Same-Sex Marriage Issue Challenges Religious, Political Ties
By Phuong Ly and Hamil R. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 15, 2004; Page B01
Standing on the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the elder statesmen of the civil rights movement greeted the gay men and lesbians who came toward them, as if for a blessing.
The smiles couldn't quite cover up the awkwardness.
It was the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington, a milestone in black history, but the largest and most vocal presence at the event last summer came from the busloads of people, most of them white, brought by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Today, as gay-rights activists step up the battle for same-sex marriage, their relationship with African American leaders could be crucial. Yet the issue involves such a complex mix of religion and politics that the support of black leaders -- and the mantle of the civil rights movement -- is up for grabs. Distinguished figures have lined up on both sides.
The Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, one of the architects of the 1963 March on Washington, calls same-sex marriage an "abomination" that could destroy society. Along with a coalition of other faith leaders, the former D.C. delegate is pushing for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
"For most black Americans who know our history, we do not want any further confusion about what a marriage and a family happen to be," said Fauntroy, a spokesman for the Alliance for Marriage, which helped craft the amendment President Bush has backed. "We have not yet recovered from the cruelties of slavery, which were based on the destruction of the family."
(snip)
Few believe that the issue will significantly affect black voting patterns, which tend to be solidly Democrat. But the debate is uniquely vexing for clergy, elected leaders and homosexuals because it pits two pillars of the black community -- progressive activism and conservative morality, both nurtured in the black church -- squarely against each other.
In this struggle of values, the usually vocal African American organizations have responded mostly with silence. Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, has said he supports civil unions, but he was careful to point out that he was speaking only for himself and not on behalf of the organization, which has taken no position.
Locally, clergy from Prince George's County's largest black churches turned out in force last week for an Annapolis rally against slot machine gambling. But when legislation on same-sex marriage came up for a hearing two weeks earlier, none of those ministers showed up.
For black elected officials, who depend on the church for political as well as spiritual sustenance, the issue is particularly difficult. That may explain why five of the six Maryland delegates who abstained on a same-sex marriage vote last week were black Democrats.
Del. Michael L. Vaughn of Prince George's County was one of them. Raised in a church, Vaughn said his views on the issue are clear: The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.
But he was bothered by a Republican ploy that brought the issue up for a vote on the House floor despite a committee's decision to kill the bill.
"I didn't want to get into a political game with the opposing party. I didn't want to play into their hands," Vaughn said, adding that the state already has a law that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The measure that was defeated last week would have prohibited Maryland from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
In the South, where religion and racial politics run deep, black Democrats agree that they are torn between their distaste for homosexuality and their concern that the issue could help their Republican political rivals. In Georgia, black Democrats -- many of them deacons or ministers who had previously supported a ban on same-sex marriage -- balked at voting for a state constitutional amendment. Black Democrats were also the only legislators in the Mississippi House of Representatives to vote against such a ban.
Many African American leaders said they don't want homosexual men and women to suffer the kind of economic injustice and discrimination that the civil rights movement fought. Sanctioning such marriages, however, involves a fundamental change in their religious views.
Clarence James, a Temple University professor who has written books about the black church and homosexuality, said that for many African Americans, same-sex marriage became a political issue only when gay activists compared their work to the civil rights movement.
"The homosexual movement has nothing to do with civil rights," James said. "The civil rights movement was about a positive freedom, which is a freedom to rise to the highest levels of our capabilities. The homosexual movement is part of the sexual revolution. It is about negative freedom and the freedom from moral restraint."
(snip)
In his study at New Bethel Baptist Church in Northwest Washington, Fauntroy keeps a scattered collection of black fountain pens. Each was used by a president to sign legislation that Fauntroy had lobbied for -- from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in employment and education, to the 2002 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act, or No FEAR, which gave more protection to whistle-blowers.
Same-sex marriage is not an issue he supports. But, he added, it does not change his political allegiances. "This is the last thing I'm going to think about when I'm in the voting booth."
(remainder snipped)
It's interesting how the lines are drawn, particularly when we're talking about a civil rights issue. I posted my personal opinion about it a while back, but before people pile on me, here it is again:
- I think that if it comes up to the supreme court, that challenges to existing laws will be successful.
- I personally believe that this should be an issue decided by the legislative branches at the various state levels.
- My personal distate is irrelevant. My opinion doesn't count. I should just shut up and color.
Congressional black Democrats said comparisons shouldn't be made between the struggle by homosexuals to legalize same-sex "marriage" and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said they are on shaky ground with their constituents after the presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry compared the two issues during a town hall meeting in Jackson, Miss., last week.
Mr. Kerry was asked during the forum if it was fair for homosexual-rights activists to use prominent figures of the civil rights movement in their effort to legalize same-sex "marriages." The Massachusetts senator said he saw a correlation between the issues, which didn't fare too well in the heavily black deep South.
Caucus members said the comparison is wrong.
"The first time I heard the comparison was Sunday," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat, who attended the town hall meeting. "And my approach to [homosexual rights] is, it is a separate issue."
Caucus chairman Rep. Elijah E. Cummings said the issue is sure to resurface as Mr. Kerry campaigns throughout black communities, since blacks are not as socially liberal when it comes to same-sex "marriage."
"With African-Americans, you do have a conservative religious community toward [homosexual 'marriage']," the Maryland Democrat said.
There have been several incidents of homosexual-rights activists and city mayors invoking the names of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King and equating the 1960s movement to the current struggle by homosexuals to win "marriage" rights.
But black politicians on Capitol Hill said they do not think that is right.
"The civil rights movement was more of a movement for the equal rights of all Americans: education, voting rights, jobs. Whereas gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special group of Americans," said Rep. Artur Davis, Alabama Democrat. "So I would not compare civil rights with gay rights."
Mr. Thompson said same-sex "marriage" could in some small way affect whom blacks decide to support in November, "if they feel that strongly about it." But, he said, ultimately he did not think it was enough of a hot-button issue to trump "more pressing" issues for black America in the election, such as the economy, jobs, health care and education.
Mr. Kerry said Republicans are using the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex "marriage" as a "wedge issue" to divide America. Mr. Thompson agreed.
But Republican lawmakers have said Mr. Bush was forced to act after the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, began issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples in violation of California state law, and when Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., and a Green Party member, also began "marrying" same-sex couples.
More than 4,100 same-sex "weddings" have been performed in San Francisco in the past two months and hundreds more in New Paltz.
And if it is made a wedge issue, there does not appear to be a lot of wiggle room between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, some black Democrats are considering the amendment.
"I have not made a decision on the constitutional amendment. Although I don't see a need for one, when I see mayors announcing that they will violate the law, it raises the point and puts the country and the Congress in a difficult position," Mr. Davis said.
A handful of black pastors in Boston have voiced their disapproval of the same-sex rights and civil rights link this week. And the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, called on black ministers across the country to oppose same-sex "marriage" and to support the proposed federal marriage amendment.
Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush say they are against homosexual "marriage." Mr. Kerry said he support civil unions, a sort-of marriage by contracts and wills rather than one with ministers, a license and full state approval. Mr. Bush has been somewhat cagey on the civil unions issue, but has thrown his support behind a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman.
But polls show that the majority of Americans are against legalizing "marriage" between homosexuals.
A CBS poll conducted Feb. 24 through 27 showed that 62 percent of Americans oppose homosexual "marriage" with 30 percent saying they are in favor and 8 percent undecided. The same poll showed that 59 percent of Americans favored the constitutional amendment with 35 percent opposing it and 6 percent undecided. The poll had a 3 percent margin of error.
A recent national Gallup poll showed that 40 percent of blacks were accepting of homosexuality.
BTW, my motivation with the past two posts is to try to provide some feedback on the "black" view of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. I figure that they are the subject matter experts on that subject.
Part of what I've heard as the rationale behind behind the Black civil rights movement distancing themselves from the gay rights issue is, other than the obvious religious issue, the fact that a person (other than maybe M. Jackson) cannot hide being black. This is not so much an issue with a person being gay. A person has to reveal, either through words or actions, that he or she is gay. I haven't seen to many people successfully hide that they are black. Therefore the issues of employment equity, separate but equal schools, bathrooms, etc. that were the spur of the black civil rights movement are not as much of a factor in this case.
That is much of the explanation that I have heard from neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. (and I live in a county that is 70% black, so we're not talking about an isolated visit with some kind of an oreo).
Thanks for the articles Mark. Nice to see that viewpoint, because there have been some here to compare the civil rights struggle of the 60's with the gay "rights" issues and particularly the same sex marriage issue of today. Personally I am happy to see that there the CBC and the NAACP does not see their struggle as the same.
You say that you live in a country that is 70% black. Which country is that?
Oh, sorry for not reading that right. And ya know, I believe you mentioned that before about Kensington outlawing Santa Claus. That's kinda wild to be sure. I had never heard that before. I'll have to look it up on the Net. And I didn't do it, it was them!
But really, I have always told my kids from the beginning that Santa was a big fake and a scam. Must be in my "Kensington blood..."
We interrupt this thread with the following special announcement
quote:The Washington Times
November 29, 2001, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: PART B; METROPOLITAN; MARYLAND; Pg. B1
LENGTH: 519 words
HEADLINE: Santa gets axed from town's tree ceremony
BYLINE: Matthew Cella; THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BODY:
Scrooges and Grinches on the Kensington Town Council have kicked Santa Claus out of the Christmas tree-lighting ceremony this Sunday.
The four-member council - Leanne Pfautz, Chris Bruch, Glenn Cowan and Barbara Scharman - voted unanimously Oct. 29 not to have Kris Kringle appear at its annual ceremony because images of the jolly old elf offend some people.
Mayor Lynn Raufaste said council members in the town of 1,700 voted against Santa "because two families in our town felt that they would be uncomfortable with Santa Claus being a part of our event."
For decades, hundreds of Kensington residents each year have turned out to see the mayor and Santa signal the start of the holiday season by lighting the 50-foot fir outside City Hall together. Sunday, the mayor will go solo.
"This is a part of the American life, and I just think it's a shame that we can't have one in our town this year," she said.
So Santa will be replaced with patriotism. Firefighters, police officers, military personnel and postal workers will be honored at the tree-lighting ceremony.
And the Christmas tree? The council says it's not a Christmas tree at all. "It's an entirely secular tree," said Mr. Cowan.
There will be no crosses or creches, no angels or stars. Festive red, white and blue lights will provide the holiday glow. And a local band will play patriotic tunes, lest anyone be offended by "Jingle Bells."
Just to be on the safe side, the council replaced its "peace tree" display with a "peace banner," to which children will affix homemade ornaments.
"It's as secular a ceremony as you're going to find," Mr. Cowan said of the tree lighting. "I'm actually gratified that people have enough mental energy to worry about something as inconsequential as this."
The council is examining how it can include diverse religious images after debates in recent years over whether a menorah should be added to the display. But for now, the easiest solution was to cleanse the tree lighting of any religious symbolism. So Santa had to go.
Not all residents are sold on the council's yuletide patriotic theme. "It's just a really wonderful tradition, and I think it's sad they have to stop that," said one Kensington resident who has taken her children to the event for years. "I'm curious to how many people object to it."
Just when it looked as if this thread had died a death.... :D-->
The fact that some black leaders don't see it the same way is neither here nor there. There are whites also who don't see it that way and there are whites and blacks who do. Being gay is not limited to white caucasian males.
The fact that blacks cannot hide their skin colour, whilst having been a more obvious means of discrimination, does not invalidate the inspiration that some people see in Rosa Parks and others who stood up against the discrimination of the time. There are many things that are not immediately obvious but which are nevertheless treated differently.
And the original Kensington is of course in London.
The fact that some black leaders don't see it the same way is neither here nor there. There are whites also who don't see it that way and there are whites and blacks who do. Being gay is not limited to white caucasian males.
The fact that blacks cannot hide their skin colour, whilst having been a more obvious means of discrimination, does not invalidate the inspiration that some people see in Rosa Parks and others who stood up against the discrimination of the time. There are many things that are not immediately obvious but which are nevertheless treated differently.
Of course. But there are those who believe that "civil rights" are "civil rights" and that the entire "civil rights" community should be/ is a monolithic entity.
I would not presume to educate you, Trefor, on the subject. However, there are those who have allied themselves with your cause who would believe that there is solidarity among all the civil rights groups, regardless of consituency. Simply stated, there isn't.
As Rocky has expounded upon at length, Sen. Goldwater would roll over in his grave at some things that Republicans do in his name. The above cited articles show that some of the civil rights leaders would probably similarly prefer to not have their names appended to this cause.
I accept what you say Mark. There are always those who think that once they have achieved what they see as right etc that nothing more needs to be done.
I came across this link to a black columnist who challenges that view in the Miami Herald:
The difference here is just as the CBC and others have said. The black experience for civil rights was the inclusion and equal opportunity for all people.
Gays are not barred from education, voting or health care or restaurant service, hotels, buses, drinking fountains, etc.'
Gays are among the most educated and affluent citizens around.
Does this sound like oppression?
The ability to form contracts that bind two people together have been around for years. But that's not their game. They want to rewrite laws (i.e. hate crimes/speech) that benefit them only.
Gays are not barred from education, voting or health care or restaurant service, hotels, buses, drinking fountains, etc.
They're not barred from marriage, either.
The notion that the push for same-sex marriage is in any way similar to the movement for civil rights for blacks (or women) is ludicrous and offensive. (Offensive to the people who fought for civil rights and to the people who are in favor of civil rights for all, but are being called bigots because they don't honor homosexuals' actions or desires.) Both blacks and women were barred from constitutional rights because of who they were, not what they did. Homosexuals are barred from no civil rights, of any kind, based on who they are. It's simply that some of their choices are not honored by society, as some other choices are.
This is not a matter of civil rights at all. It's a matter of a group demanding that society declare their personal choice (domestic arrangements with someone of the same sex) to be a preferred choice, and to grant benefits on that basis.
Hey! Those sons a bitc*es! I use to take my kids to that tree lighting event! I may hve been a scrooge about Santa, but I still like Christmas! "Political correctness". No wonder I left that miserable place on the east coast and have holed up here in Alaska!!!
And thank you Def59, your point is well made. That is probably one of my biggest beefs in this whole thing. The fact that it would "special rights" above and beyond just equal rights. To me, African Americans are a race of people, whereas, gay people are a group who are set apart soley because of the choice in the pleasure that they choose. We have debated that over and over way back in this thread somewhere. But that is something that sticks in my craw...
And yes Trefor, I agree. Like I mentioned, we already covered that sapect way back when in this thread. Although, Marks information about the Congressional Black caucus is new and puts the same subject in a different light.
And.... it fits with my way of thinkin'! :)-->
But yeah, I am getting tired of this argument. I will still hold my beliefs of course, but if there are any of my old friends here who are now gay, I have probably hurt their feelings, and that makes me sad. There is one as a matter of fact, and I hope this individual wasn't lurking during this last spate of homosexual scrutiny...
I accept what you say Mark. There are always those who think that once they have achieved what they see as right etc that nothing more needs to be done.
I simply think that they don't see this as an analogue. As stated previously, you CAN hide being gay. How does a person (other than "the gloved one") hide being black?
quote:I came across this link to a black columnist who challenges that view in the Miami Herald:
Something for people who have reached that mindset to think about perhaps.
It was an interesting commentary. It certainly goes to show that there is hardly a monolithic opinion out there. If we can discuss this civilly, however, I don't accept its basic premise:
quote:And how can we stand with the very people -- social conservatives -- who not so long ago didn't want us in their churches, their schools, their parks or their restaurants? Yet more and more, we act and sound just like them.
We use our Bibles to justify our bigotry, just as they did.
We describe equality as unnatural, just as they did.
We invoke the sanctity of tradition, just as they did.
And we are wrong, just as they were.
My fundamental issue with the article is that it equates an attribute characterized by a physical feature with an attribute characterized by a behavior. The two are not analagous. Unlike the columnist, I believe that it is a proper function of the state to proscribe behaviors where the state has a compelling interest to do so (now, mind you, I use the term "state" to refer to the lowest common denominator, not as a reference to the federal government). The state regulates all sorts of behaviors. We may or may not agree with those regulations -- laws can be changed as society changes. There are those who believe that drug use should be legalized. If a significant enough proportion of the elected representatives agree with that proposition, they can change the laws (witness the "medical marijuana" revolution of recent years). Most states have already overturned the laws that proscribe homosexual conduct (i.e., sodomy laws). There are those who would prefer that insider trading regulations be nullified. There are some who believe that prostitution laws should be eliminated. If a state wishes to change its marriage laws to remove the requirement for diversity in sex, so be it.
Having said that, it is one of the primary functions of religion to set a moral standard of behavior as that particular religion sees fit. We may or may not agree with those moral standards, but it is their right. Part of those moral standards include the proscription of behaviors that do not meet the standards set by that religious body. There are some who are far more liberal in their standards than others.
My personal behavioral practices would certainly not meet the standards set forth by certain congregations, if not entire denominations: I smoke tobacco and drink liquor. As a class, people who practice those behaviors would be greeted with disapproval, told their behaviors are sinful and offensive to God, and largely made to feel unwelcome. Are they using the Bible to justify this exclusionary behavior? Well, they would say so. I may choose to disagree. Are they being bigoted? I could say so, using the exact same logic used in this Herald commentary. But, I wouldn't. I simply know where I'm not welcome (an ever increasing list of places - especially in the case of the smoking behavior :(--> ) and choose to worship elsewhere. I don't think that most people would say I am the object of bigotry under the above circumstances. It's my choice to smoke and drink, and if I chose to not smoke and drink, I'd probably be warmly welcomed and completely accepted by those groups. It's in my hands, completely.
In my defense, I could perhaps claim some sort of genetic anomaly that caused me to take on these unacceptable behaviors. After all, my father smoked and drank as did his father. I know once you're hooked, you never really totally get rid of that craving (I've met people who have been smoke-free or drink-free for 20 years and they tell me that they still have an occasional urge for a smoke or a drink).
Is there crossover between the lines of religious "authority" and the authority of the state? Of course there is. If the religious authority is effective enough in convincing people of the morality of their beliefs, then likeminded people will be elected to representative office who will then proscribe behaviors that are offensive to their constituents' beliefs. This process works both ways.
Having written this tome, let me finally state that I do not wish to be offensive to anybody by drawing an analogy between homosexuality and smoking/ drinking. I realize that it is a flawed analogy, but I believe it is a more apt analogy than the one being drawn between between sexual preference and race.
We have reached the stage of boring rehashed repetition _ad nauseam_.
Unless people have something _original_ to add or there are further developments that are of interest, why don't we calm down and take a holiday?
Oops. That's the problem with writing a "book" post. I missed a couple of posts in between.
Yes, I agree, the "I think this" vs. "I think that" heated argument with the associated perjoratives has gone on long enough. I saw the two articles I cited earlier in the morning papers and thought of this thread -- something new and different that hasn't been documented followed by my excessively long commentary on the same.
But, yes, barring something new, I hopefully have killed this thread (following some death throes from the majority calling me a bigot, homophobe, and religious a$$h0le). But, I'll leave it for now.
Please people grow up! I am a Corps grad, totally heterosexual, and would rather see two people, even of the same sex, be happy and committed than two so called 'believers' who get married just so they can be in the Way Corps weddings (long time ago). Let's be happy that two people really want to make a committment, instead of judging people. As I tell people, I'm out of the business of telling people what to do, etc. I am not God.
Yes Mark posted a new angle. But Long Gone rehashed the argument regarding gays can "enjoy" heterosexual marriage and Jonny rehashed the argument that equal rights are special rights.
These things have been covered already quite a few times.
Right time for another cigarette which I can enjoy in the privacy of my own home... :D-->
Yes Jonny! There is obviously no hope for me! :D-->
Def - it is not a ploy. The number of times the same points have been made and countered becomes plain if you care to count how many times the same points have been made on the 31 pages of this thread.
It's pointless doing the old pantomime thing of:
"Oh yes it is...!"
"Oh no it isn't...!"
Mark covering the coloured viewpoints was a new element. I pointed out that there was more than one coloured viewpoint.
Now back to the important subjects of Betamax machines and terrorism.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
markomalley
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar14.html
It's interesting how the lines are drawn, particularly when we're talking about a civil rights issue. I posted my personal opinion about it a while back, but before people pile on me, here it is again:
- I think that if it comes up to the supreme court, that challenges to existing laws will be successful.
- I personally believe that this should be an issue decided by the legislative branches at the various state levels.
- My personal distate is irrelevant. My opinion doesn't count. I should just shut up and color.
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Also, here is an article that reflects the opinion of the Congressional Black Caucus and other political leadership groups on the subject:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.htm
BTW, my motivation with the past two posts is to try to provide some feedback on the "black" view of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. I figure that they are the subject matter experts on that subject.
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Part of what I've heard as the rationale behind behind the Black civil rights movement distancing themselves from the gay rights issue is, other than the obvious religious issue, the fact that a person (other than maybe M. Jackson) cannot hide being black. This is not so much an issue with a person being gay. A person has to reveal, either through words or actions, that he or she is gay. I haven't seen to many people successfully hide that they are black. Therefore the issues of employment equity, separate but equal schools, bathrooms, etc. that were the spur of the black civil rights movement are not as much of a factor in this case.
That is much of the explanation that I have heard from neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. (and I live in a county that is 70% black, so we're not talking about an isolated visit with some kind of an oreo).
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Thanks for the articles Mark. Nice to see that viewpoint, because there have been some here to compare the civil rights struggle of the 60's with the gay "rights" issues and particularly the same sex marriage issue of today. Personally I am happy to see that there the CBC and the NAACP does not see their struggle as the same.
You say that you live in a country that is 70% black. Which country is that?
BTW-Go Terps! I grew up in Kensington, Maryland..
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That's county, not country, JL.
Prince George's (where Santa is still fully welcome, unlike certain towns in Montgomery Co.
;)-->)
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Oh, sorry for not reading that right. And ya know, I believe you mentioned that before about Kensington outlawing Santa Claus. That's kinda wild to be sure. I had never heard that before. I'll have to look it up on the Net. And I didn't do it, it was them!
But really, I have always told my kids from the beginning that Santa was a big fake and a scam. Must be in my "Kensington blood..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
We interrupt this thread with the following special announcement
We now rejoin this thread, already in progress..."Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Just when it looked as if this thread had died a death....
:D-->
The fact that some black leaders don't see it the same way is neither here nor there. There are whites also who don't see it that way and there are whites and blacks who do. Being gay is not limited to white caucasian males.
The fact that blacks cannot hide their skin colour, whilst having been a more obvious means of discrimination, does not invalidate the inspiration that some people see in Rosa Parks and others who stood up against the discrimination of the time. There are many things that are not immediately obvious but which are nevertheless treated differently.
And the original Kensington is of course in London.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I would not presume to educate you, Trefor, on the subject. However, there are those who have allied themselves with your cause who would believe that there is solidarity among all the civil rights groups, regardless of consituency. Simply stated, there isn't.
As Rocky has expounded upon at length, Sen. Goldwater would roll over in his grave at some things that Republicans do in his name. The above cited articles show that some of the civil rights leaders would probably similarly prefer to not have their names appended to this cause.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I accept what you say Mark. There are always those who think that once they have achieved what they see as right etc that nothing more needs to be done.
I came across this link to a black columnist who challenges that view in the Miami Herald:
Leonard Pits - Miami Herald Article
Something for people who have reached that mindset to think about perhaps.
Added to original posting:
Hey Zix! I think I got this link thing right!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
The difference here is just as the CBC and others have said. The black experience for civil rights was the inclusion and equal opportunity for all people.
Gays are not barred from education, voting or health care or restaurant service, hotels, buses, drinking fountains, etc.'
Gays are among the most educated and affluent citizens around.
Does this sound like oppression?
The ability to form contracts that bind two people together have been around for years. But that's not their game. They want to rewrite laws (i.e. hate crimes/speech) that benefit them only.
There's a good article on the dangers of same-sex marriage on www.christianitytoday,com
which is a good, well-researched site that deals with religion and culture.
The article is good, but I cannot obtain permission to print it here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The notion that the push for same-sex marriage is in any way similar to the movement for civil rights for blacks (or women) is ludicrous and offensive. (Offensive to the people who fought for civil rights and to the people who are in favor of civil rights for all, but are being called bigots because they don't honor homosexuals' actions or desires.) Both blacks and women were barred from constitutional rights because of who they were, not what they did. Homosexuals are barred from no civil rights, of any kind, based on who they are. It's simply that some of their choices are not honored by society, as some other choices are.
This is not a matter of civil rights at all. It's a matter of a group demanding that society declare their personal choice (domestic arrangements with someone of the same sex) to be a preferred choice, and to grant benefits on that basis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Hey! Those sons a bitc*es! I use to take my kids to that tree lighting event! I may hve been a scrooge about Santa, but I still like Christmas! "Political correctness". No wonder I left that miserable place on the east coast and have holed up here in Alaska!!!
And thank you Def59, your point is well made. That is probably one of my biggest beefs in this whole thing. The fact that it would "special rights" above and beyond just equal rights. To me, African Americans are a race of people, whereas, gay people are a group who are set apart soley because of the choice in the pleasure that they choose. We have debated that over and over way back in this thread somewhere. But that is something that sticks in my craw...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
We have reached the stage of boring rehashed repetition ad nauseam.
Unless people have something original to add or there are further developments that are of interest, why don't we calm down and take a holiday?
Otherwise we are going round in circles - claim and counter claim, argument and counter argument. Accusations and counter accusations.
I'm sure we all have a real life to lead.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
And yes Trefor, I agree. Like I mentioned, we already covered that sapect way back when in this thread. Although, Marks information about the Congressional Black caucus is new and puts the same subject in a different light.
And.... it fits with my way of thinkin'!
:)-->
But yeah, I am getting tired of this argument. I will still hold my beliefs of course, but if there are any of my old friends here who are now gay, I have probably hurt their feelings, and that makes me sad. There is one as a matter of fact, and I hope this individual wasn't lurking during this last spate of homosexual scrutiny...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Relax, Trefor. Mark posted something new and some people commented. No big deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I simply think that they don't see this as an analogue. As stated previously, you CAN hide being gay. How does a person (other than "the gloved one") hide being black?
It was an interesting commentary. It certainly goes to show that there is hardly a monolithic opinion out there. If we can discuss this civilly, however, I don't accept its basic premise:My fundamental issue with the article is that it equates an attribute characterized by a physical feature with an attribute characterized by a behavior. The two are not analagous. Unlike the columnist, I believe that it is a proper function of the state to proscribe behaviors where the state has a compelling interest to do so (now, mind you, I use the term "state" to refer to the lowest common denominator, not as a reference to the federal government). The state regulates all sorts of behaviors. We may or may not agree with those regulations -- laws can be changed as society changes. There are those who believe that drug use should be legalized. If a significant enough proportion of the elected representatives agree with that proposition, they can change the laws (witness the "medical marijuana" revolution of recent years). Most states have already overturned the laws that proscribe homosexual conduct (i.e., sodomy laws). There are those who would prefer that insider trading regulations be nullified. There are some who believe that prostitution laws should be eliminated. If a state wishes to change its marriage laws to remove the requirement for diversity in sex, so be it.
Having said that, it is one of the primary functions of religion to set a moral standard of behavior as that particular religion sees fit. We may or may not agree with those moral standards, but it is their right. Part of those moral standards include the proscription of behaviors that do not meet the standards set by that religious body. There are some who are far more liberal in their standards than others.
My personal behavioral practices would certainly not meet the standards set forth by certain congregations, if not entire denominations: I smoke tobacco and drink liquor. As a class, people who practice those behaviors would be greeted with disapproval, told their behaviors are sinful and offensive to God, and largely made to feel unwelcome. Are they using the Bible to justify this exclusionary behavior? Well, they would say so. I may choose to disagree. Are they being bigoted? I could say so, using the exact same logic used in this Herald commentary. But, I wouldn't. I simply know where I'm not welcome (an ever increasing list of places - especially in the case of the smoking behavior
:(--> ) and choose to worship elsewhere. I don't think that most people would say I am the object of bigotry under the above circumstances. It's my choice to smoke and drink, and if I chose to not smoke and drink, I'd probably be warmly welcomed and completely accepted by those groups. It's in my hands, completely.
In my defense, I could perhaps claim some sort of genetic anomaly that caused me to take on these unacceptable behaviors. After all, my father smoked and drank as did his father. I know once you're hooked, you never really totally get rid of that craving (I've met people who have been smoke-free or drink-free for 20 years and they tell me that they still have an occasional urge for a smoke or a drink).
Is there crossover between the lines of religious "authority" and the authority of the state? Of course there is. If the religious authority is effective enough in convincing people of the morality of their beliefs, then likeminded people will be elected to representative office who will then proscribe behaviors that are offensive to their constituents' beliefs. This process works both ways.
Having written this tome, let me finally state that I do not wish to be offensive to anybody by drawing an analogy between homosexuality and smoking/ drinking. I realize that it is a flawed analogy, but I believe it is a more apt analogy than the one being drawn between between sexual preference and race.
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oops. That's the problem with writing a "book" post. I missed a couple of posts in between.
Yes, I agree, the "I think this" vs. "I think that" heated argument with the associated perjoratives has gone on long enough. I saw the two articles I cited earlier in the morning papers and thought of this thread -- something new and different that hasn't been documented followed by my excessively long commentary on the same.
But, yes, barring something new, I hopefully have killed this thread (following some death throes from the majority calling me a bigot, homophobe, and religious a$$h0le). But, I'll leave it for now.
"Fear the Turtle"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
recruit me
Please people grow up! I am a Corps grad, totally heterosexual, and would rather see two people, even of the same sex, be happy and committed than two so called 'believers' who get married just so they can be in the Way Corps weddings (long time ago). Let's be happy that two people really want to make a committment, instead of judging people. As I tell people, I'm out of the business of telling people what to do, etc. I am not God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I am relaxed actually.
Yes Mark posted a new angle. But Long Gone rehashed the argument regarding gays can "enjoy" heterosexual marriage and Jonny rehashed the argument that equal rights are special rights.
These things have been covered already quite a few times.
Right time for another cigarette which I can enjoy in the privacy of my own home...
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Trefor, you are a smoker?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there RECRUIT ME. Welcome to GSCAFE!
:)-->
I'd tell you to roll up your sleeves, and wade on in
--> But it looks like you already have!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Tref
That's good ploy. Just call the other person's arguement boring and repetitious and then maybe it will go away.
But I think we can agree to disagree on this matter, since you as well have brought nothing new to the table either.l
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes Jonny! There is obviously no hope for me!
:D-->
Def - it is not a ploy. The number of times the same points have been made and countered becomes plain if you care to count how many times the same points have been made on the 31 pages of this thread.
It's pointless doing the old pantomime thing of:
"Oh yes it is...!"
"Oh no it isn't...!"
Mark covering the coloured viewpoints was a new element. I pointed out that there was more than one coloured viewpoint.
Now back to the important subjects of Betamax machines and terrorism.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.