Jesse Jackson: Gay Marriage Rights Are Not Civil Rights

[tedzbear]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=3&u=/po/20040218/co_po/jessejacksongaymarriagerightsarenotcivilrights


The heading for this article is misleading because he didn't say that. He said that the fight blacks faced for civil rights shouldn't be compared to the fight gays/lesbians are facing in wanting to marry.

But then he muddies the waters again, saying he doesn't believe in same sex couple marriages, but will support "some rights" for same sex couples.

Hmmmmmmmmmm... Sounds to me Jesse has put his foot in his mouth and will be issuing a clarification shortly. I hope most blacks don't feel that us queers should be riding at the back of the bus while they sit in the front with the hetero whites. After all, plenty of gays/lesbians fought for black civil rights since the fifties, knowing that in the end all of us deserve fair and equal treatment before the law. I hope Jesse doesn't really feel that queers are a minority beneath blacks. I hope I am just being paranoid.

:eyes:


(Update for spelling)

[Chicago Democrat]

1. I have found alot of anti-gay prejudice in

otherwise liberal minded African Americans. Its cultural. I don't know why really.

Of course that is just a stereotype, and there are exceptions everywhere.

[Kinkistyle]

7. maybe because he is a Reverend?

I mean its a wild guess, but thats my take on it. No matter how liberal Jackson is, he still represents the Church.

[tobius]

23. how about Sharpton? nt

[kysrsoze]

58. Sharpton's cool w/ gay marriage. Jesse Jackson is an @ss.

I've always hated Jackson, who does nothing more than try to stir up trouble and ride the coattails of MLK. I have MUCH more respect for Sharpton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. He's a politician, not a minister

[Laughing Mirror]

124. He's a civil rights activist and a reverend

in the Baptist church. A reverend is a minister in the Baptist church.

[Freddie Stubbs]

125. Reverend my a**

That may be what he used to do, but that is not his current profession.

[truthspeaker]

50. many reverends have no problem with gay marriage

[TexasProgressive]

2. Gay Marraige Rights ARE Civil Rights.

What a disappoinment. Wake up, Jesse.

Moseley Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich all are on record as supporting full marriage rights for same sex couples.

[Fleshdancer]

3. Jesse Jackson is flat out wrong

equal rights is equal rights is equal rights. Whether it be for African-Americans, women, workers, or homosexuals. How could this be so difficult to comprehend???

As far as Jesse Jackson goes...well I would have to disagree because I see numerous parallels between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement.

Both involve a minority group who historically have been either flat out ignored or treated like a second class citizen if not subhuman.

One is judged by skin which cannot be changed, the other by sexual orientation which cannot be changed.

In both cases, the bible has been abused for the sole purpose of maintaining bigoted beliefs against them.

Both movements fight for nothing more than rights granted to the majority already. Nothing more, nothing less.

Both groups include people who have been harassed, beaten, and killed for no other reason than how they were born.

[bushisanidiot]

45. Excellent Post! Spot on!

:)

[TexasProgressive]

4. Right on, Gloria

Jesse will come around.

My workplace is 50% Black and Hispanic. They are so supportive of me.

This is a civil rights issue, period.

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. And I am sure he would be cryin'...

...foul, if someone in todays society tried to make law stating that black people ae not allowed to marry in the United States anymore.

I am getting tired of the oh my minority group is more discriminated against thank your minority group games. It is just bullshit. Discrimination is discrimination and it comes in many forms.

[OneBlueSky]

6. well, Jesse Jackson can kiss my . . .

oh, never mind . . . arguing with ignorance is a waste of time . . . and I used to like Jesse . . .

[Maat]

8. His attitude is very disappointing to me.

I fought for everyone's civil rights. I agree.

[Damn Ann the Man]

9. Ugh...

I thought he was a man of integrity.

[belle]

70. Not me. I've never liked him; not for a long time, anyway

Certainly since "Hymietown."

I think he's slimy and hypocritical and creepy and bloated and wall-eyed and I *don't* like him and I wish to god we'd find new leaders. he is a sad pale distant shadow of MLK (not to mention Bayard Rustin, the brilliant and courageous gay African-American who had quite a bit of influence on MLK).

[fortyfeetunder]

10. If I were Jesse...judge not.

Hope he's not in line to get polygyny, to justify that love child he had with that other woman...he should just STFU.

[okieinpain]

11. yeah, and plenty of gays-lesbians were throwing rocks saying

darkie go home too.

[tedzbear]

12. That is also true, but...

I don't recall any gay/lesbians in Mr. Jackson's political position saying that they would only support "some rights" for blacks and that the struggle for queer civil rights is more important than the struggle for blacks.

[the_red_pill]

13. correct me if I'm wrong

but I think the DU'er that said JJ's opinion was probably influenced by his relation with the church was right on. I mean marriage is something of religious origin, performed by a priest usually or at least someone that has been granted powers by the church. I'm all for equal opportunity marriages, however I can see why church's would want to keep the term marriage for themselves. What is wrong with civil unions? All the same privilages/rights will be in place it just won't be called a "marriage" but shoot, marriages are overrated, with a 50% or so failure rate. I think it would be something if the gay/lesbian community made up their own name for it, then if years later you look at the success rate and it may or may not be higher? Just an example to back this up...not anyone can have to opportunity to be married in a Catholic church...you must be catholic, meet certain standards etc...

[kayell]

17. There are religions and churches willing to marry gays

Why should they not be allowed to use the term marriage? If the Catholic church, or the Baptist church does not want to marry someone, the government is not going to be able to force them to - as per the First Amendment.

But if the MCC, many Quaker meetings, Unitarian Universalists, many Episcopal churches, many Reform Jewish synagogues and so on are happy to marry gays, why should they not be able to use the same legal term?

I will only be satisfied with the term "civil union" if that is also the only civil option open to heteros and the term marriage is ONLY for religious ceremonies. So long as "marriage" is recognized by govt. it MUST be available for all.

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. I am going to say this just once...

...so listen very carefully!

The LGBT community is NOT after any form of religious marriage, apart from those performed in churches that support our community.

The whole issue of gay marriage is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, NOT RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE! Understand?

There is a big difference between the two.

So try and tell me that the marriages being performed at city hall in San Francisco are religious ones.

And please, if you aren't queer, don't think you know what is best for us, because you wouldn't have the first idea.

[the_red_pill]

31. calm down

I think what Mayor Newsom is doing is great. I wasn't trying to say that marriage should only be allowed for heterosexuals, I was simply trying to understand where JJ was comming from and acknowledge that the arguement is made difficult because of religion. You say what you want is a Civil Marriage and not a Religious one, or if the church is willing to do a religious one then that is good too. I'm confused, what is the difference between a Civil Marriage and a Religious one? I think your attitude:

"if you aren't queer, don't think you know what is best for us,"

is poor. I'm for homosexual's rights to marriage but I wish I could better understand their arguement so that when confronted with a person who is against it I could better defend my position. As much as you might not like it, your community, just like other communites that have struggled for equal rights, is going to have to win support and become a majority. So don't hate, educate.

[kayell]

41. I'll make this simple

The issue is about EQUALITY. Equal rights, not equivalent rights, not "separate but equal". If the term for a civil legal union of heterosexual couples is marriage, the term for a civil legal union of gay or lesbian couples must be MARRIAGE.

The US govt. can not require a church to perform a marriage that would be against their religious principles because of the first amendment. But if the govt. uses the term marriage for a recognized legal partnering, then they must allow the same term for ALL citizens legal unions or they are violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Equality, Equality, Equality - keep saying that, you'll get it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

42. Don't tell me to calm...

...down when I am not angry. Believe me, you will know if I get angry.

I'm confused, what is the difference between a Civil Marriage and a Religious one?

A religious marriage is performed by a priest. A civil marriage (which is exactly what is happening in San Francisco currently, and will be happening in Mass. come May), is performed by a JP, or a civil worker (i.e: Judge, etc).

People get married all the time at city hall. Weddings are not just held in churches. And quite frankly I resent religions pushing their beliefs on me. I am not a religious person, far from it. And I am a strong believer in separation of church and state. Obviously that is something that is lacking with in the current administration.

As for your little swipe about my attitude, Are YOU queer? I reckon the answer to this is going to be NO. So please don't insult me by telling me that my attitude is poor. You have no idea of what it is like to be a queer person. You have no idea of what it is like to have to try and defend the way you were born to some religious wacko, right wing idiot, or a person who claims to be liberal but shows so much bigotry and hatred that it would make a right wing wacko blush.

And don't tell me to educate unless you have read every single post I have ever made to DU. You have no idea of what I have said here, or in real life for that matter.

[the_red_pill]

102. ....

Sorry, you are right. I am not gay, so I have no idea. I obviously struck a wrong chord with you and I appologize.

[leQ]

37. *STAND UP OVATION*

n/t

[CivilRightsNow]

143. Civil Unions should remain the term

We should look at the history of the word 'marriage' to understand its origin and full meaning. The word 'marriage' comes from the French marier, which comes from the Latin maritare. The Latin verb maritare means "to wed, marry, or give in marriage." But it also means "to impregnate," and in the passive voice "to be impregnated." The Romans, for example, would speak of wives being impregnated (maritantur) by their husbands. It is no surprise that the word 'marriage', at its very origin, is strongly associated with procreation. I would like to note that two men cannot procreate. Just as two woman cannot procreate.

Marriage has always been a commitment between a man and woman. The Jews and Christians historically have allowed only marriages between a man and woman, and this custom was practiced by pagan cultures as well. Even in Classical Greece and Rome, where homosexual acts were often tolerated, marriage was still considered a heterosexual institution, and encouraged too. The Roman Emperor Augustus legislated that all the young men and women of the upper class should become married and have children. The wisdom of promoting heterosexual marriage has been continued throughout the ages.

To pidgeon hole this into saying it is due to just christianity is absolutely false. Many people- christian and nonchristian- have kept a norm for thousands of years that the term marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Pick another name. I frankly dont give a damn, but this is not a liberal civil rights issue. I firmly believe that the majority of Americans, if they were given a chance on, lets say, a national ballot initiative, would not vote for this. "Civil Union" would plenty suffice even for most liberal straight men and women that I know. As a democrat, I will not vote for a candidate that supports throwing away thousands of years of meaning for a fraction of the populace.

[thebaghwan]

14. Didn't MLK's son say the same thing a couple of years ago?

n/t

[veganwitch]

36. MLK's family, particularly his wife...

have been very outspoken FOR gay rights.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html

Coretta Scott King: Homophobia Same as Racism

Of course, there's a reason the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force links the issues of African-American civil rights and gay civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to. In a remarkable address before the Task Force's annual meeting, Mrs. King gave a forceful statement on the importance of gay rights to the overall civil rights struggle (read Mrs. King's entire speech here.)

And this was not the first time Mrs. King made it clear that groups like the Concerned Women for America have no idea what they're talking about when they try to speak on behalf of African-Americans by criticizing the struggle for gay equality. Excerpts of Mrs. King's numerous public statements in favor of gay civil rights are posted below. Please feel free to cite any of the following quotations the next time a far-right extremist dares to speak on behalf of Martin Luther King and America's African-American community:

[Sterling]

146. Slavery was the norm for a long time too.

So was the idea the world was flat. We evolve.

[Laughing Mirror]

15. The civil rights movement made the gay movement possible

And some, not all, reverends do place gay marriage rights within the civil rights movement.

[Archae]

16. Jackson doesn't mind knoking gay marriage.

And like so many of the "conservatives" who go so apeshit over this, cheated on his wife. Many times.

Damn hypocrite.

[xchrom]

18. this just goes to show

that even straight liberals have a hard time with equality issues for gay and lesbian folk.
gblt folk must always sleep with one eye open -- other wise it might be our ''friends'' who use a ''baseball bat'' on us.

[tobius]

19. Some of the attacks on this thread sound

like what was called {before this particular issue} right wing hate speech,mean spirited sliming, and unseemly personal mudslinging. I guess it depends on who's ox is being gored.

[xchrom]

20. like i said

we{gblt folk} have to sleep with one eye open.
imagine how it feels to have your allies stab you in the back -- that's what jesse did -- and you critisize us?

[The Blue Knight]

21. I've always thought Jesse was a fool.

But I love Sharpton!

[tobius]

25. oh, how dare I! That mean,hypocritical,opportunistic Jackson- how can

anyone listen to what he has to say. With his corporate blackmail,lovechild havin,representin the church, ignorant, part of the African American cultural prejudice,ignorant self, he needs to STFU! </sarcasm>

I added the corporate stuff but the rest came from posters right here.

My point was, where was this criticism before? What is being said now has not been said by the left in general, and has been true for a long time. That's because what he has said in the past was agreed with.

when I see hypocrisy I like to point it out, not just when it is convienient. I am also a supporter of gay marriage and have stated repeatedly here at DU that it is sleazy the way the frontrunners for nomination are weasling the issue.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

28. You know, I never realised there was a "Black Rights" movement...

I always thought it was a "Civil Rights" movement. A Movement that was fighting for all people to be treated equally under the law, and in society in general.

How naive I was!

It's not Jesse Jackson being HYPOCRITICAL! Oh no!

It's those people who also thought that Civil Rights meant EVERYONE - Gay, Straignt, Black, White - EVERYONE.

[tobius]

29. it was always first about Jesse. nt

[loudnclear]

24. Listen, we need to stop bashing people who feel "gay marriage" in not

right. They have a right to their opinions. Gay marriage is a civil issue but may not be a "civil right." The legislature and courts will have to resolve this issue and it will be just like the civil rights issue concerning race when the dust settles. There will be some for and against it. And only the people involved will have to really deal with it. Blacks can't change their color so their plight is far more difficult. Gays, (many of whom were and still are a part of the group that chooses to discriminate against blacks) hold many positions of power throughout this society and can easily avoid issues of discrimination if they choose. Blacks and other minorities have no such choice.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. And racists have a right to their opinion and shouldn't be "bashed"?

Gay marriage is a civil issue but may not be a "civil right."

Do you have any idea what the words "equality" and "discrimination" mean? If "marriage" is a "right" for heterosexual people, then it is ALSO a right for homosexual people. That is what "equality" means. Saying "gay marriage" may not be a right, is "discrimination". You are descriminating against homosexuals purely based on sexual orientation.

Blacks can't change their color so their plight is far more difficult.

So are you saying homosexuals can change the sexual orientation? Please cite any evidence you may have (excluding the evidence provided by right-wing religious "ex-gay" liars).

Gays, (many of whom were and still are a part of the group that chooses to discriminate against blacks) hold many positions of power throughout this society and can easily avoid issues of discrimination if they choose. Blacks and other minorities have no such choice.

Hmm, some Blacks and other minoritites also hold positions of power in the US, how come THEY can't avoid discrimination? Or are you just talking crap? In fact YOU are discriminating against homosexuals. How can they avoid that?

Here is the issue - homosexuals want the same rights as heterosexuals (called equality) with regards to marriage. Yet you are attacking THEM for demanding EQUAL RIGHTS? How are homosexuals supposed to avoid the descrimination against them in regards to marriage? You seem to think they can, so what is the answer? Seperate but equal? Apartheid? Heterosexuals can be married, but homosexuals can only be civil unioned?

Do you think that is really equality? Or do you only believe in "equality" that suits you?

[the_red_pill]

33. Blacks can't change their color so their plight is far more difficult

I think what he was saying is that it is easier for gays to blend in with the rest of the community...but this is not really the case since homosexuals can be of all colors.

[BearFlagDemocrat]

44. Straight-acting

So gays have to be "straight acting" or else we should expect to be discriminated against? I guess we shouldn't get "too uppity" and expect to be able to openly share our lives with someone we love.

[mondo joe]

68. How astonishing

How astonishing that being ble to hide who you are is a good thing.

Maybe blacks who can "pass" for white don't need civil rights either.

Or the Jews - they can blnd right in too.

[Stuckinthebush]

32. No one has a right to exclude law-abiding citizens

from rights enjoyed by others in the country.

While homosexuality is not as evident as being a racial minority, it is still discriminated against in our society. Try being an openly gay teacher, for example. I have very good friends who are in the education profession, and can not acknowledge their relationship with one another due to the fact that they will lose their jobs. Not much power there.

Try being openly gay in the military, the clergy, any position that deals with children, the list is very long....

There are many African American leaders that support the issue of gay marriage, because they see it as continuing the struggle for civil rights for all Americans. Jesse Jackson is wrong on this.

[Crachet2004]

34. It will be decided in the courts...

To many people, marriage is a "sacred union" in the eyes of God...a state of "holy matrimony"...definitely a religious issue, to them.

If the issue could be stripped of it's religious overtones and addressed as a civil issue, ie civil unions, much of the emotive power it has for religious people-not just those on the right-would be defused.

"Gay marriage" therefore is a loaded term and hinders, rather than facilitates any rational resolution of this issue. "Civil unions, with equal protections under the Law", on the other hand, is a concept, couched in language, that most Americans can probably accept.

In short, never fight on turf chosen by adversaries. Give our leadership, which includes the Rev. Jackson, a little breathing room-enough room to do the right thing...and they will.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

78. What ever happened to the seperation of Church and State?

If the issue could be stripped of it's religious overtones and addressed as a civil issue, ie civil unions, much of the emotive power it has for religious people-not just those on the right-would be defused.

If "marriage" is a religious institution then it should not be endorsed by the State, should it?

No, "marriage" is a CONTRACT. It always was, and it always will be. THAT is why it is governened by the State, because the State governs CONTRACTS between people, enforcing the terms as laid out (vows) and redressing grievances (divorce and alimony).

If the word "marriage" is a religious word, and must not be used by gays, then it must not be used by the State. And therefore NO-ONE will ever be legally "married", ALL people will be "civil unioned".

[Crachet2004]

139. In God we trust...one nation, under God,

what God has joined together, let no man put apart, and on and on. In short, there has never been a complete seperation of church and state. The institution of marriage predates the Constitution by some thousands of years and no doubt will outlast it by thousands more.

But I understand what you are saying...and my response is, why get bogged down in semantics? Why not take a legal victory-I think the concept of civil unions for GLBT would fall under the equal protection clause-and move on to something else?

You see, marriage is a civil contract as you indicate, but it was a religious rite long before now. And you are correct, that therein lies the rub. The religious right wants the debate couched not in terms of civil liberties, but in terms of morality based on the Bible. They do not want to debate this issue in the US Supreme Court, they want to argue it in the court of public opinion with the Almighty as part of their legal team! Why give them what they want? Why give them the satisfaction?

Why not get in harness with everyone else in this very diverse Democrat Party, take back the presidency and both houses of congress-and pack the courts with judges more to our liking? Why won't that work? Why not keep religion out of it?

[mondo joe]

141. Why not take Civil Unions?

"why get bogged down in semantics? Why not take a legal victory-I think the concept of civil unions for GLBT would fall under the equal protection clause-and move on to something else?"

I'm sorry but what the hell legal victory are you talking about?

Is the United States now offering civil unions to same sex couples and no one told me yet?

[leQ]

38. excuse me? are you saying being gay is a choice?

please tell us you're not that naive.

on edit: headline typo

[Stuckinthebush]

39. I don't know if the above poster is saying that, but...

that does seem to be the general consensus of avid anti-gay activists. They hold on to this notion that one choses to be attracted to the same sex even after this is a highly discredited position. If they can make it seem like a lifestyle choice, then it is easy to discriminate against. Hell, we do it with smokers, why not gay people, right?

This concept that homosexuality is a choice is a last ditch effort by the brain to justify bigotry.

[leesa]

27. I suspect he thinks it is a choice rather than the reality of your

existance. It would be like saying he chose to be black, but he hasn't come to that realization yet. His clarity is probably mucked up by religion.

[tobius]

30. how did Sharpton wriggle free? nt

[Laughing Mirror]

46. "Wriggle free"? Sharpton is for gay marriage.

It is a basic civil rights issue for Sharpton, and those of us who support him.

Read my signature line.

[tobius]

57. please read the context for my question, people sure get emotional here.

It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.
Aristotle

[Laughing Mirror]

85. It is not the context that stumped me, but the meaning of

"wriggle free" in relation to Sharpton

[tobius]

99. ok- if you look at my post, it is a response to post #27. In post #27

there is a statement referring to J Jacksons stance- "His clarity is probably mucked up by religion." Jackson is a reverend and Sharpton was ordained as a minister at the age of nine.
Therefore it follows that if Jesse's religious background caused him to be constrained by "muck", that Sharpton may face the same challenge.
I'm currently involved in some other projects right now, but if further explanation is needed, by all means just post your question and I will be happy to make time for you.

[Laughing Mirror]

104. Gotcha. Thanks for explication, and it is a good question.

All things relative, I was thinking it was a question maybe of generation between Sharpton and Jackson. Sharpton and I are the same age and come out of the same movement, so I see his view of civil rights identical to mine, which is why I support him. But then, Coretta Scott King's view is identical to Sharpton's, so that blows my generational rationalization. So this puts the question back on Jackson. What was Jackson trying to wriggle out of by saying what he has said?

[Barkley]

65. When Black couldn't marry legally, they jumped over the broom

Marriage as an act of civil disobedience:

Slaves were prohibited from legal marriage, but most did enter into formal unions solemnized either in church weddings before black or white preachers or through simple ceremonies such as jumping over a broomstick. Today "Broom Jumping" is a ritual, handed down from generation to generation to remind us of a time when our vows were not legally sanctioned.
http://www.african-weddings.com/jumping_the_broom

[libview]

35. Kerry is against gay marrage also.

[tobius]

79. That is true, and I wonder why the smearing is only directed at Jackson?

Jesse disagrees with some on this issue and all of a sudden the mud slinging begins.

[mondo joe]

88. Maybe because better is expected of him

Maybe people expect better of Jackson.

And maybe bcause Jackson has made a career out of asking people to support minority causes.

[Tomee450]

138. I agree.

The mudslinging is simply awful. Jesse Jackson is a very tolerant individual and I have no doubt that he is mostly supportive of gay rights. However, he remains a minister, warts and all. Jesse Jackson is simply expressing his view and that of most black ministers regarding this issue. As an African American and a Baptist, I believe you will find very few black ministers who will support the idea of gay marriage. They would support laws banning discrimination against gays in most areas, but not when it comes to gay marriage. They believe that their religion does not support marriage between people of the same sex.

[Plaid Adder]

40. Here's what's unfortunate about stuff like this...

It perpetuates the perception that all GBLT people in America are white. Believe it or not, there are plenty of African-American GBLT folks in America and they are part of Jesse's constituency too.

There has always been some friction between the gay rights movement and the African-American rights movement, partly due to the role of religion. I remember going with my partner to a rally to support building an African-American cultural center on campus. We were part of a sizeable but small white minority there, and we put up with a certain amount of white-bashing from African-American speakers because, hey, it was North Carolina under Jesse Helms, and they had a right to be pissed off. Then there was a speaker from the Nation of Islam, who for no real reason dropped a "faggot" reference into one of his little rhetorical excursions, and that was when we walked out. As I said later on, I will put up with white-bashing because white privilege is real and it is something that benefits me and hurts other people. My being gay has never hurt anyone else and it is certainly not something that allows me to lord it over other people, and so I am not going to put up with that kind of shit.

Later, when someone from the student African-American group came to try to get the student gay-rights organization to endorse the effort to build the African-American cultural center, someone brought this incident up, and it was agreed that if we publicly endorsed the project there would be some kind of apology for that speaker's fag-bashing. They got their endorsement, we never got our apology.

This is a small incident in a much larger picture but my point is that although it is certainly true that there are problems with racism in the GBLT community--there is a LOT of racial self-segregation, and in North Carolina at any rate there were some gay hangouts that were known to be unfriendly to African-Americans--this cooperation thing is a two-way street, and there are difficulties on both sides in terms of making it happen.

The people who really suffer from this friction, of course, are the people who belong to both communities, and for their sake I hope Jesse gets a little education about this from someone in his camp before he gives any more interviews.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Rich Hunt]

53. another wonderful piece

...by Plaid Adder.

Thanks again, Plaid! Always a pleasure to read you.

:toast:

[schultzee]

43. I don't understand why Jackson should not see the right to

a civil union so two loving people can have a life together as not being a civil right.

[HiRez]

47. As A Black Male

I am utterly disgusted with the gay rights movement trying to leverage their movement with what blacks have faced here in America...

Because like it or not...

Homosexuality has not yet been identified as a biologically pre-determined condition in any conclusive rigorously done scientific study...

Now as far as civil unions...to me this is a totally seperate issue...if the government chooses to allow civil unions for whatever reason, homosexual, or simple friendships, then that is up to them...

But please, stop trying to leverage the death of so many black men and women in this country for your own purposes...

Keep your movement to yourself...

[foreigncorrespondent]

48. Excuse me...

...but how about you take a stand for HUMAN issues? Because that is most certainly what gay rights are.

I have never in my life discriminated against a black person. I was disgusted when I was in Louisiana and witnessed first hand a 2 year old walking up to a black person and using the "N" word.

And do not preach to us that we using black deaths to gain marriage rights. That, my friend is simply absurd. Have you not heard of fag bashing? Have you not heard of Matthew Shepherd? And there are a lot of other names I could list, but at 3:36am for me, I am not about to.

This isn't a game about which minority has been discriminated against the most, or the worst, this is all about humananity.

[HiRez]

52. I believe in Human Rights...

And I also believe homosexuality is a choice...

And therefore I don't believe that me and you are fighting for the same thing...

Now if you want to argue that, cool, I can do it all day...but now you know how I as a black man feel...

Now...

Should a homosexual be beat up for being gay...no...
Should a homosexual not be able to earn a living in our society...no...
Should a homosexual be allowed to have a "civil" union if the government or the general populace believes this is in there best interest...yes...

But don't ever compare what occured through slavery, sharecropping and Jim Crow, to the choice you make as to whom you want to love and have a relationship with...don't do it...

Because the more you try, the more of us are being alienated behind the scenes...

I don't have a beef if you want to push your movement to the forefront of the public debate...but don't attach what my people have struggled and died for to it...it's not appropriate...

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

56. "homosexuality is a choice"???

I've always been somewhat astonished whenever I hear someone say this. I don't ever recall making a 'choice' to be straight. Perhaps my experience is rare but I never looked at John and Jane and had any feelings of ambivalence. The funny thing is that the straight and gay friends whom I've asked have said the same thing.

Since experience is the best teacher, I really gotta wonder about the experiences of people who say this. When I've had the occasional opportunity to ask, my question was met with resentment -- as though it was some kind of affront. I don't know why -- since it seems entirely reasonable to ask folks just who is it that has acknowledged making such a choice. I sure didn't. I guess I missed something. :eyes:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laughing Mirror]

84. Remember the days not so long ago?

When Americans in many states couldn't marry outside their race?

If it is legitimate to deny gays a marriage license because gay is a choice, then is it also legitimate to deny a white choosing to marry a black? That's a choice too. How can you say once choice is all right, the other one is not? I have read through your posts and you seem to be hung up on choice.

Whether you are willing to accept this uncontroversial fact or not, the gay rights movement sprung out of the black civil rights movement. The civil rights movement, I remember it, I was there, was for the benefit of society as a whole, not just blacks. Have you never listened to Martin Luther King speak about all God's children?

[HiRez]

92. Screw Martin Luther King

White people always pull him out when they want to justify a position they hold to a black man...go back an re-read Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and the like...

Now...your logic is extremely flawed...

To discriminate against someone with a deeper shade of melanin is significantly different than discriminating against someone because of a choice they can make...

White Male + Black Female, why would you discriminate against that other than a predisposition towards one race (melanin factor) or another...

The choice of a man to be with a man or a woman to be with a woman is not a biological factor...

So you are comparing apples to oranges...

[Laughing Mirror]

100. I'm not white

and Martin Luther King was the essence of the civil rights movement.

The choice we're talking about is the choice of the person you want to marry. That ain't apples and oranges. That's wrong versus right.

[mondo joe]

101. Melanin Factor? Hmmmmmmmm

That's interesting.

How about if white people decide they don't want people with more melanin to keep out of their neighborhoods - not because of their melanin, but because of their cultural lifestyle choices?

You know - the higher crime rate, teen pregnancy, drug use and so on.

Is it okay to discriminate because of culture?

[Rich Hunt]

105. what the hell?

but because of their cultural lifestyle choices?

You know - the higher crime rate, teen pregnancy, drug use and so on.

Please tell me you don't really believe this racist crap.

[mondo joe]

106. It's just a question

Rez says it's fine to discriminiate against people based on their choices.

I'm trying to clarify.

[Rich Hunt]

107. you didn't answer MY question

Do you really think the things you listed are 'choices' made by one culture alone?

[mondo joe]

111. Sorry - No, I don't.....

"Do you really think the things you listed are 'choices' made by one culture alone?"

No, I don't.

But I think it's unarguablle that in certain subcultures there are higher incidents of certain behaviors. And I CERTAINLY don't think those behaviors are inherent.

So we'er just talking culture and choices people make.

So I'd like to know if Rez thinks it's acceptable to discriminate against groups based on cultural choices.

[Rich Hunt]

112. well, the stats don't bear it out

...and poverty is not a 'choice', anyway.

[mondo joe]

113. Which stats?

I don't mean to be contentious - but which stats don't bear it out?

As to choices, it's certainly not a choice to have a homosexual orientation.

I don't think it's a choice to be born into poverty, but I do think a lot of choices can affect whether you stay there or not.

[Occulus]

137. I'm gay, I'm 28, I'm male,

and I have never, not once, been physically attracted to or sexually aroused by any member of the opposite sex, nor have I ever had any sexual relations to the same. However, I was immediately attracted in such a way to my male classmates beginning when I hit puberty.

Explain to me, again, how it was I made a choice, and continue to make that choice. I'm just curious how you can possibly attempt to refute that which unequivocally proves you wrong on any and all counts without resorting to sheer denial of the truth.

Homosexuality is no more a choice for me than the color of my skin or the size of my hands. And by the way: I get disgusted with african Americans specifically who decide to use Dr. King's statements of equality to oppressed groups of all kinds against one particular group which, though it will always exist, they find distasteful. It's the absolute height of hypocrisy, and it goes against what Dr. King stood for.

Bein' gay ain't a choice, bub. Live with it.

[Sterling]

148. Even if it were your "choice"

That choice is yours to make. Don't fall into the trap of gay is only okay because you can't help it. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay. Take it from this striaght redneck.

FREE THE GAY!!!!!!!!

[Occulus]

152. That wasn't what I was trying to imply

I was merely stating that I'm one example of how it's inconceivable for homosexuality to be a choice in the first place. And yes, that's the lynchpin upon which all conservative arguments against gays in general rests.

If it's ever proven or accepted that homosexuality is definitely not a choice, all Biblical arguments against it fall apart. They just can't have that at all. Hence, they accept unequivocally that it is a choice, despite people like myself whose sexual histories prove them wrong.

[TahitiNut]

150. It's very interesting that you assume I'm gay.

Even though I clearly said I'm straight (hopelessly so), you say "being gay you are obligated to defend your position because it is that position on which a large portion of your psych identity is formed."

Also interestingly, I don't read anything in your post where you recall making such a 'choice' or where you cite your acquaintances, friends or family recalling making such a 'choice.'

Fascinating ... in a somewhat entomological sense.

[tedzbear]

60. Gee, I thought when I marched in Mississippi for human rights...

...those rights included us queers too. I guess you're saying I should stfu and go sit in the back of the bus.

BTW, don't tell me how to act if you don't want me to tell you. And don't act like MLK's murder was unique. What about Harvey Milk? And what about all the other uppity queers who were, and will be, murdered for their "choice?" Whether bigotry is directed at the color of someone's skin, or at someone's sexual orientation, it's still discrimination.

Being queer myself, I think I have a bit more understanding of what it's like to be queer than you do. And let me tell you, it's no choice. Why would I pick being queer when it means I will be beat up for it, called evil by most churches, and discriminated against by my government? Also, I would NEVER tell a black person to keep their issues to themselves because skin color isn't a valid reason to seek equal rights. That's what you just told me.


Your attitude is exactly what * wants. He wants us to be divided by our self centered, petty issues so that we won't unite into a movement that could hurt him. As long as people like you are determined to be in a pissing contest with other minorities, you will defeat your own purpose.

:kick:

[mondo joe]

Sorry to infringe on your oppression monopoly

I don't know why you'd feel that oppressed groups are better off separate than together.

But if that's the situation you want to set up, just let me know. I can easily shift my support of affirmative action, scholarships for minorities and so on over to gay-only causes.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. Civil rights is not a zero sum game

One persecuted group's struggle does not diminish the struggle of another group.

Can Native Americans compare their struggles to those of black Americans? Can women? Can non-Christians? Can homosexuals?

Certainly the stories of oppression are vastly different in some cases, but oppression has many faces. Native Americans were subjected to genocide - that's pretty bad. Women were relegated to second class roles in society and deemed as property of their husbands - that ain't no picnic. Non-Christians are still persecuted in some places, but have a history of violence against them and alienation in communities - not very fun stuff. Homosexuals are routinely discriminated against in employment, and have been murdered and attacked for being gay - bad stuff there.

You see, oppression is bad in all of its forms, but no one would equate the lynching of a black man in the 60s to the oppression of a women unable to vote. That is like comparing apples and oranges. What can be compared is that disenfranchised groups have been subjected to injustices and are continuing to experience injustices. Any oneupmanship in terms of tales of oppression is not necessary in the struggle for universal civil rights.

The reality is that homosexuality is not a choice - no matter how much anyone wants to believe that. So, that being the case, one can not discriminate against another human in our society based on something that they can not change. Discrimination against gay and lesbian people is morally wrong and rooted in bigotry.

[HiRez]

69. This is where your argument fails..

"The reality is that homosexuality is not a choice - no matter how much anyone wants to believe that. So, that being the case, one can not discriminate against another human in our society based on something that they can not change."

That is where your argument fails...you accept this as "a priori" and is the foundational premise of the majority of arguments on this threat...I don't accept that presupposition and as such disagree with the majority of the conclusions you draw based on it...

You believe that BECAUSE YOU WANT TO...and because it feeds into your need to justify yours or anothers behavior...

For example, one of the studies used by the pro-homosexual groups to justify this perception is the study of identical twins...now check it, this cat said because identical twins have a higher rate of both being homosexual if one is (I think there was a 50% correlation), than non-identical twins (I think the correlation was 30%) that this is proof of the "gay gene"...wait a minute...if this was true, there would be a 100% correlation between two identical homosexual twins...

I know I know...

The next argument is that they are lying...hummm...so the numerous individuals who claim to have "come out" of the homosexual lifestyle are all lying...very weak argument...

In addition...how are you defining homosexuality...as a "State" or as an "Act"...and how many homosexual "Acts" equal a state? And what about the Bisexual? Are they the ones left out in all this?


Back to my original point for those who want to cast me away as a bigot...

1. I believe homosexuality is a choice
2. I believe that if the government or public believes it is in the best interest of society to legislate in favor of this choice, I am not opposed
3. In conjunction with 2, if the government chooses to legalize "Gay marriage" I am not opposed to that
3. Don't ever link your cause to mine

[mondo joe]

76. Incorrect.

I love to see how ignorant people are:

"For example, one of the studies used by the pro-homosexual groups to justify this perception is the study of identical twins...now check it, this cat said because identical twins have a higher rate of both being homosexual if one is (I think there was a 50% correlation), than non-identical twins (I think the correlation was 30%) that this is proof of the "gay gene"...wait a minute...if this was true, there would be a 100% correlation between two identical homosexual twins..."

No, becuse twins don't correlate 100% on almost any measure.

"In addition...how are you defining homosexuality...as a "State" or as an "Act"...and how many homosexual "Acts" equal a state? And what about the Bisexual? Are they the ones left out in all this?"

Zero acts are required to equal a state. Homosexuality is an orientation, not an accumulation of acts.

[HiRez]

108. LOL...

Uh Uh...buddy...

If it is a genetic trait with identical twins...then this trait would be passed down equally barring and external factor effecting one fetus as opposed to another...try again Joe...

By orientation you mean state...and therefore the only way to measure state is by response since you preclude act as an indicator...which means that when former "homosexuals" make the claim that they are no longer homosexual, you either:

A)Believe them - Which destroys the premise of genetics because genetic traits can not (unless your Michael Jackson :)) be changed (in general)
B)Disbelieve him - Say that he is lying, which calls into question the credibility of hundreds of individuals
or
C)Say he was never gay and just performed the act or said he was, which points back to B...

See I find it ironic how the first and only line of defense the homosexual movement uses against those who claim they left the gay lifestyle is to say that they lied...but then pull out all of these skewed studies to try to justify their position...

Why?

Because if they were to ever acknowledge that there was a choice to change it would severely limit there leverage politically and also their image...

[mondo joe]

110. Please learn some biology

Once again, inherent traits DO NOT have a 100% correlation between identical twins. In all cases, twins are affected by stimuli - even in the womb - and they diverge in subtle and not so subtle ways.

[Occulus]

142. Ever trolled the

'Married' room on the gay.com chat rooms? I thought not.

But there are guys that do. Furthermore, all of the gay men I know, including myself, have had sexual activity with a number of "straight" men. Wow, we really do corrupt, don't we?

The fact that it was I who was propositioned by the "straight" men apparently means nothing overall. An odd conclusion, that.

The one, single thing the choicists fear most is that human sexuality, in reality, is far more gender-neutral than anyone in the US at least is publicly willing to admit. I personally would be able to have sexual relations with one of the opposite sex. My equipment certainly works. That I don't, and with ample opportunity, only shows that is not what I am drawn to.

If you're going to debate choice, at least then acknowledge that you yourself are, at least potentially, as queer as, say, RuPaul. You can't not admit that is the case. When you're done doing that, then we can debate in minute detail the particulars of each of our respective sexually attractive traits towards our sexually compatible genders and try to find a common denominator between the two.

Perhaps then you will see how both gay and straight men seek many of the same general traits in their sexual partners' genders.

Look- being gay isn't a choice at all, in the same way that being straight isn't a choice at all. There are some people who are, quite legitimately, equally sexually attracted to both genders. Want a tough choice? There's one for you.

And before you say since I've admittedly never had sex with a woman I'm unqualified to debate the issue of choice, let me ask you: ever had sex with the same gender?

Then how do you know you aren't really gay? And if you do know you aren't for certain, why are you still saying being gay is a choice if it isn't for you?

[Stuckinthebush]

82. I'll link all causes related to civil rights together

One person's discomfort with homosexuality does not mean that I or others can not logically link the causes.

The best evidence for homosexuality being something that one can not control is in self-report from gay and lesbian respondents. I'm sure you have talked to many gay and lesbian people about this, but I'll give you a report of mine and other's experiences surrounding these conversations with self-described gay men and women. In summary, they all can only remember ever being attracted to the same sex. Likewise, I can remember only being attracted to girls. This first started when I was about 6. Also, these individuals have in many cases tried to make themselves straight because of the societal bigotry. It just didn't work. Quite frankly, I don't think I could make myself gay.

Is there a gene? That is inconclusive. Is there a innate biological factor? That is inconclusive, but much evidence points to biological factors. Is it early experiences that set a preference? That too is inconclusive but possible. In all of these cases, the adult has no power to change who they are - whatever the catalyst. It is absurd to think that a person says, "I think I will be attracted to the same sex as me."

This anti-gay marriage argument is rooted in bigotry and fear. We live in a society that has told us that gay is bad, and many of us have internalized this. There is no good reason to deny marriage to two people simply because they are of the same sex. Love is love, and this leads to stability which leads to a better society for us all.

Similarly, the fight for civil rights for all will lead to a better society, and any one group or member of a group that insists their fight is more relevant/important/historically painful misses the point of civil rights for all.

[Occulus]

140. Let me put it this way (language!):

I'm gay whether I fuck or not. How's that for an answer?

You choicists really get under my skin. You live in a vast ocean of denial.

Here's a hint: I'm wired differently. That this is even possible is proven by the existence of a condition known as synethsesia (I think I've spelled that right). It's a genetic condition which makes people smell colors, for example, or taste sounds, a condition in which Thursday is orange and wool is lettuce.

The descriptions often differ, so my examples must of necessity be arbitrary. My point here is that I can't accurately describe the condition because I don't have it.

So it is true for homosexuality. I have yet to hear of one homosexual making a conscious choice to be homosexual. "I guess I'll be gay today" just doesn't happen. I should know.

[Rich Hunt]

90. refreshing

good to see some more common sense in what is otherwise a depressing thread.

:toast:

[mondo joe]

81. Sincewhen should equal protection be up for vote?

"Should a homosexual be allowed to have a "civil" union if the government or the general populace believes this is in there best interest...yes..."

Do you maintain interracial marriage only have been allowed if the general populace believed it was in their best interest?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

94. Orientation is not a choice

Actually, orientation is not a choice.

And interracial marriage is a choice. Do you believe its legality that should have been determined by concensus?

[Laughing Mirror]

49. Yes, that's right

If you are a gay black or mixed man or woman, keep your movement to yourself.

[David__77]

62. I challenge you to provide evidence of this.

How is this "leverage" taking place? So, do you think there is no legitimate civil rights struggle other than that involving race? What about religion? That is certainly "chosen," right?

The same forces that would enforce white supremacy in this country are those who wish to suppress homosexuals as well. This is a common fight, as recognized by many Black leaders. I fight within the LGBT community to expand our fight against racism as well. We need a united front.

[HiRez]

72. No...

Are you serious?


Ok...let's start here...

What advantage does the black man gain by uniting with the homosexual movement? Please tell me because I really want to know...

[mondo joe]

77. Numbers

"Ok...let's start here...

What advantage does the black man gain by uniting with the homosexual movement? Please tell me because I really want to know..."

Blacks make up what - 10% of the US population?

Gays make up - let's conservatively say 5%.

Together that gives you more than either group has on its own. And if you include the families of those gay numvers you get an even higher number.

15% - 25% as a voting block gets you a hell of a lot more than either group has alone.

[tedzbear]

80. You are completely missing the point...

On the flip side: What advantages will I as a white queer get uniting with the black movement? There are many whites who hate blacks and they will never support my cause if I unite with blacks. I sure don't want to help another minority when it might mean I'll lose somebody's support. Why should I sacrifice one drop of blood for anybody who's not "my people?"

The point is civil rights is not a pissing contest! Everybody should be represented if they are discriminated against regardless of whether it's their race or their "choices." Are you saying Jews don't deserve equal rights because they have made a choice to worship in a synagogue, rather than a church?

Your attitude is one of egotistical superiority. Fine, if you don't want us queers riding in your freedom bus because it might blemish your cause, I'm willing to get out and ride another one. I'll also stop contributing to the ACLU and give my $ to GLAAD.

:kick:

[HiRez]

98. Thanks Ted...

Stay with Glaad...because for the most part...white people since the 60's & 70's haven't done squat anyway...look at the statistical data of poverty, infant mortality, lack of corporate parity in pay and title, increase in aids, and most importantly incarceration rate...

Keep your help to yourself...

[David__77]

95. The Black man and Black woman both gain.

For this reason: human rights movement need allies. Gay and lesbian people are perhaps 5-6% of the population--if we take voter exit polls as a starting point. Black people are about 13% of the population. Latinos are a similar percentage. Jews are less than 2% ofthe population. I would argue that a united front is very useful for all groups involved. That does not mean that each does not maintain its own unique character--and I do argue that the oppression of Black people is uniquely pernicious and has included veritable genocide. However, is the Black freedom movement is to oppose the gay movement--or vice versa--will mean unneeded division in the ranks of those who have a vested interest in remaking society for the better.

[HiRez]

103. In Theory I Agree...

If the aims of the group were mutually exclusive...

But the problem arises when you have a significant body of individuals (blacks) in the black church who feel that homosexuality is immoral...and this is the case...

The difference from my experience in the struggle...is that the alignment with homosexuality is tolerated as a necessary evil due to the fact that...blacks feel the ultimate aim is first and foremost achieving a position of parity with the non-minority...

[David__77]

109. I will leave it mostly to the Black lesbians and gay men...

...to deal most specifically with anti-homosexuality in the Black community. There's a documentary called "Tongues Untied" that deal with the unique position of Black gay men specifically. They face problems in both communities. I think this is the "bridge" between both groups.

I think the question of homosexuality in the Black community is tied to the question of the Black family and its special issues over time, and especially the role of the woman. There's a definite difference between Black male and Black female attitudes toward homosexuality and there are historical reasons for this.

Bottom line... I think that as with other communities, opposition to homosexuality will decrease rather than increase. Gay people will become more not less visible, including within the Black community. I don't think that Black homosexuals will be excluded from the necessary unity in the Black community. Over time, I believe that more will move over to Rep. John Lewis and Coretta Scott King's positions on the matter.

[belle]

73. So you're saying if black people *could* become white, they *should*?

Because that's what logically follows. You're saying, basically, that rights are given because the discriminated-against "can't help" their differences.

P.S. Go google "Bayard Rustin." There are and were quite a few black gay people in the civil rights movement, you know?

[fortyfeetunder]

149. It wasn't only black folk who died in the name of civil rights.

Even though many black people died in the name of civil rights, the other mortalities of many faiths and races also died fighting for the cause. And since the 1950-1960's civil rights movement was a period where gays kept mostly in the closet, I would not be surprised if some of those killed were gay.

I am not in the least bit offended when gays seek civil rights. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. I bet this is what he is thinking:

"Gays already can get married - to a member of the opposite sex - just like straights can. That is by definition equal rights. LGBT are defined by behavior - and if they do not do certain acts, they are not discriminated against. African Americans were and are discriminated against because of who they are, not what they do."

I'm not saying I agree, but I bet that's the thought process.

[enki23]

59. nothing new here

many in the labor movement told the women's movement to keep to themselves. some in the womens' movement told the abolitionist movement to keep to themselves. many in the the abolitionist movement told the women's movement to keep to themselves. same goes for most any movement for social change. we can't seem to form lasting coalitions.

so whatever happened, jesse, to the "rainbow coalition?"

[Barkley]

61. Marriage as an Issue of Civil Rights

"any person" not "any heterosexual person" ...

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

Several states passed anti-missengnation laws in volation of the equal protection clause which prohibited blacks and whites from marrying legally. But that didn't stop missengnation. Just ask Strom Thurmond's daughter.

[mondo joe]

63. I hereby end my support of affirmative action and other...

I hereby end my support of affirmative action and other programs that benefit racial minorities.

If people are so desperate to separate the struggles, I'm willing to oblige.

Perhaps my votes and my gay $ will go further advancing my own issues exclusively.

[HiRez]

74. Good Joe...

I didn't really want your help anyway buddy...look after your own...I will handle mine...

[mondo joe]

75. Then please stop the endless appeals for support

Between the political issues regarding Affirmative Action and the endless mailings I get asking for contributions around minority issues, I'd be hard pressed to know my help isn't really wanted.

[HiRez]

87. Joe

I will make it simple...I don't want it...and I don't need it...

And in regard to the retardness of national black leadership to the guy below me...what they say is a large majority of the time disconnected from what the average black folks feel...

Should I take an informal poll of my inner city neighborhood for you?

[mondo joe]

96. Fine - you don't want it. Why am I asked for it?

I accept that you don't want my help.

What I'm aking is why I am solicited for my help from minority organizations.

[Barkley]

83. That's too bad!

I often hear similar rationals from people who cross the striking grocery workers pick lines here in SoCal:

'I don't have health insurance, why should I fight for someone else to get what I don't have'?

Fortunately, many people do see the inter-connected nature of common struggles.

Indeed, the person without health insurance is much more likely to remain without health insurance should the grocery strikers fail.

Jesse Jackson obviously does not speak for all or even most blacks on this issue, just ask Rev. Sharpton.

My disagreement with Jesse on this single issues does not compell me to abandon the entire struggle for justice, equality and fairness.

The left needs to expand its base on a lot of issues. I don't see us being very successful if we Balkanize our energies.

I hope you reconsider.


-Miss Ya Already!

[mondo joe]

86. I was just told me help isn't wanted

It's not just a case of not wanting to fight for something I don't have.

It's being told by someone who has asked for my partnership on HIS issues that MY issues aren't worthy. Now what kind of patrnership is that?

And then this Hi Rez person confirmed that my help isn't wanted.

[HiRez]

89. You are correct Joe...

I don't want your help...nor do I need it...and if you will be so kind as to show when and where your "help" has actually "helped" my cause...errrrrrrrrrrrr...I thought not...


And it would be nice if someone on this thread actually made a cogent response to the arguments I put forward...instead of playing with the tangents...

[freepotter]

126. Here's a proposition for you HiRez...

Do us all a favor and try to change your sexual orientation, even if just for a day. Having a little trouble? No? Maybe you're bisexual. Are you telling us that you made a conscious choice to be whatever orientation you are? At what age did you do that? Do you choose every day to be a certain orientation? Did you do it after experimenting with both choices?

I can tell that I tried both, and one of those just didn't work for me. I found it absolutely repugnant to be with a man in a sexual situation, but to say that I made a "choice" in my sexual orientation would be a lie. I chose to be with him, but my orientation told me that it wasn't "right" for me.

Where is your proof that sexual orientation is a choice? If thousands of behavioral scientist don't understand sexual orientation, how can you say that you do?....and here I thought that sort of ignorance and arrogant bigotry was reserved to the Klan and Evangelicals.

[Barkley]

93. Do always do what you're told?

[mondo joe]

97. I'm a great respecter of boundaries. :-)

[Barkley]

67. A Constitutional amendment to protect the "tradition of marriage"?

Which tradition?

Several male characters in the bible had more than one wife.
Moses 2 Wives, Zipporah and the Ethiopian Woman.

"And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman." Numbers 12:1 Penned the Pentateuch, Torah, Genesis through Deuteronmy (which includes authoring the passages of Genesis chapters 2 through 3, Genesis 2:24, Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, etc.). http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/moses

Marriage, in the tradition of English law, subsumed the legal being of the wife into that of the husband. Under this system, called coverture, when a woman married she lost her right to own property or enter into contracts.

[terrya]

71. Reverend Jackson may not have read about Bayard Rustin...

A pioneer of the civil rights movement...and gay himself.

Rustin faced horrible attitudes from others in the civil rights movement...because of his homosexuality.

It might behoove the Reverend Jackson to read up on this part of the history of the civil rights movement.

Terry

[johnny_socko]

114. Marriage is not a right

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state. If you qualify under their terms then you can be legally married. Right now the terms are you need one man and one woman for most states.

[DavidDvorkin]

115. Driving is not a right

It is a privilege granted by the state. Therefore, states should be able to grant driver's licenses based on sex or sexual preference or skin color or hair color or national origin or religion or ...

[johnny_socko]

117. So you agree!?

Yes there are certain guidelines for getting your drivers license, they just differ from getting married. And they also differ from state to state.

[enki23]

118. i don't believe you're too dense to understand that

so i'll assume you deliberately misunderstood. drivers licenses can be restricted, absolutely yes. but those restrictions must be based on traits relevent to driving ability. they can't legally be based on race, creed, gender, or sexual preference. the chance to get a loan, or rent an apartment, can likewise be denied for any number of reasons. these reasons can not legally include race, creed, gender, or sexual preference.

but i'm sure you understood that already

[johnny_socko]

120. That's correct

And marriage restrictions are based on the issues relevant to marriage, such as age, gender, species:).

[mondo joe]

121. And a few years ago, race

"And marriage restrictions are based on the issues relevant to marriage, such as age, gender, species:)."

Don't forget race - race was one of those restrictions too.

Until the SCOTUS applied the equal protection clause.

[johnny_socko]

127. Which was a good thing

I never stated that I was against taking gender out as a qualification, just that it currently is in most states. My point was to say that I believe it is a privilege and not a right.

[mondo joe]

128. Please apply the 14th Amendment

"I never stated that I was against taking gender out as a qualification, just that it currently is in most states. My point was to say that I believe it is a privilege and not a right. "

Please apply the 14th Amendment.

Thank you.

[mondo joe]

116. Sorry, but Loving v Virginia says you are wrong

Loving v Virginia found marriage is a basic right, and you should remember there are over 1000 rights and responsibilities automatically conferred with marriage.

Furthermore, pleae note that the 14th amendment doesn't permit the granting of rights or privileges to some groups atthe exclusion of others.

[johnny_socko]

123. I can admit when I am wrong

I will have to look it up that case and find out the details. I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong, if I am wrong.

[mondo joe]

131. THank You Johnny - here's a link for you

Loving v Virgina at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Please note: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

[johnny_socko]

133. Thanks for the link

I was gonna ask, but didn't want to be lazy.

[mondo joe]

135. No problem Johnny`

And sorry if I was a little touchy.

[kayell]

122. Oh, it's not a sacred institution then?

If not, then it would seem that as with other things governmental, it would fall under the constitution at some point.

And, by George (Washington, not the fraud in his city), it is covered, right here in the 14th amendment!

Amendment XIV

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.

etc. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Added: Oh, and if it turns out that marriage IS a sacred institution for you, and that is really your arguement, you might want to check out the First Amendment too. It's a pretty important one. Matter of fact, it kind of says that that arguement carries NO weight what so ever in a secular nation. Like the US, you know?

[johnny_socko]

129. Of course it is

What is important to me is the fact that my marriage is a covenant with God. We have also made it legal as far as the State goes, but even if I wasn't able to I would not really care as long as I know it is good with God. If Homosexuals feel that their wedding is blessed by God more power to 'em. Now if they want it to be legal, they have to fight for the right. Before you people get all whinny, I never said that I was for it or against it, just that I believe marriage is a privilege granted by the State.

[mondo joe]

132. Again, Loving v Virginia

"What is important to me is the fact that my marriage is a covenant with God. We have also made it legal as far as the State goes, but even if I wasn't able to I would not really care as long as I know it is good with God."

I think you might care if you were prohibited from doing so, and if your neighbors had over 1,000 rights and responsibilities conferred with marriage that you were denied.


"Before you people get all whinny, I never said that I was for it or against it, just that I believe marriage is a privilege granted by the State."

And again, I refer you to Loving v Virgina: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

[johnny_socko]

134. Easy to say

I know it's easy to say, but I don't think I would care. To me, the important part is the covenant with God. Again I know that is very easy for me to say and since I'm not gay, I don't expect people to take it for more than it is worth.

And I think I need to apologize for this statement - "Before you people get all whinny" It was a rude and uncalled for. I will be looking at that link, Joe, thanks for directing me to it.

[Occulus]

153. God is irrelevant

when speaking of a social, legal contract. Marriage is such a contract, and the legalities of marriage, one would think, would fall under the full faith and credit clause.

IOW, I could care less about how you feel re marriage as it relates to religion; that's not the argument and, as was stated above, the religious aspect of marriage, for the purposes of the state, has no meaning.

And if it DOES have meaning to the state, why... there are recognised sects, such as the Unitarian Church, that perform same sex marriages.

So, which is it that's the important part to the state- the religious aspect, or the legal one? And, if the legal one, doesn't that mean that under the full faith and credit clause any same-sex marriage performed in a state recognising such must be recognised by all 50 states?

Religion, on this issue, is irrelevant, and I don't allow it to be discussed when I talk about this to people. It infuriates them, but usually they realize that the rule of law is paramount, and the law requires that same sex marriages be performed and accepted under the law in the US.

I could care less if a church is willing to marry me and my man as long as there's a county clerk willing to grant the license. IOW, churches, today, are unnecessary for marriages to occur. Any Biblical argument against it is completely and totally irrelevant on anything other than a purely emotional level.

[sandwitchman200000]

130. HMMMM...........

shouldn't gays/lesbians be able to maried???? many people think no but who should really car if they get married!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :spank: :kick: :think:

[saltpoint]

136. If Rev. Jackson issues a clarification, I will --

-- listen respectfully.

If it stands the way it is, I hope he packs his bigoted ass out of here real, real soon.

Colin Powell opposes gays in the military. Perhaps he might want to weigh in on gays in the State Department. If they are a security risk in the field, surely they're perilously dangerous to have close-at-hand in the State Department. Run for your lives!

Jackson and Powell need to show some nuts on this issue and just stand up and speak the truth.

Shame on both of them if they don't.

[sandwitchman200000]

144. like i said.......

:hippie:

[rawtribe]

145. Musgrave To Speak At Upcoming Marriage Rally

Washington, DC: Today, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04) announced she will speak about her Federal Marriage Amendment at a rally to support traditional marriage on the west steps of the Colorado State Capitol on Friday, February 20, 2004. The general public and the press are invited to attend.

“Traditional marriage is on the cusp of being dismantled by a group of four unaccountable judges in Massachusetts,” said Musgrave. “The voice of the American people must be heard on this critical issue. That is why I am excited about this rally and the opportunity it will provide for Coloradans to publicly demonstrate their support for traditional marriage.”

From 11:15 – 11:50 AM, Musgrave will join Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Jim Chapman of the Rocky Mountain Family Council, Chuck Gosnell of Christian Coalition of Colorado and Colorado state Representative Kevin Lundberg, who is the sponsor of Colorado’s resolution supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[fujiyama]

147. Jesse Jackson...

is one to talk about the sanctity of marriage considering he cheated on his wife.

I don't want to hear any of these philandering, divorcees, etc. talking about how great marriage is and how the institution has to be "protected". Their talk is meaningless

[Freddie Stubbs]

151. So if it came from someone who hadn't cheated on his wife

would the arguement be valid?

[sandwitchman200000]

154. who are u talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????

:mad: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Freddie Stubbs]

155. I was replying to Post #147

Jesse Jackson is one to talk about the sanctity of marriage considering he cheated on his wife.

I don't want to hear any of these philandering, divorcees, etc. talking about how great marriage is and how the institution has to be "protected". Their talk is meaningless.

[Sweetpea]

156. Tres disappointing