Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XOMichelle

I feel like this is an argument that just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the institution in the abstract. It also proves to an extent that a lot of this debate is centered in prejudice.

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]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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.

[DrPhil]

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 valid, does it?

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

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 valid, does it?

You summarized my point perfectly.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

You summarized my point perfectly.

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.

[OtterXO]

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

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

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

Originally Posted by OtterXO

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

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

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?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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