Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[mdk]

I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

Sure as hell fooled me.

Why? Because I don't buy into your whiny sense of victimhood? It is so terribly hard for you to be a Christian in this nation.

 

[hortysir]

The cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate, the flagship gay publication, proclaimed boldly that, “Gay is the New Black,” stating that this is “The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” But whenever I mention this topic on my national talk radio show, asking my listeners if they believe it is fair to equate the black Civil Rights movement with today’s gay rights movement, I am flooded with African American callers who take strong exception to this comparison.
Comparing Black Civil Rights to Gay Civil Rights - Michael Brown - Page 1

The biggest problem I see with the OP's comparison, however, is trying to hold the LGBT crowd to the same standards as Dr King.
Martin Luther used Christian love through understanding and acceptance. Whereas, by their own title, "LGBT" can't call for the same since it is the exact polar opposite of their lifestyle

 

[rightwinger]

The cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate, the flagship gay publication, proclaimed boldly that, “Gay is the New Black,” stating that this is “The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” But whenever I mention this topic on my national talk radio show, asking my listeners if they believe it is fair to equate the black Civil Rights movement with today’s gay rights movement, I am flooded with African American callers who take strong exception to this comparison.
Comparing Black Civil Rights to Gay Civil Rights - Michael Brown - Page 1

The biggest problem I see with the OP's comparison, however, is trying to hold the LGBT crowd to the same standards as Dr King.
Martin Luther used Christian love through understanding and acceptance. Whereas, by their own title, "LGBT" can't call for the same since it is the exact polar opposite of their lifestyle

Exactly what about the gay movement would Dr King have objected to?

 

[Bfgrn]

Obviously the gays are ...since they latched on to the black civil rights movement to make it seem like their plight is worse than it is.

Here are some awesome words of wisdom...unfortunately, I highly doubt you are capable of absorbing them...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own"
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Skylar]

Isn't that enough? How many rights and constitutional protections must be stripped before you would warrant it worthy of note or action?

There are a lot of Christian business owners asking the same question.

Christian business owners do have the right to marry. And they do enjoy equal protection under the law.

What they don't enjoy is a special exemption from the law, while everyone else is subject to it.

 

[hortysir]

You claiming the gay community has suffered the same hardships as the blacks fighting for civil rights?

You claiming that the level of hardships is what "earns" civil rights for a group of citizens? That if one has not "suffered as much" as blacks did during their civil rights struggle, it doesn't count?

Obviously the gays are ...since they latched on to the black civil rights movement to make it seem like their plight is worse than it is.

Nonsense.

Gay Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as everyone else, separate and apart from any other class of persons – the right to due process and the right to equal protection of the law, where seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

What constitutional protections do they not have?

A woman does not have the right to marry a woman. Men have that right. That is gender discrimination.

Work on that one awhile until it's fully digested and then I'll feed you another one.

But anyone has the "right" to redefine a word

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

“please quote the parts of the 14th where the words "gay marriage" are used.”

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, quoted below:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Homosexuals clearly meet the definition of 'any person.' Measures therefore enacted with the intent of prohibiting same-couples from marrying indeed deny gay Americans their liberty without due process of law, thus denying them equal protection of (equal access to) the laws, in this case marriage law.

Moreover, this is settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, being appropriately and consistently applied by the courts in good faith following established precedent; there's nothing 'activist' nor 'capricious' about these rulings.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history

We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me

Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status

It is a civil rights issue

tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.

We have representative government in this country.

Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.

A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

A majority of the states already ratified the 14th Amendment so there is no need for another amendment.

please quote the parts of the 14th where the words "gay marriage" are used.

Since last year, the progress toward marriage equality has been nothing less than stunning. Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court granted full federal recognition of married same-sex couples in declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In rapid succession since then, federal judges in 13 states have overturned their state’s respective bans on same sex unions. The latest was last week in Pennsylvania, when Judge John E. Jones III, a G. W. Bush appointee, overturned the ban, writing, “We are a better people than what these laws represent.” Because Republican Gov. Tom Corbett has declined to appeal the judge’s decision, Pennsylvania is now the 19th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Federal judges have ruled against the bans as diverse as Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Gay marriage isn’t just for blue states anymore.

One of the most eloquent statements against the bans was issued earlier this month by Arkansas federal judge Chris Piazza, who argued that state’s ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license,” he said. “Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the U.S. Constitution.”

Read more: Gay Marriage Will Destroy the GOP - David Lampo - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Skylar]

“Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license,” he said. “Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the U.S. Constitution.”

Yup. I've been making the same argument for years. If procreation if a requisite for marriage then it applies to all those seeking a marriage license. But it doesn't. This standard applies to no one.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

 

[bodecea]

I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

Sure as hell fooled me.

So...how is it you were so fooled?

 

[bodecea]

The cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate, the flagship gay publication, proclaimed boldly that, “Gay is the New Black,” stating that this is “The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” But whenever I mention this topic on my national talk radio show, asking my listeners if they believe it is fair to equate the black Civil Rights movement with today’s gay rights movement, I am flooded with African American callers who take strong exception to this comparison.
Comparing Black Civil Rights to Gay Civil Rights - Michael Brown - Page 1

The biggest problem I see with the OP's comparison, however, is trying to hold the LGBT crowd to the same standards as Dr King.
Martin Luther used Christian love through understanding and acceptance. Whereas, by their own title, "LGBT" can't call for the same since it is the exact polar opposite of their lifestyle

African Americans got angry at comparisons between the Women's Rights movement and their civil rights movement also. I think it's human nature to believe that your struggle is somehow unique.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

Sure as hell fooled me.

That's because you're easily fooled.

You make the mistake of believing only 'democrats' and 'liberals' defend the rights of gay Americans, when in fact moderates and independents defend the rights of gay Americans as well, including some republicans.

 

[Skylar]

I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

Sure as hell fooled me.

So...how is it you were so fooled?

Templar tends to attribute to people vast and elaborate sets of arguments based on his own assumptions. It doesn't really matter if they've ever made the argument, he'll still splatter it upon them.

Its his schtick.

 

[Skylar]

I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

Sure as hell fooled me.

That's because you're easily fooled.

You make the mistake of believing only 'democrats' and 'liberals' defend the rights of gay Americans, when in fact moderates and independents defend the rights of gay Americans as well, including some republicans.

About a third of republicans, actually. Liberals are in the mid to high 70s, independents in the mid 60s.

As for age groups, you have to go all the way to senior citizens before find an age range that doesn't offer majority support for same sex marriage.

 

[hazlnut]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

You've just disproved your point.

All Gays want is Christian tolerance and love.

Gays and real Christians want the faux hateful "Christians" to stop misusing scripture to justify your own fears and insecurities, like the bigots did in the 1950's and 1960's.

Leviticus for example is a book of archaic laws and traditions practiced by the Levite tribe. It gives us a window into an ancient society. Genesis is the earliest form of Hebrew oral and written traditions, fairy tales, fables, mythology. Not meant to be taken literally. Stop pulling verses out of that context and using them under the guise of "Christianity."

There are so many, many stories about the sons of Gods (demigods) sent down from heaven to help man - The story of Jesus just came along at the right time and place, when Rome was transitioning from polytheistic society to a monotheistic one. They co-opted the Winter and Spring celebrations (Christmas and Easter) and created a religion based on letters written by the followers of man of peace - who preached love and tolerance -- nothing else.


What is religion? = Ritualistic practices and traditions based on a specific mythology.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Members of the Gay Community should ask CAIR about standing with them on same sex.

 

[hazlnut]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

 

[LeftofLeft]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

 

[rightwinger]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

 

[LeftofLeft]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.