This is just driving me nuts reading some of these posts. The gay community and the people in this thread are not "aligning" themselves with anyone. We were having a discussion comparing past situations where one group was discriminated against to the current situation regarding gay marriage. No one is saying that the gay marriage issue is more horrible or less horrible than any past injustice to ANY group of people. You can't jump in and say "well it's not as bad as _____ so don't compare the two." Comparing doesn't mean equalizing the situations, it's about having a discussion about mistakes in history and learning what we can from them. But then again, this has been said NUMEROUS times in the past several pages of this thread but none of it seemed to make an impact.

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.

But that's just the point, he didn't have to select a "better" image. He used it as an example of what he thinks the logic is behind the civil union vs. marriage debate. It's the same logic, NOT the same issue.

But there is a comparison, a DIRECT comparison- they both fought/are fighting for a basic human RIGHT.

You're seriously ignoring every subsequent post?

Tell you what - you come up with a substantive rejoinder to anything I've posted (instead of simply quoting "agree to disagree"), complete with an analysis of how the following analogy is suspect:

The term "civil union" : the status of "married" :: the concept of "separate" : the reality of "equal"

. . . and I'll reconsider. Remember - the argument has nothing to do with scale, only with logic and the lessons we all should have learned from mistreatment of blacks for centuries.

Again, this isn't about "worse" - this is about human rights. You'd think those who consider themselves the "worst" off would be interested in helping others who are suffering, but apparently my ideas of empathy are awkwardly wrong. I guess I learned something today.

Hijack/ Not really distant. My grandmother was in a German labor camp in the war. My mother was affected in how she was raised and that affected how she raised me. /end Hijack

Back on topic-it has been less than 30 years that the first gay couple went to prom-or were allowed to go to prom because they won a court case.

So, if the majority of people in this country decided that it was immoral for a blond to marry a brunette, they should be able to make it illegal because they think it's immoral? Is that really what our country is all about? Or ,make second marriages illegal because some churches don't believe second marriages are valid in the eyes of God? MORAL issues are not legal issues. This *is* a rights issue whether you want to believe it or not.

I meant distant relatives of mine, in the fact that the holocaust has not become part of my conscience as an American, versus the civil rights movement, which has.

Interesting article. . .
 

http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/

I feel like I'm on "Coffee Talk". Discuss.

Maybe "espouse" or some such?

To you. To others, it's your argument that doesn't make sense. And for some, it may be prejudice. For others, it is deeply held belief that is not based on prejudice.

[idealistic soapbox] We get nowhere by dismissing the sincerely held beliefs or opinions of others as not making sense, nor do we get anywhere by imputing motives like prejudice (or homophobia) to them unless it clearly is prejudice at play. All that does is short-circuit the possibility (however small that possibility might be) of actually having a productive discussion.

A friend once said to me, quite sincerely, that she just didn't see how anyone could be against the marriage of gays. She was quite taken aback when I answered "And that's part of the problem."

Seriously, whatever side of the issue we're on, it's only when we can try to respectfully understand what those on the other side believe and why they believe it that we can ever hope to engage in productive dialogue and actually get anywhere. Otherwise, we're just yelling at each other. [/soapbox]

http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/mad0250.gif

He only selected an image that reflected the legal basis upon which the Connecticut and California courts have said civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage and that it was a violation of state equal protection guarantees to deny gay people the right to marry.

Similar is not the same
 

I agree with sigmadiva and I think some are misinterpreting her point and taking her too literally.

This debate has been going on for decades in the literature and among everyday citizens. Some people literally mean that these struggles are the exact same and others mean that they are similar and there should be an understanding of all minority groups' struggles. I believe in the latter.

KSig made the leap with the "separate but equal." It is similar but not the same. Different implications and different outcomes that are clouded because most people are looking for easy analogies and sound bites. It's as ridiculous as when white females say that their struggle for gender rights was the exact same as black females' struggles for gender rights and black people's struggles for civil rights. "We're just as oppressed as you all were." A look at history can tell us that's not accurate.

Yes, every group's struggle for civil rights is similar in that these are minority groups. Yes, this is about American rights and not just these groups. That all goes without saying. It should also go without saying that people can support or not support whatever proposition that they choose. They are not obligated to support something based on some imaginary Minority Coalition. I happen to support gay marriage but that is because I see no reason why gay people should not be able to be married. However, it turns me off when some homosexuals try to ride on the coattails of the black struggle for civil rights. That is completely unnecessary because the struggle for gay civil rights is powerful and prominent enough to be able to let go of others' coattails.

Despite the generalizations being made in the thread, there are a lot of homosexuals who try to appeal to the loyalities of blacks by saying "we're just like you." No, you aren't, and particularly white homosexuals should know in their heart of hearts that they have a privilege that has buffered the effects of heterocentrism in many contexts. This also makes riding the coattails convenient because there are quite a few instances where homosexuals haven't championed the rights of blacks. In fact, many of these homosexuals were busy benefiting from the overt and covert racism, even against homosexual racial and ethnic minorities. Where's the loyalty there? Sometimes it only appears when it is convenient.

Oh well, similar but not the same. I think that's a simple concession. It doesn't have to be the same for it to be valid, does it?

Yep, this is exactly what I'm getting at.

And I feel that the stigma and meaning depicted in the image does not have any direct weight to the issue of gay marriage.

He used the image as a means of propaganda - to illicit a deep feeling response for the issue he is supporting. Because really, as we've said, there is, if at all, a loose connection between the two.

You summarized my point perfectly. ;)

In that case, okay. Only on the legal basis.

But a lot of people aren't talking about the legal basis when they discuss this issue or discuss that image posted. They are talking about the interaction between the legal and the social realms. For example, how "separate but equal" clauses keep people from not only being married but from being treated as human beings who are equally protected under the law in other aspects.

;) I didn't read all of your posts so I don't know what you've said about the actual issue of gay marriage.

So, I repeat, I support gay marriage. I don't want a skimmer responding to my post and missing the point because they imagined that I don't like homosexuals or don't support gay marriage. :p

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

The CA Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases challenging Prop 8. Should be interesting...

I know;) I meant in terms of trying to make a direct connection to gay marriage and Black history in America. Also, the fact that you aptly pointed out that many gays, especially white gays, want to ride the coat tails of the Black Civil Rights movement without really understanding the emotions involved.

They don't have to understand the emotions involved, though. :)

These two things aren't wholly separate, at least in the CA and CT decisions. I don't have a large problem with that (in this instance) - others are free to disagree.

That does not change the fact that there is a massive difference in scale, nor that there is still a potential for comparison.

well, there are definitely incidents and law cases from the Civil Rights movement that apply to the Gay Rights movement. I mean, it is coined the civil rights movement after all... I think we need to differentiate the general struggle from specific incidents, speeches and movements that apply...

It is out of mere interest to note that Mildred Loving recently spoke out pro-gay marriage... f.y.i.

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

And I'm still glad you're back. :D

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

The court can accept original cases that they believe is important for the state as a whole... it requires a majority vote of the court, in this case, 6 out of 7 of the justices accepted the case...

Well, technically, Ksigkid hasn't touched this with a 30-foot pole - it was me . . . however, your point (perhaps without irony) still holds. Definitely legal.

To be honest . . . I don't understand how CA works, period. Not just the Court.

Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?

I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

Ooops. Sorry. I'm usually pretty good about keeping you two fraternal twins straight, but every now and then . . . . :o

LOL. Me either. And thanks, a.e.B.O.T. Sounds like a very odd system to me for an appellate court to take original jusrisdiction in a case like this, with no record developed below, but hey -- if it works for them, who am I to argue?

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with this part.

However, I do acknowledge that being denied an ability to live your life without fear of mistreatment based on sexual orientation is salient in some contexts. As heterosexuals, we take for granted the ability to be able to hold hands in public without people staring or threatening bodily harm. We take for granted the right to marry and receive whatever economic, political, and social benefits from that. We take for granted the ability to have everything catered to a two-sex couple. We take these things for granted for the same reason any other majority group takes things for granted. We don't have to think about it because our existences are dominated by majority ideals. That still doesn't make this stuff all the same.

Remember when that girl and her girlfriend were thrown out of a baseball game for "making out inappropriately?"

Granted, the girl had been on Shot at Love so there's a possibility for some lewdness... but I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being thrown out of a sporting event for making out.

Without knowing the full context, hetero couples have been admonished for doing things that shock others' sensibilities. A lot of us don't want to see heteros tonguing(?) each other down.

I agree with your general point, though. I'm also glad to see this turn to being about heterosexual (majority) and homosexual (minority) rather than being a "whose oppression is it, anyway" gameshow. :)

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing when you say that the civil rights comparison is the one that you seem to hear all the time. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing. :o

ETA: I'm not sure who posted this, but someone mentioned a gay couple being legally allowed to attend prom some 30 years ago. Did I read that right? Did that apply solely to public (government controlled) schools or to all schools? Because I know there was a big ruckus at my high school around prom time because it was a CLEAR rule that same-sex couples wouldn't be allowed to attend. They wouldn't even be sold tickets. If you came to prom, it had to be with a date of the opposite sex. A friend of mine burst into tears hearing that because she couldn't find a date so she'd planned to go with her best friend who hadn't been asked either. (Sidenote: at first, singles weren't allowed either. Anyone going to prom had to have a date but, with the boy/girl ratio being what it was, there were so many girls left dateless that they had to change it. Yeah, my school was awesome, right? :rolleyes:). But it was a private school, so was that what made the difference? Back then, it never occurred to me that something like that could possibly be illegal.

cool....;)

There's a possibility it has happened, but a hetero couple being thrown out wouldn't make national news. I've never seen people (hetero or homo) making out at a baseball game, anyway, though. And I know I would, because I hate baseball, so there's no way I'm not using my binoculars to people watch.

"No! Let's go to a baseball game!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Come on, let's go, the Pirates are playing the _______!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Let's go!"
"But I'll get a sun burn!"
"I'll give you sunscreen, let's go!"
"You're buying me a hot dog."

Stupid baseball nut friends.:mad:

Oh, okay, I got ya! ;)

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

That depends. I'm sure it made national news for reasons beyond sexual orientation.

And I'm glad I missed the national news blurb on this one.

Definitely. I do agree that it's a issue compelling enough to "stand on its own" but I also know that people will always try to make their argument stronger by attempting to back it up with precedents (even if the association is "loose" at best). This applies no matter who the people or the argument.

I wish I could find it again, but Googlenews isn't working for me like it usually does.

I think it was out west somewhere. They talked about it on the Shot at Love reunion show.

Which I only watched because... because... no I don't really have an excuse for that one.

It does, and I'm understanding your point much better now too. Thanks.

I think there are two frameworks at play here simultaneously. One is a (for lack of a better word) "societal" framework -- the gay rights movement as a whole, whether it be about gay marriage, gay couples at the prom, violence against gays, equal employment opportunities, etc. I think if you look back to Stonewall (and before), you find a movement that, while some parallels with the Civil Rights Movement as well as other historical movements are indeed drawn, is a movement that stands on its own and that makes its own arguments. It was from this framework, I suppose, that I kept insisting that the gay rights movement doesn't compare the struggle of gays to the struggle of Blacks only.

There is also the legal framework, and that is how the gay marriage issue is framed in California and elsewhere that legal challenges have been brought. In the legal framework, it is to be expected that those who claim that constitutional equal protection guarantees include a right to same-sex marriage will cite and rely on the "separate-but-equal" cases and cases like Loving v. Virginia that interpreted and applied the same or similar constitutional provisions, while opponents will seek to distinguish those cases. That's how the courts work, by looking to precedent.

Sometimes the "societal" and legal frameworks overlap. Sometime the legal framework is used to force changes in the societal framework.

I hope this makes how I've been looking at this make more sense as well.