part that confers the transfer of property etc. is the civil part. Just because you get married...doesn't mean you can transfer your property...that's what that little certificate is for.

Third, Gays were never considered 3/5 of a person and never experienced Jim Crow..its not about saying who's more oppressed...its about looking at the core issue and the facts. IT is crazy to compare being black and a lifestyle that is CHOSEN. and YES I DID SAY CHOSEN.

Fourth, who is scared? Why does it have to be about fear because the MAJORITY of the population BLACK AND WHITE think this is wrong??

Herein lies my BIG problem with their comparison to OUR (not a general movement, but the civil rights movement for african americans).

Some have decided that this particular "lifestlye choices" should now be considered a protected class and this where I disagree on this issue. There is NO CHOICE when it comes to the color of your skin or if your a woman or man (skin bleach and surgeries not included). Your right, our movement was and still IS so much more bigger than dogs and hoses - which is why it baffles me that we are so quick to "throw our hat in" with support and allow it to be used to further someone else's agenda. Will the gay and lesbian movement do the same for us when to the focus turns to affirmative action, "No Child Left Behind", or discussions and legislations that will address why there is a disproportionate share of black men in prison?

So yes, I have a problem with it.

HOTT Political Issue
 

Kerry Compares Civil Rights Struggles of Gays, Blacks

By Patrick Healy, The Boston Globe Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8134721.htm

Mar. 8--JACKSON, Miss. - During a campaign swing through Mississippi yesterday, Senator John F. Kerry excoriated President Bush from the lectern of a black church, insisted that New England has much in common with the Deep South, and decried the "crucifixion" of the young gay man Matthew Shepard as he compared civil rights for blacks to gay and lesbian rights.

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, predicted that "a guy from Massachusetts" will beat Bush in the South in November, and spent the day quoting both Scripture and Bush's mantra of "compassionate conservatism" in denouncing the president for having, in Kerry's words, "the biggest track record of broken promises in history in all the time I've been in public life."

He also signaled a new aggressiveness as the Democratic standard-bearer, attempting to turn recent Republican attacks on his credibility and political consistency to his advantage by charging that the administration had "a Grand Canyon of [a] credibility gap" on a litany of foreign and domestic affairs.

"You talk about 'two positions'?" Kerry said, using a phrase that Republicans have hurled at him. "[Bush is] a walking stack of broken promises, and I'll lay them out to you over these next days. And he's got two positions on everything. We're going to create 4 million jobs; he hasn't, he's lost 3 million. He says we're going to have health care for Americans. Well, we're not, he doesn't have a plan for them."

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Kerry also said he would ask allies to go to Iraq to assess the conflict there for him, and added that he had not ruled out a trip to the war-torn nation himself.

The Massachusetts senator began his assault on Bush from the well of the Greater Bethlehem Temple Pentecostal Church of the Apostolic Faith, here in Mississippi's capital, as he read from the Book of James to suggest that Republicans did not back up "important words" with good works and social policy that aided Americans.

"You can run the list of those deeds that are not matched by words," Kerry said, including "compassionate conservative" among them. "I don't agree with the hollowness, nor do you, that tries to divide black and white, rich and poor, Massachusetts and Mississippi. In fact, some people just want us pointing fingers at each other. The reason they do that is that so no one points a finger at them." While invoking God at various turns yesterday -- at one point saying he had been "anointed the next president of the United States" after Bishop Phillip Coleman laid hands on him -- Kerry also cited the Bible and the US Constitution in defending the rights of gays and lesbians during a boisterous town hall forum after the church services.

Early during the forum's question-and-answer period, an African-American woman stood up and asked Kerry to take her side in insisting that the cause of gay rights should not be mixed with the civil rights movement.

The senator replied by briefly noting his support of preserving marriage for a man and a woman, but then began making a full-throated defense of civil rights for gays and lesbians -- recalling how minorities were once denied entrance to universities, and insisting that just as the Equal Protection Clause protected them, so, too, should it protect the rights of homosexuals.

At one point he compared the "crucifixion of Matthew Shepard," the Wyoming 21-year-old who was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die in the fall of 1998, with the dragging death of an African-American Texan, James Byrd Jr., whose murder earlier in 1998 sparked new efforts for hate crimes legislation.

Kerry, in his remarks, however, misstated Byrd's last name, and referred to Byrd's sexuality when he meant to refer to his race.

"Let me tell you something, when Matthew Shepard gets crucified on a fence in Wyoming because, because, only because he was gay," Kerry said, "and Mr. King gets dragged behind a truck down Texas by chains and his body is mutilated only because he's gay, I think that's a matter of rights in the United States of America." Despite the slipups, his remarks drew strong applause from the predominantly African-American audience of 700.

Kerry rallied the crowd to his side on a range of domestic issues, such as decrying the loss of some 2.5 million jobs under the Bush administration, and ridiculed Bush and his allies for continuing to predict with each passing month stronger job creation than pans out. "My mom told me that old thing, when you get in trouble, when you get down in that hole -- stop digging," he said.

At a news conference with reporters, Kerry also kept up the drumbeat of Democratic criticism that Bush is playing politics with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, most recently by using images of the World Trade Center's destruction in his reelection television ads. Kerry charged yesterday that Bush was "stonewalling" and "resisting" the inquiries of an independent commission investigating the attacks because of his reelection concerns.

"The president has purposely enlarged this big mandate, asked for things that we don't need or want, and pushed it off into 2005, which just happens, coincidentally, to not be an election year," Kerry told reporters here.

Kerry also told reporters yesterday that he would like to travel to Iraq on a fact-finding mission but worried about the "politicization" of such a trip. While he has not ruled out such a trip, he said he was inclined instead to ask a group of Democrats and Republicans to go there and offer their views to him afterward, as reported by Time magazine in its new edition.

"I'd like to see what the latest assessment is of people that I trust, of people whose experience and knowledge is significant, and have the ability to make some judgments about where we are today," Kerry told reporters during a brief news conference in a conference room at Tougaloo College. "I think that would be very valuable in the formulation of policy and in my ability to get important updates."

Kerry also said he planned to meet with former rival Howard Dean later this week in Washington, but that a date and time had not been set.

The senator has spoken with another former contender, John Edwards, and said he plans to meet with the North Carolinian at some point, too.

No not even close their little queer war are whatever they wish to name it should never be compared to ours. It's a slap in the face of those blacks who died during the struggle,@ that time who suffers so greatly. Are gays going to jail @ a rate that is greater then non gays, are gays being denied jobs,are gays being killed @ the hands of police all @ rates greater then non gays.The answer is a loud (H) NO!!!! Now if they want to compare themselves to a group why not compare themselves to the Jews,but they won't do that because they no the Jews would have a heart attack if gays would try to belittle their struggle by comparing it to being gay. The reason I used the Jews is because both groups are not ecomonically oppress and both groups could go undetected by the majority if they didn't reveal that they were either Jewish or gay.

Going to jail: Yes when sodomy was still illegal.
Being denied jobs: search Lexis/Nexis for Cracker Barrel and/or "job discrimination and homosexuals".
Being killed: Matthew Sheppard, anyone?

A screed is one thing. An uniformed, ahistorical screed is quite another.

They have, and will continue to do so.

All I'm saying is open your eyes. Go out there and read some of the positons by well-known gay and lesbian activist organizations (The Human Rights Campaign Fund, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, National Black Gay and Lesbian Leadership Forum). See how many gays and lesbians are already on the front lines of social justice issues -- including no child left behind, affirmative action, and other issues that black communities care about.

And perhaps most importantly -- see how many black gays and lesbians are deeply involved in BOTH communities, and are fighting for the rights of ALL people - not just those organized around racial and sexual orientation lines.

At one point in this country's history - as you pointed out - the "majority" of the country thought it was okay to think of African Americans as only 3/5 of a human being.

A majority of the people in the country thought it was okay to keep black people out of the workplace/deny us the right to vote/allow us access to the seats of power in this country because we were inherently immoral, incapable of intellectual thought, and were repugnant to American "decency".

Oh, and remember when women couldn't vote, or when it was illegal for black people and white people to marry? Yep - people objected to that on moral grounds as well.

People's attitudes CHANGE. Society is not a stagnant entity - if it were, you and I would still be in chains. The fact that we're here debating this issue freely and openly shows just how far this country has advanced with respect to social justice issues, even when those issues were couched in so-called "religious" rhetoric.

So with all due respect, I respect your right to your own religious ideology, but just because something is a part of your moral code, it doesn't mean that LEGALLY, and with respect to someone else's civil rights, that society doesn't have a responsibility to make sure all of its citizens are protected.

Question for those who are for gay marriages (or civil unions):

I was watching some news show the other day and they showed a very wealthy "family" that consisted of a man, about 8 or 9 "wives" and 30+ kids. He was a very successful business man (didn't show his face because he did not want to be discriminated against) and provided for the family. The house looked like a very upscale resort. The dining table sat about 25 or 30.

Anyway, my question is, do you think these types of marriages should be legal as well? Why or why not?

Objectively, yes. As with gay marriages they aren't harming anybody, I assumed it all was consensual, and hell he's providing for these families big time. I can't think of any non-religious objections to this. Since laws don't have to be influenced by religion, I can see this becoming legal one day waaaaaay down the line.

Personally, no. I'm in favor of monogamous relationships. I want my own man. Though I'm not much of a practicing Christian, I do believe that polygamy is wrong.

ETA: No I wasn't making any since. I meant, I hope I'm making SENSE. :o

You make good parallells in your argument, but here is where the argument falls short. Whatever you want to say about Homosexuality, it basically is a sexual activity. When you are not engaged in same sex acts, you are "just like everybody else". No different. So why the need for special treatment because of your sexual proclivities? Marriage as a civil institution was for the proper transfer of wealth and title you say? Since same sex unions can't procreate, there was no need for marriage/civil unions. The real objective behind pushing for Marriage and not Civil Unions (which would satisfy the non-religious requirements of marriage) is not what gays want. What they want is not equality. What they want is that the rest of America be forced to APPROVE of their LIFESTYLE and that their LIFESTYLE be branded as LEGITIMATE over the objections of those with LEGITIMATE qualms about such a moral shift. They not only want equality, but they want "Man's Law" to not only trump "Moral Law", they want to vanquish it. Notice how those who disagree are branded as bigots, hatemongers, unenlightened, and worse. Gays have every right already. Nothing is denied them by law. Marriage is a Holy Union ordained by God. Civil Unions are the contractual equivalent. If the contractual part is what you seek, then that should suffice. Ah, but that isn't the goal though, is it?

Ok...we have to stop thinking that we're living in a democracy. If we were, any civil rights notions AT ALL would be obliterated. This is a representative republic where even the "smallest" voice can be heard. Please don't succumb to the mob mentality, people!

WOW! So, you're saying that the love between a man and a woman is stronger than the love between a homosexual couple? Please explain to me how you've come into this knowledge??

ct4,

that article you posted up was very pleasant to read and really brought tears to my eyes...

being able to marry in certain states and have it recognized...

a victory to us.


as i read the post written by some of my sorors and bruhs and greekfriends...i sense some type of personal vendetta.

why is this so serious to certain individuals???


Going to jail: read up on the stonewall riots
Being denied jobs: every single day...ever heard the phrase too butch looking or that dude sounds gay?
Being killed: Matthew Sheppard/Allen Schindler/Barry Winchell/Shaika Gunn (all these people were killed because they were gay and out, the latter killed because she rejected a man's advances)

i can go on..

i would never compare the struggle of being gay to the struggle of growing up african american, black ,negro, jewish, irish, or any other group of people, but it is a struggle in it's own right..

i can't not change my skin color and i refuse to change my sexual orientation because someone throw a few quotes out of the bible and all of a sudden i am banished to external damnation.

the idea of comparing my lifestyle to that of beastality and pedophilia is so ludicris (sp), it is sickening to hear.

I was thinking the same thing. By the way, your post was very well said. But I am sincerely asking here, not trying to be funny, but how does it affect you, as in individual, if gays and lesbians are married? Again, I'm sincerely asking, not being sarcastic. I do understand people's arguments regarding marriage being a religious institution, but unfortunately, we have a separation of church and state here. We can't combine the two, so why can't people get married in a courtroom or something, just somewhere where it's not religious? How does it affect you in your bedroom?
If it's because you would have to explain it to your children, don't you have to explain it to them anyway?

Also, DoggyStyle mentioned that gays and lesbians have their contractual equivalent to marriages with civil unions, but from what I understand, a civil union doesn't provide all of the contractual rights, which I think is the problem (somebody correct me with specifics if I'm wrong, I would really like to know).

Also, someone mentioned that because gays and lesbians can't procreate, there was no need for them to have marriage/civil unions. But many homosexual couples have children now, so what do they do?

I also agree that the struggles of African-Americans and gays and lesbians are not similar EXCEPT in the fact that they're both struggles, and we should be very careful when making those comparisons.