Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do. My point was to illustrate that not only have Black Americans been ostracized, others have also. So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.

Who said they are comparing their struggles only to those of Blacks?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by kstar

Sock puppet? I've been on GC for longer than you. (by 10 days, but regardless...)

okay.....

You say being black is not a choice, then you say that it is?

No, you said that being Black is a choice. I said that being Black by pigmentation is not a choice. I inherited genes from my parents that cause me to produce more melanin than what we consider white.

Being Black by cultural identification is a choice. Yes, one can be Black by "color", but one can choose to identify with a particular culture.

Your argument assumed that Black skin automatically equals Black culture. Or that is how I interpreted what you said.

It doesn't matter if homosexuals had the had the right taken away or denied the right from the beginning, it is their right. Blacks didn't have the right to vote taken away from them, they didn't have it from the beginning, so they shouldn't have been all up in arms about not having the right? I don't think so. Nor did they have the right to marry who they chose, but a black woman fought and had her innate right recognized. From the decision of Loving -v- Virginia, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," .... To deny this fundamental freedom ..., is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person ... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yes, this decision was about interracial marriage, but I don't see how you can argue that interracial marriage is okay, because those people loved each other, and homosexual marriage is not. It is an innate right to marry who you want, and to deny that seriously makes you seem like a bigot.

Blacks had the right taken from them when they entered this country as slaves. They were not given the same and equal constitutional rights as a free (white) person. Blacks were being denied the right to be seen and treated as a human being in all aspects of living. Gays have not had the same treatment. Again, some people see homosexuality as a moral issue, not really a human / civil rights issue.

And, people can love who they want to. I just personally won't vote to allow gays to marry.

Even if the laws were struck down, these people are NOT getting equal protection under the law. They cannot see their partner when they are in the hospital or make medical decisions for them, they cannot see their children if they are not the ones on the adoption papers or the biological parent, they can't adopt in some states. Hate crimes against homosexuals aren't even declared hate crimes in some states, since the laws only cover gender or racially motivated crimes. How is that equal protection?

Same is true for everyone else. Just because a heterosexual couple lives together, they too are not treated as a married couple.

And, with racial hate crimes, it has become harder to prove. I mean, just look at the Jena-6.

Now, I have to ask, why can you not see that the struggle for civil rights and equal rights for one group is the same as any other struggle for civil rights? It doesn't matter if the crimes perpetrated against one group were better or worse, they were still crimes. You want to compare gay rights to the Holocaust struggle, I could say that is ridiculous since the Holocaust was about depriving people (including homosexuals, not only jews) of their life, not their rights, and the black rights movement of the mid-twentieth century was about rights.

Because as I've said, for me it is a moral issue, not a human rights issue. And, just as you think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the Holocaust, I think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the civil rights struggle of Blacks in this country.

Separate but equal was used to justify segregation, in this case people are calling for civil unions as opposed to marriage, saying that it is the same thing (equal) but different terminology (separate). You are really saying that you don't see how separate but equal is the same type of struggle as separate but equal?

Again, for me it is a moral issue, not a rights issue. But that is how I see it.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Who said they are comparing their struggles only to those of Blacks?

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Ok, like I said before... there are going to be things said on both sides of the argument that are unjust and ignorant. That will not change. I can't change that. There however, is a difference between the struggle... i.e. saying that gays have had it as bad as blacks... and the arguments for the suppression... such as the Loving v. Virginia case mentioned here earlier... people found it immoral, and at that time, even after the case, a majority found it immoral. People find this immoral, but government isn't about morals. The government is about fairness, or at least should be. You want morals, go to church, believe that God doesn't approve of gays... that is all fine and dandy, and you have every right to do so. However, the government is about fairness... so the question is, is gay marriage fair? Loving V. Virginia is totally just in the argument for gay marriage as the grounds of the victory was based on the fourteenth amendment, which re-affirms the equal protection clause. The basis for that case were that Loving was protect under that clause as a citizen of the U.S... well, gays are protected under that clause as well. So there is grounds for bringing up that case as well as grounds for arguing discrimination.

Because people have a funny way of letting their morals seep into laws.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

Of course I did. The fact that Separate-but-Equal is brought up indicates two things:

-- that the Civil Rights Movement is the most recent example of an American movement seeking equality for citizens, and

-- that the court decisions in cases such as legalized gay marriage and said that providing for civil unions was not sufficient relied heavily on the reasoning of cases that struck down the Separate-but-Equal.

But your question was:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.

So my question wasn't "who said they were comparing their struggle to the struggle of Blacks?"; it was "who said that they were comparing their struggle only to the struggle of Blacks?" The picture that KSigKid posted =/= the entirity of the discussions being had and comparisons being made on this issue.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

Hands down, one of the best posts of the entire year. I love you, AGDee.

Honestly, I think part of it is the romanticism of the thing. Even if all the rights were exactly equal, it still wouldn't be enough. No one (of any orientation) wants to dream of that one day in the future that their little girl will grow up, put on a pretty white dress, and go get "partnered." It's the societal connotation that KSig mentioned (though I won't even touch the other stuff in that post ).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

FYI, I'm neither gay nor a spokesperson for gay rights.

Gays are free to compare their plight to whomever they want - but in a situation where some are pretending that a "civil union" is the same thing as "marriage," I'm going to compare that to pretending that "separate facilities" is the same thing as "equal facilities" . . . since, in a literal sense, they're identical.

Oh - by the way . . . no one can convince you that marriage is a right? Look up the Supreme Court decisions that say just that, maybe? This isn't a religion or "me" thing - it's a legal thing. Obviously, you're free to disagree with the Court's decisions, and if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree on some level - but I think that would help you understand where I'm coming from, and it would fully explain the connection to past events that have paved the way for others to gain rights as well.

It's a good thing.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course I did. The fact that Separate-but-Equal is brought up indicates two things:

-- that the Civil Rights Movement is the most recent example of an American movement seeking equality for citizens, and

-- that the court decisions in cases such as legalized gay marriage and said that providing for civil unions was not sufficient relied heavily on the reasoning of cases that struck down the Separate-but-Equal.

ehh...I still think the connection is weak.

But your question was:
So my question wasn't "who said they were comparing their struggle to the struggle of Blacks?"; it was "who said that they were comparing their struggle only to the struggle of Blacks?" The picture that KSigKid posted =/= the entirity of the discussions being had and comparisons being made on this issue.

Because that is the reference that is continually brought up by their side.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because that is the reference that is continually brought up by their side.

It's really not. It's all you see because you're prejudiced.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

...then we'll just have to agree to disagree on some level....
It's a good thing.

I agree and agree

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

It's really not. It's all you see because you're prejudiced.

It's not being prejudiced, it's all I "see" because it is a historical aspect of me - where I come from. I see prejudices in a lot of places. I'm just more likely to speak up about Black history / culture because that is what I am a part of.

[agzg]

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.

The Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc., were all rounded up and persecuted. Not only them, but people who helped them, or liked them, sometimes people that were really only neighbors. Poles were persecuted, just by nature of being from Poland. Why does everyone forget this stuff?

Just because there are some logical fallacies involved in comparing separate but equal for Blacks/Whites, does not mean that it is not the most appropriate comparison to the Gay Marriage issue.

Unless the next step is not only to deny marriage rights, but then to round up all the Gays, friends of Gays, neighbors of Gays, people that know Gays, people that employ Gays, etc, then just to make a topper on it, people with red hair, and throw them in the gas chamber.

The two are not really comparable. Add on top of that that the Holocaust was a European experience (yes I know that many Americans were affected by it, but after the fact or they left before it happened), while the Black/White issue, as it's being discussed here, was an American experience.

Perhaps a closer comparison might lie in the Japanese internment camps. Except we're not rounding up every homosexual and making them live in camps because we're afraid of espionage.

[XOMichelle]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are.

This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

I agree, this makes the most sense!

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by XOMichelle

I agree, this makes the most sense!

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

Not to mention the benefits of disease control that come from the encouragement of long-term monogamous relationships.

[XOMichelle]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Not to mention the benefits of disease control that come from the encouragement of long-term monogamous relationships.

I had not thought about that, but now that you bring it up the public health interest in encouraging monogamy as a safe sex practice is fairly large.