Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaChiCard
preciousjeni you beat me to that one.
comparing 'making people be gay' v. 'making blacks be less'? Um..I think its either whether whites made blacks be blacks....and i don't think that is a very good/worthwhile comparison...or whether it's 'making gays be less.' at least compare like terms.
|
I had decided to leave this thread alone becaue I have no proplem agreeing to disagree and this issue is just not that something I care that much about.
However, I wanted to clarify the point I was trying to make since I was told what to do: "at least compare like terms."
My purpose was not to compare "making people gay" vs. "making people black." My goal was to highlight the social constructions behind the stigma that was attached to each.
It has been said that simply being different was embarrasing. What I was trying to say is that because of slavery and Jim Crow this racism and stigma associated with being a Black American was
born out of the nation's past and purposeful actions.
In contrast, if any stigma exists at all regarding being gay it is highly personal and is
born out
citizen's personal beliefs/morals. The government did not bring homosexuals here and enslave them. They have never been out and out legally subjugated.
My point being, it was not being different, being Black, that was embarrasing that lead to the integration of schools- nor was it simply going to separate schools that was embarrasng or stigmatizing. The issue is why it was embarrasing. It was embarrassing because the nation's history for over 300 years purposely set out to subjugate and stigmatize Blacks.
What I was trying to say is that no one has purposely set out to purposefully subjugate and stigmatize homosexuals for 300 years. If people would read the case
Brown v. Board of Education before they talk about it and attempt to quote it they would know that because the stigma associated with racial separation as demonstrated through statistics had such a profound affect on the minds of young Black children the Court held that "in the field of
public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place.
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. " 347 U.S. 483, 497 (1954). Racial segregation was overturned, in part, because statistics supported the determination that simply being a part caused psychological harm in the children due to the reason cultivated by the US over 300 years that they were being separated for.
Many pundits agree that the reason
Brown overturned
Plessy was because it involved harming children: that is not an issue in gay marriage. ETA: Even the most racist of the racist might have a soft spot in their hearts for purposefuly causing mental anguish in tiny, blameless children. Many agree that
Brown would not have had the same holding had it involed segregatin adults.
Also, in many instance (if not all) Courts did not end Jim Crow. The social change which integrated busses and got rid of water fountains ocurred through civil disobedience. The integration which did occur via the Courts really came through the legislature as Congress passed laws under their Commerce Clause power which gives Congress authority over instertate commerce which required restaurants and hotels to integrate. The laws were passed by Congress and the Court either upheld them or struck them down under the Commerce Clause, but those changes were not based on
Brown . I just pointed that out because someone earlier said that
Brown lead to integration of water fountaind and such, when in actuality,
Brown motivated AfAms to go after the rest of the rights they desired, but many other legal methods were used to secure Civil Rights.
So, I wasn't saying the issue was making people gay v. making people less. What I was saying is subtely different and if you simply read to identify weaknesses and attack them, but not to internalize and reflect on what the author is saying you will miss it. Civil Rights law is not easy stuff. Ask me, as someone studying it this semester...I know.