African-American uneasy with "gay marriage" comparison

[Strapping Buck]

OK, here's the can of worms no one else has opened yet. I'm sure I'll get piled on here, but I think some careful distinctions must be made on this issue.

As an African-American who was in my teens and twenties during the 50s and early 60s, I am offended by the equivocation of the "gay marriage" issue with the civil rights struggles of blacks in this country for the last half-century. Although Plaid Adder does not explicitly make this comparison in his thread, it is hinted at. Other threads on this issue explicitly make this comparison.

Let me first and foremost state that I couldn't care less about people's sexual orientation. Whatever anyone wants to do, let him or her do it. I don't care who is sleeping with who or what people do in the privacy of their bedroom-- and frankly, I don't really want to know. It's none of my business; just as who I sleep with and what I do in the privacy of my bedroom is no one else's business.

Secondly, I have no problem if gay marriage, civil unions, or any other such domestic arrangement is "legalized".

What I do have a problem with is the comparison between this "struggle" and the black Civil Rights Movement. There is no person in this country who, at the present moment in all 50 states, can NOT get married. No one of legal age is denied the right to marry. You may not be able to marry the person you want to, namely a person of the same sex, but that is a different issue. If any man in this country wanted to marry any woman in this country they can be married, regardless of either of their sexual orientations (LGBT or any other orientation that might exist). So in the strictest sense, no one is "denied" the ability to get married. What is denied is the ability to label their particular domestic arrangement "marriage" even though it does not reflect the traditional legal and cultural institution of marriage that is recognized by most states.

On the other hand, African-Americans were at one time, by explicit laws, denied aspects of full citizenship in this country. I don't think I need to go into a full list of these for anyone on this board. This is where I see a BIG difference between the Civil Rights Movement and the gay marriage issue. Or maybe it's easier to illustrate my point with a few questions:

Where are the people who are not allowed to vote because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who must drink from separate water fountains and use separate rest rooms because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who can not own real and personal property because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who must sit in the back of the bus because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who are not permitted in restaurants, hotels, sporting venues, and other public places because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who are not allowed to play collegiate or professional sports because of their sexual orientation?

We could ask about a thousand more questions along the same lines. The point is, I don't see the equivocation. That's just my personal feeling on the matter. Does anyone else, particularly other African-Americans, feel similarly on this issue?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I am not African American, I am white, and gay

And I agree that while issues concerning civil rights and equality matter in this country and while there are some SIMILARITIES between the gay rights argument and the AA rights argument as there would be with ANY valid claim of bigotry, there are MORE dissimilarities.

In the case of black civil rights, there were no black Americans ACTIVELY campaigning against equal rights, but the LOG CABIN CLUB via their support of the Republican party has been doing EXACTLY that.

The fact that the LOG CABIN club exists at all is a sign that gays, men specifically ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY discriminated against.

There is NO REDLINING in the gay community....most gay communities do NOT exist in economically depressed areas.

There is MORE difference than similarities.

Again, there are some commonalities, but to claim it is the SAME thing is to dismiss the fact that the NUMBERS of African Americans hung for nothing more than the color of their skin, the Oklahoma Story or other similar stories don't exist. Crimes of hatred against gay people while existing, PALE in comparison to crimes of hatred against black people. Gay people were NEVER enslaved in America.

You won't take any flack from this gay woman for stating the obvious...they are NOT the same.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Thanks, Teena. I agree with you and

the thread poster, though I'm white and straight. I remember separate drinking fountains and restrooms and even waiting rooms. I remember Jim Crow and as a black woman said on C-SPAN this morning (or was it yesterday?), everyone knows she's black when she walks in a room. People don't know who's gay just by sight, though some gay people like to make it easy to guess by their choices of clothing and hairstyle -- especially if they wear an "I'm Gay and Proud" tee shirt.

But there's another difference. When a black person wears a "I'm Black and I'm Proud" tee shirt it's a message about pride in who s/he is, not about identifying himself/herself as being black. When a gay person wears such a tee shirt, it's as much or more about identifying himself/ herself as gay, a way of making gays visible. It always makes me think of how the military has in the past in certain areas been paid in $2 bills, in order to show a hostile local community the importance of military pay to their local economy. (Those who neither grew up as a military brat, as I did, or served in the military, have no idea about how badly some Americans treat the men and women who serve this country and put their lives on the line to protect and defend them. Nor can they imagine how that prejudice is extended to the wives of military men and to the children of military families. But that's another issue and I didn't set out to hijack the thread.)

It's never wise for one group to compare their situation to another group's situation. There are always differences.

[skypilot]

63. I don't agree that...

...when gays wear a tee shirt proclaiming their gay pride that it's just about making themselves visible. That may very well be an effect but that is not necessarily the intent. Gays can and do wear "I'm Gay and I'm Proud" tee shirts, buttons, etc. in the same spirit that blacks wear "I'm Black and I'm Proud" tee shirts. You have no way of knowing the intent or mindset of the wearer. It's only natural that a black person wearing such a shirt is not doing it for visibility because he or she is already APPARENTLY black. You are assuming that because homosexuality isn't an apparent trait that a gay person wearing a gay pride shirt is trying to make his gayness apparent. That may be true in some cases but you make it sound as though that is the sole purpose.

[formernaderite]

97. You make some excellent points...

...I would add that gay areas actually increase the market value of homes. Gay people are also "perceived" as having positive attributes...highly creative, successful, fun etc.
P.S. my younger brother is gay too, but he's this radical anarchist type, totally anti-marriage (in general), anti-bourgeoisie and he dresses like a bum I think to prove gay guys are not all like the fab five.
The point is, unless he's wearing a "non-breeder" t-shirt...no one would ever know off the bat his sexual orientation.

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. i do not agree

although i am not black, the issue is precisely about EQUAL RIGHTS and not just labels as you say.

Their are Federal benefits to heterosexual people that are not granted to homosexual people.
It is precisely like blacks not having the right to vote.


Where are the people not allowed to visit dying loved ones in the hospital, b/c they are not married?

Where are the people, who cannot leave their legacy (inheritance) to their life partner?

Where are the people who can't adopt children?


These are the questions you should be asking.

[Strapping Buck]

6. It's not because they are gay...

"Where are the people not allowed to visit dying loved ones in the hospital, b/c they are not married?"

There are lots of them. Some of them may be gay. Many are not. Besides, I have many close friends who have died (an unfortunate part of being my age) and I have never been kept from visiting them in the hospital. I wasn't married to any of them. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here.

"Where are the people, who cannot leave their legacy (inheritance) to their life partner?"

I don't know. Anybody can make a will and leave anything they want to whomever they want.

"Where are the people who can't adopt children?"

There are lots of them. They are not all gay.

[daveskilt]

21. you know what he was getting at.

it isnt just about not getting to adopt children it is about not getting to adopt because of something to do with your birth into a certain group.

It isnt about who you can will your inheritance to, it is about the penalties and multiple legal challenges from the deceased siblings, ex wives, etc that will be upheld because of something to do with your birth into a certain group.

It isnt about who can visit who in hospital it is that some people are actively denied from visiting their partner because the l;aw does not recognize their partnership and gives preference to their siblings etc over them because of something to do with your birth into a certain group.

quacks like a duck, must be a duck. discrimination is what it is and should not be justified or diminished because it isnt as bad as the situation of African Americans in the 60's in America, which wasnt as bad as the situation of South African Blacks in the 70's which wasnt as bad as the situation of Irish immigrants in the 1820's which was not as bad as the situation of slaves in America in the 1820's, or Native Americans under Cortez or Columbus, or European tenant farmers under the clearances of the 1700's under Sinclair and others.

This is about direction - are we going to keep moving towards something better - for all groups - or are we going to allow a little discrimination here and there and hope we never regress to where we were because it is a different group this time or not as bad as some other past discrimination.

[skypilot]

23. Beautifully said.

Thank you.

[Strapping Buck]

25. Thanks for your thoughts daveskilt

n/t

[Caution]

3. they are different issues with a similar root cause

The laws that were passed in the era you speak of were put in place to explicitly discriminate against blacks. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriages is *exactly* the same thing.

The discrimination against blacks started with the passage of a law somewhere. Do we want to allow the same process to start all over again? For any reason?

[BayCityProgressive]

9. not to mention

we are barred from military service as well. We have no worklplace protection laws.

[Taeger]

91. No acceptable workplace protection laws ...

The truth is that there aren't adequete workplace protection laws for ANYBODY!!!!!

It's not a gay issue.

Laws against firing gays DO give special protection to gays. The reason is that NO ONE is exempt from capricious dissmissal. Laws to that affect protect gays from being fired for no reason, but it leaves straights 100% vulnerable to being fired for no reason.

If your serious about the issue, you'd ask for GENERAL protection for ALL workers against capricious dissmissal.

[Strapping Buck]

11. How can something be banned that doesn't exist?

That would be like saying laws were passed to prevent blacks from voting because they WERE voting and somone wanted to stop it.

If there is to be a Constitutional amendment, it should be from the reverse perspective. We should fight for an amendment that "amends" the traditional legal and cultural definition of marriage to include alternative arrangements.

[daveskilt]

50. exactly - an ammendment to restrict rights is a scary thing

It has happened before but was repealed by a later ammendment. The constitution and purpose for the US is the preservation and protection of rights. You know we shouldnt even need an ammendment to allow gay marriage - it should be inalienable and unspoken that people can marry whom they choose.

THe rights that should ever be restricted or regulated are those which infringe on the rights of others. Despite the strange contention of the loony right, gay marriage doesnt stop anyone else from marrying in a hetrosexual partnership.

[skypilot]

52. Semantics

"How can something be banned that doesn't exist?"

This is just wordplay. Technically, you can't "ban" something that doesn't exist but you can pass laws to "prevent" it from ever existing.

[polmaven]

4. I will take issue ..somewhat..

with the comparison. I don't think that the "comparison" is as deep as you are reading it. The comparison goes only to the right to marry whom you choose.

There was at the same time a legal ban on inter-racial marriages. That is a struggle that was also opposed with the same "It will erode all of our traditional values" "What will we tell the children" "It is un-natural" "It is against God's law" arguments.

The exact same arguments are being made today by the same bigots that made them then.

That is really the only comparison I have seen. No one I know, who has any veracity, at least, has compared this to the entire civil rights struggle.

If it is made, it is disingenuous, I agree.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. We shouldn't constantly compare movements to each other

The sixties Civil Rights Movement was one issue, Gay Marriage another. Racism was codified by law, as you've stated, but with the removal of racist laws, prejudice remains. Prejudice is keeping gay people from being full and equal participants in our society, but it's not as marked and overt, or as legislated as racism was. It certainly exists, though, and this is a civil rights issue. I see your point, but I don't think people are saying that gays are as persecuted as African-Americans were. We know they aren't, but it's not an either-or issue. They are being persecuted, just in a different fashion.

[gWbush is Mabus]

7. matthew sheppard was persecuted

[Screaming Lord Byron]

8. Yeah. I should not have weighed in on this issue.

I'll only end up pissing either group off, or both.

[ConcernedCanuk]

17. "I'll only end up pissing either group off, or both." - right ,

.
.

my thoughts also

but dammit,

sumtimes it's hard to bite that ole lip !

Thank you for your effort,

Saved ME some grief :thumbsup: :toast:

[Screaming Lord Byron]

20. Hell, someone's got to weigh in all guns blazing.

Why not me?

[Strapping Buck]

15. No, Matthew Sheppard was brutally assaulted by idiots.

I have been brutally assualted by idiots.

[David__77]

44. ...because of his sexual orientation.

I have been attacked because of my orientation. I know people who have been driven from school, from their homes by their parents. I know people who have lost their jobs. You seem to think that there's no discrimination against lesbians and gay people. That's simply not true. Many people have been killed because they are homosexual or were presumed to be so--if that's not persecution, I don't know what is.

[Strapping Buck]

55. I don't disagree with you...

Yes. There are idiots in the world who hate homosexuals and do mean things to them. If what they do, as in Matthew Sheppard's case, is against the law then they are prosecuted.

There are also idiots in the world who hate black people, or hispanic people, or even white people, and do mean things to them. That's not discrimination.

What would be discrimination is if those a**holes did that to Matthew Sheppard and the police and the prosecuters refused to arrest, indict, and try the offenders because Sheppard was gay.

This is exactly what would go on for blacks in this country. We could be murdered, sometimes in broad daylight, and the offenders were not brought to justice because we were black. Law and justice did not apply if the victim was black.

This is not the case with homosexuals in this country. If you were to assault someone, hetero or homosexual, you are treated the same by the justice system. You are not "let off" if your victim is a homosexual.

[DemBones DemBones]

61. You are correct that Matthew Shephard,

if he had been black instead of gay, and had been killed forty years ago (or less), would never have become a household name, never have had his name spoken in Congress, etc., and it's entirely possible that nothing would have been done to find and try his killers. If he had been black. Younger people simply don't know how different things are today -- and we who remember need to tell them.

[David__77]

72. "Gay panic" defense.

Actually, until recently, the "gay panic" defense was successfully employed, in which a defendent would argue that the homosexual murder victim had made unwanted advances, therefore "panic" caused the murder. It is still tried, without much success these days. The murder of Matthew Shepard was not merely a random act--it was representative of a systemic oppression. That is where we disagree. You do not seem to believe that homosexuals are systemically oppressed.

[kayell]

95. Actually, the gay panic defense was use successfully in TN @ last week

The heterosexual murderer, who had had drinks with the gay victim in a gay bar and then choked him so viciously that his larynx was crushed, originally got off scott free. Fortunately for justice, that was changed to serving a one year sentance. :eyes:

[justjones]

73. I'm not sure if this was an isolated case, but

Brandon Teena is dead today because the police didn't pick up those two men who raped and subsequently killed her, and that was because of his sexual orientation. And I've heard of other cases involving the LGBT community in this same vain.

I'm not sure you were speaking in absolutes when you said that if you are assaulted by someone, hetero or homosexual, you are treated the same way by the justice system, but if so, there are people who would beg to differ.

However, I'm not pointing this out to argue that the LGBT and AA movements are the same. I'm just sayin'.

Edited: clarifying his/her for PC.

[psyntist]

79. I know many many people

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but it is still the case that police will look the other way in cases of violence against GLBT people. There are cases of police violence against GLBT people because of their belonging to this group.

A man in Tenesse was murdered because a group of men thought he was gay and/or transgendered. They were mistaken but what set them off. The man was holding his wifes purse while she was in the restroom. During her time in the restroom, this man saw an older man having difficulty walking into the male restroom and went to assist him. He was spotted by bigots and was beaten to death. This is just one of the many many cases where people are being oppressed.

[mondo joe]

104. You're completely wrong there

"This is exactly what would go on for blacks in this country. We could be murdered, sometimes in broad daylight, and the offenders were not brought to justice because we were black. Law and justice did not apply if the victim was black.

This is not the case with homosexuals in this country. If you were to assault someone, hetero or homosexual, you are treated the same by the justice system. You are not "let off" if your victim is a homosexual."

You're completely wrong.

Homosexuals have known for a long time that they risked less than appropriate response from the police for crimes against them. They have known that they often couldn't even GO to the police because they couldn't let the police know they were gay.

In many areas things are much much better than that, for gays and for blacks.

But if you think this doesn't go on any longer, look into the Brandon Teena case.

[daveskilt]

10. The comparison

I cannot imagine that anyone seriously believes that this current civil rights issue is in any way in the same league in terms of scope and severity of the civil rights movement of the 60's. But restricting a basic human right - like the right to marriage is still an issue of civil rights, and human rights. It is one of the most open and codified form of discrimination in America today. It is of course easier for Gay's to pass or to avoid most forms of discrimination.

If there was an actual law on the books and groups given more credibility than ridiculous white supremicist groups that was actively campaigning to restrict one right for African Americans - like the right to vote or marry other African Americans, even if they could marry people from other races - wouldn't that be worth fighting with the same vigor as any of the many abuses fought in the 60's?

[psyntist]

80. Scope is relative

Do you think it might be possible that the reason it seems like a smaller thing is because GLBT make up about 10% of the population, while African Americans make up 17% (number may be off)? Do you think it might have to do with the fact that a black person is easy to spot but GLBT might not be so?

[bowens43]

12. The issues are very similar

the motivation is exactly the same. Bigotry.

There is no person in this country who, at the present moment in all 50 states, can NOT get married. No one of legal age is denied the right to marry.

This is by far the most ridiculous argument made by conservatives and fundamentalists. It doesn't deserve a response.

[Strapping Buck]

18. It's a strict legal statement

And I made it. I am niether a Repuke or a fundy.

[Mattforclark]

22. Here's another legal argument

African Americans had the right to vote, as long as they could pass a poll test and could vote for a bigoted white southerner.

Ever hear of Tuskegee Gerrymandering?

Eventually, enough of them managed to pass the poll test that there was ACTUALLY A THREAT that they might get control of a congressional district. So Alabama does some creative Gerrymandering.

You have the right to vote, as long as you vote for someone who is racist. That's exactly the same right that the white people had, so it was perfectly fair and perfectly consitutional.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/144/

"Gomillion v. Lightfoot
364 U.S. 339 (1960)
Docket Number: 32
Abstract



Argued:
October 18, 1960

Decided:
November 14, 1960


Subjects: Civil Rights: Voting



Facts of the Case
An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty-eight sided figure. The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived.


Question Presented
Did the redrawing of Tuskegee's electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents the United States or any individual state from denying a citizen the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?


Conclusion
The unanimous Court held that Act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice Frankfurter admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power "wholly within the domain of state interest." However, in this case, Alabama's representatives were unable to identify "any countervailing municipal function" which the act was designed to serve. It was clear to the Court that the irregularly shaped district was drawn with only one purpose in mind, namely, to deprive blacks of political power."

[Loonman]

13. Good angle/excellent post

:yourock:

[Mattforclark]

14. Similarly

Where were the African Americans who were not allowed to get married (interracial marriages excepted)?

So I suppose that mean that African Americans should not have gotten the right to sit anywhere on a bus that they want to? So I suppose that mean that African Americans should not have gotten the right to vote?

After all, African Americans had the right to get married, didn't they?

-edit-

"No one of legal age is denied the right to marry. You may not be able to marry the person you want to, namely a person of the same sex, but that is a different issue."

No one of legal qualification was denied the right to vote. Black people may not have the right to vote, namely because of the color of their skin, but that was a different issue.

[skypilot]

16. I am a black gay man.

The gay marriage issue is not directly and completely analogous to the Civil Rights Movement, that much is true but it's not just gay marriage which is an issue with gays and lesbians. Quite a few African-Americans have said that the fight for gay rights IN GENERAL should not be compared to the Civil Rights Movement. Gays have not suffered EXACTLY every indignity suffered by blacks, most oppressed groups don't experience exactly the same kind of oppression in exactly the same way. But the larger issue is still civil rights and gays can be fired from or denied a job, denied housing, have their children taken away, be beaten up, AND be denied the right to marry a person they love. No, no one is denied the right to marry but gays are denied the right to marry the person we choose for ourselves just as blacks were once denied the right to marry outside their race if they so desired.

[Strapping Buck]

19. Thanks skypilot

n/t

[tishaLA]

26. Excellent post

in a thread with many very good posts.

[John BigBootay]

Marriage is currently not considered a right--

It can be argued that it might fall under the equal protection clause or the "pursuit of hapiness" line in the Constitution, but currently a marriage license is administered much as a driving license.

I would like to see a Consitituional amendment here to settle the issue.

[Mattforclark]

32. So if a whole class of people were automatically

disqualified from having a drivers license, you would not object?

What if women were not allowed to drive? What if African Americans were not allowed to drive? What if gay people were not allowed to drive?

It's not a right to drive, after all...

And while we are on the subject - the right to vote - there is no such thing. Voter registration (voters license) is administered much as a driving license.

[Mattforclark]

35. Some more about the right to marry

Here's what the UN declaration of human rights has to say about the issue:

http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/16.asp

It also seems pretty silly to me to say that anyone can/should by law do something (IE get a marriage or drivers license) but that it is not a "right." Are 'rights' surrounded by some sort of mystical aura that is for some reason invisible to me?

[John BigBootay]

46. Voting IS codified in the Constitution--

it is not a right but a privelage that can be revoked for various reasons.

Marriage is not yet codified in the Con. I'd like to see that happen to settle the matter-- and I'd like to see it settled in the favor of gays-- to be allowed a civil union that allows all of the benefits and privilages of hetero couples.

As far as driving licences being revoked for whole classes of people-- I'll get back tou when that starts to happen.

[Mattforclark]

56. You are mistaken, it is not codified in the constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

There are also lots of other things that are not codified in the constitution. There is also something that is:

9th Amendment

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



"it is not a right but a privelage that can be revoked for various reasons."

Not in any other sense that does not apply to the right (privilege?) to freedom of religion (or anything else). The right to freedom of religion can be revoked for various reasons (human sacrafice rituals are an example). You seem to be saying that rights are absolute whereas privileges are not. As regards 'rights' enumerated in the Constitution, that is false.

[John BigBootay]

90. perhaps you don't understand "codified"

It doesn't necessarily mean that it is a right- it meerely means that the Constitution has specific text that establishes the rules and paramenters of the subject in question.

In this context, the constitution certainly does "codify" the voting privilege.

You can make voting a basic "right" that can never be revoked. As you can make marriage a basic right that must be honored and never revoked.

To me, these things can and should be thusly codified in the Constitution, otherwise we'll keep going round and round like this wondering what is a right versus a privilege and when / how / and who is the arbiter of these privileges.

Agreed?

[skypilot]

33. But...

"...a marriage license is administered much as a driving license."

Or in the case of gays and lesbians NOT administered.

[John BigBootay]

49. Correct. We have a need to change a law--

But this law is not actually discriminatory in the same way blacks were discriminated against.

Our society is evolving and my feeling is that this law will evolve to include gays in a marriage or civil union context.

I am simply not moved by the argument that this is analagous to, for example, the Civil Rights Act.

[skypilot]

57. As I stated in another post...

..the fight for the right to marry is not, by itself, analogous to the Civil Rights Movement and it is not the only right that gays are fighting for. It is the wider fight for gay rights that can be compared to the that movement if for no other reason than the fact that it is a fight for CIVIL RIGHTS. The fight in the sixties was THE Civil Rights Movement; the fight of gays today is A civil rights movement. It's still about civil rights. I honestly don't know why people have a problem with a comparison between the two. Blacks don't have a copyright on the words CIVIL.. RIGHTS.. MOVEMENT.

[mondo joe]

101. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a right

THat was the case about prohibition of interracial marriage.

As ugly and unjust as the prohibition of same sex marriage.

[mike1963]

45. Well put, skypilot.

;-)

[Paschall]

24. "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny..." MLK

“All forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere,” the widow of Martin Luther King Jr. told activists gathered for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s 13th annual Creating Change conference. She continued: “I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people... Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/825/825_king.asp

ON EDIT: It's been a while but the "comparison" has been discussed here before several times. And, for what it's worth, Plaid Adder is a woman.

[John BigBootay]

27. I agree with you--

They are not the same.

Technically speaking, gays have always had the same rights as everyone else to marry someone-- of the opposite sex.

I know that's "gotcha" logic that will get a few flames shot my way, but it does point out a crucial distinction. Blacks were widely discriminated against in many ways because of pigmentation, gays are only discriminated against when they attempt to go beyond the parameters as currently established.

While I generally agree with the expansion of the concept of marriage to include gays, this is a "licensing" or "sanctioning" argument, not a human rights issue. It's relatively fine distinction but it's there nonetheless.

[Mattforclark]

31. OKAY

"Technically speaking, gays have always had the same rights as everyone else to marry someone-- of the opposite sex. I know that's "gotcha" logic that will get a few flames shot my way,"

Here they come ;)

"but it does point out a crucial distinction. Blacks were widely discriminated against in many ways because of pigmentation, gays are only discriminated against when they attempt to go beyond the parameters as currently established."

Sorta like how Black people were allowed to ride a bus just like everyone else, they just could not sit wherever they wanted.

I don't see why Gay people are trying to go beyond "the paramaters as currently established" any more than black people were???

[John BigBootay]

39. Right-- but this is how the game is played--

There is no "civil rights" issue at play here because marriage is not currently viewed as a legal right. It is a license.

Technically it's no different from me not being able to obtain a license to drive a cab because I do not speak english. There have simply been certain restrictions placed on the obtaining of marriage licenses, age, blood tests, whatever they are-- they are there.

I am in favor of giving gays the right to have a legal license to "marry" or "civilly join" what have you-- but you have to change the laws first- duh.

And I don't equate this issue with a quest for civil rights. That's rhetoric.

[Jesus H. Christ]

43. This is like the antisodomy laws.

You can't have laws that jail homosexuals for anal sex and not prosecute heterosexuals for the same thing. It's about equal protection under the law.

What's the difference between interracial marriage, which under your definition is not a right and can therefore be outlawed, and gay marriage.

[John BigBootay]

60. Answer--

Obviously I am against a prohibition of interracical marriage. I am similarly against a prohibition of gay marriage. I however do not equate the same conditions to gays and blacks-- the central theme of this thread.

I think you're working too hard to cast me as somehow against the overall concept of gay marriage or unions simply because I see the issue slightly differently.

I would prefer to see this issue addressed as more of a legal broadening than as a struggle against oppression-- which is what blacks continue to overcome.

But we agree in the important ways.

[Jesus H. Christ]

66. I'm not trying to cast you as anything.

I just want to know what the difference is between outlawing gay marriages vs interracial marriages.


"I would prefer to see this issue addressed as more of a legal broadening than as a struggle against oppression-- which is what blacks continue to overcome."

I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to suggest that the fight for gay marriages is not a struggle against oppression.

[John BigBootay]

77. Oppression can mean a lot of things...

I can feel oppressed at work because I'm only given a thrity minute lunch break. That's a flippant answer I know, but my point is that the "oppression" that my gay friends face is NOTHING to the oppression that my black friends have overcome-- and in some cases still struggle against.

And the ultimate reality is that marriage is an institution that has existed in it's present form for thousands of years, truly, for the purpose of creating stable homes to raise children. As stated, there have been no barriers against gays marrying a memeber of the opposite sex within this current system.

Is the system currently in need of mending? Yes. But has this system been used as a means to destroy, denigrate, demean or suppress gays? Absolutely not.

That's the difference.

Under Jim Crowe type laws and tactics, blacks were systematically hurt by the government. Today, the government takes no special interest in gays. Do you get my point?

[psyntist]

81. Your gay friends are lucky

My GLBT friends have been kicked out of apartments when the landlord discovered, my GLBT friends have been passed over for promotions, my GLBT friends have been beaten in the streets, my GLBT friends have been kicked out of resturants, my GLBT friends have not gotten a job because of this (they were told straight out that was the case), my GLBT friends have been killed, my GLBT friends have been harrassed by the police. But that might have to do with the fact that I know a few more gay people than you, undoubtly.

And the ultimate reality is that marriage is an institution that has existed in it's present form for thousands of years, truly, for the purpose of creating stable homes to raise children.

That is not really true. Marriage has taken on many forms throughout the history of the world. Many wives for one husband. The wife as merely property that was basically bought. To just name two.

Edited

[Taeger]

92. Not a gay issue

My GLBT friends have been kicked out of apartments when the landlord discovered, my GLBT friends have been passed over for promotions, my GLBT friends have been beaten in the streets, my GLBT friends have been kicked out of resturants, my GLBT friends have not gotten a job because of this (they were told straight out that was the case), my GLBT friends have been killed, my GLBT friends have been harrassed by the police. But that might have to do with the fact that I know a few more gay people than you, undoubtly.

People have been passed over for promotions for MANY reasons.

People have been beaten in streets for MANY reasons. And robbed too.

People are kicked out of restaurants for MANY reasons. If your money is good and they can't tell, why would they bother???

Many people are NOT hired for MANY reasons. Sometimes it may be because they just plain don't like you. Sometimes they don't think you'll fit in with their team.

Lots of people are killed every year who are NOT gay. Yes, lots of white straight men are killed every year. In fact, a LOT MORE white straight men are killed every year.

Lots of people are harassed every year for LOTS of reasons besides being a homosexual (how you'd tell, I don't know).

[Pithlet]

93. So, are you saying it is all in their heads?

That no discrimination exists? That there aren't people who hate, and discriminate because people are gay? The whole push for FMA is just their and our imagination?

Do you know that people have had their children taken away from them because they are gay? Or is it easier to just close your eyes and pretend there is no problem?

[psyntist]

98. Discrimination is real

The difference between what I was talking about and what you are talking about is the fact that often, the reason is stated. The landlord will say that he does not want any homos living in his building, the employer will state no fags allowed, the assailant will scream Faggot. That is the difference.

[Jesus H. Christ]

87. Ah, I see. You have many gay friends.

I doubt know what you consider "oppression" but frankly considering that gays have also been murdered and lynched simply because of who they are, that's about as oppressed as one can get.

Today if you are discriminated against for being black, it's illegal. Not only is it legal if you are gay, the government has passed laws and continues to pass laws in order to insure that discrimination towards gays remains legal. Which sounds like they're taking special interest to me.

So no, I don't get your point.

[John BigBootay]

96. You choose not to get my point--

And I can understand the reason for this and don't hold it against you.

But I will say it one more time, and once more only-- our government does not impose any restrictions, burdens or devices against gays as it did for a very long time, against blacks. It does not maks (and should not make) any special status or conditions for gays-- good or bad.

That said, I believe the current laws should be expanded to include gays in the marriage context, I don't belive that is necessarily a special privilege, it is simply fair.

You don't need to read me chapter and verse about how gays have been mistreated by other people in this and other societies-- that's obvious. When I speak of oppression, I usually restrict that language to institutional forms, not random assholes who take out their various hatreds on whoever makes a convenient target at the moment. That could apply to almost anyone.

Remember, I am on your side.

[Mattforclark]

65. I don't understand

"There is no "civil rights" issue at play here because marriage is not currently viewed as a legal right. It is a license."

what substantive difference there is between a "right" and a "privilege." The only difference I can see is that you use a different word.

"Technically it's no different from me not being able to obtain a license to drive a cab because I do not speak english. There have simply been certain restrictions placed on the obtaining of marriage licenses, age, blood tests, whatever they are-- they are there."

Here's a quote from a supreme court decision about whether marriage is a right:

http://www.multiracial.com/government/loving.html

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered."

[John BigBootay]

68. "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Many would argue that this phrase explicitly implies that the survival of the species is predicated on the notion that marriages produce offspring that are raised in a household. And that THAT is the fundamental purpose of marriage-- and that THAT is where any concept of a "right" springs from.

There is probably a biblical concept at play here.

Ultimately-- even this landmark case is limited in it's scope of the time in which it was crafted.

Once again-- these laws WILL change, they WILL broaden and gays WILL be allowed to marry or civilly join right here in America. It is a matter of changing or broadening the law.

But the basic jist of this thread was asking if I believed the effort to achieve gay marriage is analagous to the struggle for civil rights by blacks-- and I still maintain they are not.

Does this mean I do not support gay marriage-- once again, NO. I do support it. Period.

[Strapping Buck]

37. Thanks John...

Or is it Mr. BigBootay? Anyway, you are right about the distinction of this being a licensing or sanctioning issue rather than a human rights issue.

The main reason for this is obvious. You can not just look at a person a know that they are same-sex attracted-- unless they choose to reveal this to you through particular fashions, dress, styles, body language etc. In other words, someone could be gay and no one in the world would necessarily have to know this.

But if you have large amounts of melanin in your skin, everyone knows it.

[John BigBootay]

41. For you-- It's just John--

And thanks for also seeing the distinction. I also want all of my many, many gay friends to enjoy the same benefits and privelages that my wife and I share, but we need to do this thing the right way-- and talk about it in the right context.

[Jesus H. Christ]

40. Pretty much the same.

Blacks were always allowed to marry, actually that's not true, for the first half of this country's history blacks were not allowed to marry, but only if they married within there same race. Interracial marriage was considered an abomination and was outlawed, it's detractors often used the Bible as an argument.


"gays are only discriminated against when they attempt to go beyond the parameters as currently established."

That's the same argument for interracial marriage. And when you consider gays can be discriminated against in housing, emplorment, etc. the distinctions between gay civil rights and black civil rights gets even narrower.

[ulysses]

88. semantics

Blacks were widely discriminated against in many ways because of pigmentation, gays are only discriminated against when they attempt to go beyond the parameters as currently established.

Rosa Parks went beyond the parameters as were then established.

Are the situations completely the same? No, of course not. Gay marriage is, however, still a civil, and human, rights issue.

[Catherine Vincent]

28. I hear ya. I'm uneasy with it too.

[Paragon]

29. Here's what I'm "uneasy" with

1. The our-human-rights-struggle-is-better-than-your-human-rights-struggle inference. If you think this is some kind of contest, you've entirely missed the point.

2. Getting the logon "Strapping Buck" past the mods. I'm a white guy, and I find that offensive.

[Terran]

62. Why, exactly,

do you find the name "Strapping Buck" offensive? I can see why an African-American member might do so, not seeing the irony, but why you?

[Ysabel]

83. if you can see why it would be offensive...

to anyone...

then how can you not see that anyone who cares about what is offensive to another might also be offended...

?

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[roughsatori]

34. It is not about who is the biggest victim--it is about equal rights

and under the law Heterosexual African American's have more rights then GLBT of any hue of skin. If you want to think of yourself as a winner in the victim game is fine. I am not concerned with victimology contests. I am concerned with equal rights for all. And regardless of your skin color if you are not part of the solution regarding equal rights for all you are part of the problem.

Some people are so attached to being the biggest victim that they are infuriated when it is pointed out that scientifically there is one race: Human. And that all the rest are social constructs used to gain power or oppress others.


And it is "mighty white" of you when you write that you "couldn't care less" about sexual orientation. Must be nice to fit in with the group in power in that area.

[Strapping Buck]

42. Thanks for the insults, but...

you know you are taking the "couldn't care less" comment out of context.

In case you don't know, let me rephrase:

In nothing but a spirit of total open-mindedness and diverse liberality, I don't care with whom, what, when, where, and why anybody has orgasms with anybody else-- or anything else. It's their private business and not mine.

Now what group does that put me into?

[David__77]

36. No contradiction in these struggles.

The only thing I really take offense to in your post is that you put the word "struggle" in quotation marks with regard to the fight for marriage equality. The implication is that you find this political fight to be illegitimate. If so, then it is perfectly clear why the alleged comparison with African-American civil rights would offend you.

I think it is a legitimate and just struggle and one that everyone should support, just as everyone needs to support the struggle against racist oppression. Racism is a much more cardinal issue in this nation in many respects, but I don't wish to prioritize these struggles in this way. I think it's counterproductive. Some people are racially oppressed and also oppressed due to their sexual orientation. It's not clear cut.

I know there are those who oppose marriage equality on the basis of the argument "you're free to marry someone--of the opposite sex." But that "freedom" is oppressive on the basis of sexual orientation. And, if a comparison must be drawn, it is true that anti-miscegenation laws employed the very same logic--"you are free to marry--someone of the same race." The Supreme Court rejected that logic in 1967. Though race and sexual orientation are different, the equal protection issue are the same. If we disagree on that point, then there's really no point in debating because we have fundamentally different views on the matter. I support marriage equality--others do not.

[Strapping Buck]

38. Sorry, didn't mean the quotes as you took them...

I meant them literally as quotes. As is this is what actualy people call this actual issue.

[David__77]

47. I'll try not to be defensive.

I have always tried to be careful about the issue you're bringing. And I've always tried to push the notion that the lesbian/gay movement must put prime effort into fighting racism and in bringing forth Black leadership along with others. It's an important principle. But please try to be open to hearing more about what it's like for many people in this country to be gay. Especially growing up. It's a unique experience, and I think it's fair to call it oppressive. I don't think anyone is trying to disrespect Black people's struggles with these arguments. But we are arguing that equal protection applies to us. To those who disagree, I don't think they are following the logic of human rights fully.

[John BigBootay]

53. Guys- we're on the same side on this issue--

we're merely arguing over whether the issue of marriage licenses for gays equals a civil rights issue of the same proportion as what blacks have faced.

I say it doesn't / you say it does-- big deal. We still know what the right solution is, right?

[skypilot]

67. Maybe I missed it...

...but I don't recall anyone saying that marriage licenses for gays is equal to the civil rights struggle of blacks. As I understand it, and have said, the right for gays to marry is PART of a larger fight for civil rights. The marriage angle is simply the one being pushed to the forefront right now--most likely as a wedge issue.

[John BigBootay]

70. What other rights are we talking about?

[psyntist]

86. Other rights

Pretty much anyone that you can name.

There are several cities in the US that include sexual orientation and or gender identity but there are still entirely too many that do not.

The fact that I could be fired because of who I chose to go to bed with. The fact that my landlord can evict me or deny my application because of who I choose to go to bed with, denying access to public space (ie bars, hotels, resturants), and the list goes on. The discrimination my community faces is not as explicit as that faced by african americans in past decaded but it is nonetheless as present. There may not be actual signs in a resturant that state only whites but there might as well be.

[mondo joe]

105. Over 1000 rights and responsibilities conferred with marriage

There are over 1000 rights automatically conferred with a legal marriage.

These include the right to visit and make decisions for a spouse who is medically incapacitated, the right to keep the shared estate a couple has built up over time, the right to social security survivor benefits and many more.

[David__77]

48. I'll try not to be defensive.

I have always tried to be careful about the issue you're bringing. And I've always tried to push the notion that the lesbian/gay movement must put prime effort into fighting racism and in bringing forth Black leadership along with others. It's an important principle. But please try to be open to hearing more about what it's like for many people in this country to be gay. Especially growing up. It's a unique experience, and I think it's fair to call it oppressive. I don't think anyone is trying to disrespect Black people's struggles with these arguments. But we are arguing that equal protection applies to us. To those who disagree, I don't think they are following the logic of human rights fully.

[sherifffruitfly]

51. who's the biggest victim?

I AM! I AM! says the black man...

NO! ME! ME! says the gay man....

.... says the jewish man..... says the palestinian man.....

and the struggle continues......lol (mebbe i need an acronym for "laughs while crying"...)


sheesh

cdj

[Strapping Buck]

59. couldn't resist but...

don't forget the black, gay, jewish, palestinian man.

Thanks for your level-headedness sheriff.

[sherifffruitfly]

64. all of which is not to say....

of course the OP is literally correct - there are a great many substantive differences between the gay struggles, and the (ongoing) black struggles. and also between all other struggles of the downtrodden...

i just hate the whiny "don't forget who the REAL victim is" crap....

the world has enuff suffering to go around - no need to pretend about monopolies on that commodity...

cdj

[Tomee450]

54. This African American

is in total agreement with you. I too, get offended when hearing gays compare their struggle to that of African Americans. Even today, if two applicants applied for a job or an apartment, many whites imo, would rather rent to or hire a white gay person. A gay person who is white might escape the murderous bigot by hiding his sexual orientation, a black person has no such option. I believe gays are discriminated against and that is wrong. However, no gay white person would ever want to change places with a black person, and we all know that. Gays should fight for their rights but in doing so,I wish they would refrain from saying that their struggle is equal to that of the African American. It is not and never has been. The black gay person has it twice as bad.

[skypilot]

69. And this black gay person does not agree with you.

Gays are not saying that they have it as bad or worse than black people. They are simply trying to point out that BOTH struggles are for basic human rights and dignity.

[Tomee450]

84. Well let us agree to disagree.

I have repeatedly heard gay people attempt to equate their struggles with that of African Americans.I know that gay people suffer discrimination and that is appalling but to say that gay struggle is comparable to that of black people is simply wrong. Is there driving while gay? Do we hear of white policemen shooting down gays? Do you honestly believe that Amidou Diallo would have been blown to bits by the police for simply being gay? I don't think so. However,I do believe that the black person who is gay has a far tougher time of it than his white counterpart. He is subject of the same racial hatred directed at most blacks.I believe gays should have equal rights and would not like to see a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I am just very unconfortable hearing that black and gay struggles are the same.

[David__77]

74. I don't know of anyone who has said they were the same.

The are similar in that they are both struggles for human freedom. Ultimately, they are both subsumed in a broader concept of freedom. Of course gay men or lesbians in this country have not suffered the same level of type of violence and virtual genocide as Black people have. I don't think you'll find this argument being made. I do think the lesbian and gay rights movement needs to focus more on opposing racial oppression more in its own right. I think this would go a long way toward alleviating some Black people's concerns about the lesbian and gay civil rights struggle.

[Pithlet]

71. The struggle of one does not take away

from the struggles others have endured.

Are we supposed to shrug our shoulders and say "Well, at least they don't have it as bad as blacks did?" We need to deal with the injustice that the GLBT community face in our country, and fight measures that will ensure that these injustices continue. I agree that the struggle may not be on the same scope as abolition and the civil rights movement, but I think you dismiss too much of what they face. To me, as long as anyone is facing this hatred and bigotry, I'm not satisfied. I will fight with the same determination, regardless of the scope of that injustice. It should not be tolerated.

[geniph]

75. No, the only way they're similar

is that the knuckledraggers are trying to use the same arguments they used against "interracial" marriage and "miscegenation" against gay marriage. The arguments were ignorant nonsense then and they're ignorant nonsense now.

Genetically speaking, humans don't even have races. We have superficial differences in the phenotype.

[geniph]

76. The struggle for African-Americans to have full civil rights

is not analogous to the struggle for the rights of gays to marriage, but the struggle for interracial marriages to be legal IS. That's where the comparisons should be made and parallels drawn.

[transeo]

78. So you'd be willing to give up the right to marry a white person?

You said:

"What I do have a problem with is the comparison between this 'struggle' and the black Civil Rights Movement. There is no person in this country who, at the present moment in all 50 states, can NOT get married."

Well, the same could be said of African Americans before the anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. There was not law restricting African Americans form getting married either, as long as they married another African American.

Some of what you say is true - homophobia has not been legally institutionized to the same extent like racism. That does NOT mean it isn't a HUGE problem. Does it matter who the bigger victim is? No. We should all stand together against the oppressors until we have equality for all.

[Pithlet]

82. Right. My right to marry

would have meant squat to me if they told me I couldn't marry my husband when we fell in love. But that didn't happen, because I'm a heterosexual woman who fell in love with a man.

[ulysses]

85. bingo.

[psyntist]

89. Sorry but they are more similar than not

African Americans were allowed to vote as long as they paid a poll tax and passed an exam

I have known people that were turned down or refused property (rental or ownership) because of sexual orientation (real or percieved)

I have been kicked out of resturants because of my identity. We do exist but since there is no law against this type of discrimination what can we do.

I think you need to look into the case of Eric Tuleo (pro football player, he quit because of his sexuality and discrimination).

I am sorry but GLBT are facing the same struggle. It is easy to dismiss because we can hide this if we choose but why should we have to hide it. Why should anyone be asked to sneek in their lover to their apartment for fear of getting evicted? Why shoud I not be able to live with my lover in a one bedroom apartment because my lover is the same sex when opposite sexed couples in the same building can live together? Why should I have to worry about getting fired? Why can I not bring in a picture of my lover to work like my hetero coworkers for fear of being fired or becoming persona-non-grata? Why should I have to put up with attacks both pyhsical and verbal from all sorts of people? Why do I have to worry every time a police man happens by because if he looks to close, I could end up in serious trouble for simply being different?

I agree that the fight for marriage is not the same as the The Civil Rights movement. It is just one aspect of it. It is just one peice of the entire movement for ALL people to be treating with the same respect and guarnteed the same legal rights. I am sorry to break this to you but today, african americans have more rights that GLBT people. Very very true.

Do I think that the Gay Rights movement is better than the African American Civil Rights movement, Nope. I think they are facets of the same thing, the same struggle to be treated equally. Niether one more, neither one better.

[eridani]

94. Maybe not the whole civil rights movement--

but at one time interracial marriage was illegal for reasons pretty similar to why gay marriage is not recognized.

The civil rights movement is, of course, much broader in scope than the single issue of gay marriage.

[MrPrax]

99. I remember...

A trip to the east coast with a GF...

Went to Atlanta and she HAD to go to a shoe store to grab some 'evening' shoes...

She wore socks and wanted to try on some 'fancy' shoes...she grabbed the hosiery 'box' and the cutie told her that, 'you don't want that hon', that's for the coloreds'

Well...we didn't buy any shoes and politely left.

This was in 1992!!!


I am white and straight...BUT could be white and GAY...

I can 'pass' if I have to...

;-)

[cboy4]

100. You gays have it good....

That's what an African-American friend told me after explaining he can't hide his skin color when he goes to try to rent an apartment and is turned down and can't hide his skin when he's followed around my security inside department stores.

I didn't know what to say.

[mondo joe]

102. I'd say his priorities are screwed up

I think we'd all be better off if EVERY GAY PERSON on the planet had a pink triangle on their forehead.

[mondo joe]

103. Sorry to horn in on your oppression monopoly

Many minority groups are oppressed in many ways, and it's easy enough to point out the ways in which they are different. But no one gets a monopoly on the status of being oppressed, or having their civil rights denied.

And I'll tell you, I'd rather be legally married and have a separate water fountain than be barred from marriage but be able to have a sip whereever I like.

Loving v Virginia found that marriage is a civil right. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes as a human right "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

So people who say this isn't a civil right don't know what they're talking about.

And if they persist in that line of reasoning, they should ask themselves if dining in a restaurant, riding a bus or drinking from the same water fountain are civil rights.

[DjTj]

106. I completely agree and this is what bothers me about this...

The GLBT community on DU and elsewhere berates Democrats for not standing up for their rights. They insist that it's wrong and that they deserve instant recognition. They call our political leaders cowards and proclaim that they won't vote for them...

Then, if they make a comparison to the Civil Rights movement, I shake my head.

In 1776, some of the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was wrong, but they had to keep it to ensure the survival of a young and fragile nation. Perhaps they were cowards, but perhaps in a Democracy we must respect the will of the people, and perhaps we must be patient.

When the Civil War was fought, a great man guided the nation through a bitter struggle, and at the end he paid for his life. He was courageous, and he was shot in the back.

When Plessy v. Ferguson was establishing separate but equal, Booker T. Washington did not protest. He asked only for economic opportunity because he knew full integration was simply not feasible at that time. Perhaps he was a coward, but perhaps he was a realist and was patient.

When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, 9 Supreme Court Justices were courageous. Justice Black's family had to move out of their home state of Alabama and were not welcome there for a decade.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in the next decade, but how many leaders paid for that with their lives? JFK, who adopted the cause, MLK, who led the movement, and RFK, who was to inherit it. They were all courageous, and they were all shot and killed.

Today, African-Americans are still fighting for equality. This problem was recognized more than 200 years ago and it still has not been resolved. They have shown immense patience and many courageous leaders have given their lives for it.

The level of violence will not be anywhere near comparable, but the struggle for gay rights will require some courage and it will most certainly require some patience.

Things are moving forward now and it seems to me like the GLBT community will achieve equality before African-Americans do. When gay rights activists yell and scream and point to the Civil Rights movement, I shake my head at their lack of patience. Changing the hearts and minds of America takes hard work and it takes time, and many others have given up far more and waited far longer for other noble causes.