HOWEVER, I feel that the struggle against inequality is a universal prerogative, which means that I also don't like failure of people like Ms. Martin (who recognizes the overlap between the queer community and that of color) to extend their understanding to realize that these images use people of color to help further free people of color. I don't like that, despite her insults in the name of queer people of color, she clearly conceives of queerness as a white phenomenon, otherwise she wouldn't even view the use of comparisons as cultural appropriation. I don't like that a straight person gets to fight against the queer community and say she's doing it because she doesn't like it when one community thinks it knows how the other one thinks and feels.

So, as far as I can tell, both communities (if Grant and Martin are to be seen as representative, which I hope and don't think that they necessarily are) have a lot to get over.

"As a movement, we have little choice but to construct a new narrative."

Yep.

Of course, the form and the essence of the narrative is fair game; after all there are only 4 or 5 different types of stories when you break a story down to it's basic elements.

One way to resolve the argument might be to look at it from the perspective of wanting to successfully market an idea. Generally speaking, it's very hard to successfully market a genuinely new thing as being like something else. And that's because nobody is all that interested in a brand new way of accomplishing something that already appears to have been accomplished. It is, in other words, very, very hard for me to get you to do something new if it just looks like what's already happened.

But trying for analogies is always very tempting as we tend look to reframe things in ways that are compatible with our prior experiences. I might argue that we are, in a sense, biased toward wanting to establish continuity.

Now gay marriage, I think one can argue, is such a new thing. The notion that society would formally grant same sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage is unprecedented. Now looking at this from a technical perspective (wanting access to property rights, immigration rights etc. etc.) this makes gay marriage look like other civil rights struggles. But, it's also fairly clearly that it is not like those struggles. For one thing, you could argue that most previous civil rights battles have been vertical challenges; i.e. they were mostly about expanding existing franchises by permitting access to entire categories of people. The gay rights movement though is more of a horizontal challenge; it cuts across every class and ethnicity.

Thus, I'm with Renee; not primarily because of the ethics of appropriating somebody else's narrative and stories, or even because such an appropriation is obviously also a pretty effective way of antagonizing some of our best allies, but also because this kind of lazy appropriation makes for lousy marketing. As a movement, we have little choice but to construct a new narrative – one that isn't like something else – and to try and sell everybody who isn't yet an ally on what they will gain from allowing the definition of what's normative and generally acceptable.

Good point, but I wish the media would do a much better job of explaining the pecuilar things that make California California and not, say, Illinois, or Florida, or New Jersey.

Because the battle on the East Coast for same-sex marriage looks and has a much different feel than California's does.

Maybe that's becuase of the initiative process (which we don't have either in Illinois), for one. The republicans there seem far more to the right (Ahnold notwithstanding) than here in some parts of the Midwest in New England. The black communities, on my read, seem somewhat different (more of a new from the South feel out there). Noting those differences are important.

I think the attention California and New York gets is more an indication of how most people of the world think as being the United States, nevermind that there's a huge land mass in between.

But that said, California has been for a long time a leading indicator of how all of those places in the middle might eventually go. 1 out of 8 Americans live in California and we have a larger economy than any state in the Union. And much of the pop culture is broadcast out of CA to the rest of the world, which doesn't help convince people that there's plenty of vibrant cultural things coming out of the US. For example, where would House music be without Chicago?

California is very important to how things go in the US, which is why so much money was spent on preventing same-sex marriage. Even our enemies understand this. Not to offend, but who really cares that Arkansas continues to regress into the dark ages? The San Francisco Bay Area, which overwhelmingly voted against Prop 8, has a population much greater than the whole state of Arkansas. And I think numbers eventually do make a difference when one asks "what does the majority of the American people believe?"

I'm certainly NOT California centric (although I've lived here for the past 16 years). I'm so grateful for what's happening in New England and Illinois, as well as the struggles we face in other states. But I do have to agree with others that CA is kind of like the American laboratory where things are tested and then potentially undertaken by other states. CA is very much a trendsetter.

Maybe we should just put a big bubble around the state of California.

It's amazing to me all of a sudden how whatever the fuck is going on in that state is the national referdum on how black people think everywhere, how gay people think everywhere, how funamentalists think everywhere, etc.

Maybe the GLBT movement at large should just yank the gay civil rights movement out of California. Let New York handle. Let Jersey handle it (and they are doing a damn good job). Hell, give it to the Chicago gay community to be the face of the movement. Because y'all shit is sick out and it's in the national conservation in a way that's not applicable to many of us in the rest of the 49.

I don't even wonder or question why some people get offended or territorial about things, and in most cases I am kind of beyond being frustrated by it. I just know that some do, and some do not – which is why I maintain I don't think there is one answer to this question.

Forget finding a "grand unified front" to define our common oppression – you're not going to find one definitive black, gay, feminist, or anything position because we are all way too complex for that.

I think the best we can hope for is to talk things out like this (hopefully productively) so we can actually learn about others and find the common ground of our respective struggles have.

It began with the now thoroughly debunked notion that African-Americans [in California] voted overwhelmingly to pass Proposition 8 (initially estimates were put at 70%– later analysis showed that number to be around 58%) and media outlets like The Advocate asking 'Is Gay The New Black?' on their covers.

Please, change this.

I mean, the polls in Florida showed African-Americans voting at an even higher rate than California but Prop 8 was not a national referendum, as this sentence might lead people to believe.

If you want to read more about the leaders involved in the the 60s LGBT rights movement, check out Martin Duberman's "Stonewall". Not the most inspiring read, but certainly informative.

It also speaks to some early efforts to integrate the LGBT movement across racial, gender, and economic lines. As you might have guess, they didn't get very far.

I agree completely that we don't need any infighting–we need to work together. I also believe that the vast majority of us realize that the black civil rights struggle is not over and I don't see that the slogan implies that. It is referring to state sanctioned discrimination and gay has in fact replaced black in that specific regard. More on this later…
Yes, ENDA, Repealing DOMA and DADT are all vital to our cause.
It is just that we have legal protections for most things in California, and then full marriage equality was granted to us and we finally felt like we were being recognized as equal citizens in my state. Then it was ripped away. Our full attention was riveted to this particular aspect of equal rights so that is where the focus went. A wonderful result of that was that we all, in every state, kind of realized at once that we need to demand equal rights in all areas NATIONALLY. NOW.
So I ask you not to denigrate the marriage rights movement. It inadvertantly has inspired us to get fired up about all the other things you mentioned, and more. And we are gonna win all of those things sooner rather than later. YAY!

Look, I can see that saying "gay is the new black" might be construed as insulting to blacks, especially if one is looking to play the victim wherever possible and especially if one sees the same-sex marriage rights struggle as a white's only cause, which Ms. Martin certainly does.
But let's take a breath and look at the facts here. That slogan is something that a few Individuals have printed up and carried at protests. NO ORGANIZATIONS, that I know of, (and very few copy-cat indviduals) have taken it up. It is in no way any kind of official slogan for the cause.

The folks that carried the signs were trying to make a statement, wake people up, and be clever at the same time. Isn't it a play on a headline in a fashion mag? "Beige Is The New Black!" It means that (insert latest color here) has replaced the color black as the fashionable color to wear at this moment in time. When used by GLBT protesters I take it to mean:
"It used to be fashionable (i.e. acceptable/legal)to discriminate against blacks. Now that blacks have legal protections and the country generally agrees that discrimination based on skin color is wrong, it is fashionable (acceptable/legal) to discriminate against GLBT citizens. It was wrong before and it's wrong again." Rather than erasing Black oppression from our consciousness, it REMINDS us of how ugly our country has been (and continues to be) to people of color and how wrong that is.

I don't believe the people who carry the signs mean anything like Renee says they mean: "Blacks are now invisible! No one cares about racism anymore!" or "by Gay I mean only white people!"
"Gay is the new Black" includes Black GLBTs (and believe me, I know they get shite from both sides of the fence) who are a protected class as far as their skin color is concerned but can still be legally abused because of their sexual orientation.
These are protests for GAY (read GLBT) rights, after all, so that is what the signs are dealing with. No more and no less. Contrary to Renee's thinking, the word Gay in that slogan means people of color as well as whites just as it means lesbians, bisexuals and trans even thought it just says gay. In trying to write a witty slogan on a small sign, one has to use shorthand to convey the message. You have to admit that "GLBT People of All Colors Is The New Black" just doesn't have the same impact and wouldn't fit.
I find it odd and kind of sad that Renee somehow doesn't find GLBT people of color included in this civil rights struggle. I have news for her. EVERYBODY is included and all of the many protests that I have participated in had a healthy mix of all kinds of people and everybody got along real good.
I think because she is Black and is against marriage herself, she projects that it is just a white issue, but she is mistaken. Anyone who wishes to participate in a legal marriage agreement in this country gets all kinds of financial perks that can make a huge difference to ANYONE, whatever color. Maybe it's different where she lives. We are out there fighting for EVERYONE who is GLBT.

She says:
"What about those of us who are still Black? It furthermore frames the issue as saying, 'Oh, look- things are bad. White people are suffering because they are being treated like blacks and they deserve better than that.' And that's really how it comes across to the black community."

I find that to be just plain offensive. Again, she re-writes the slogan to her own liking and tries to make it mean only WHITE PEOPLE are suffering. But the slogan says GAY people are suffering– it is telling that she reads GAY to be whites only.
It means GAY people are being treated like BLACKS and they deserve better than that. Well, that is true! Blacks deserve better treatment AND gays deserve better treatment. And Black GLBTs REALLY deserve better treatment. There is no competition here!
And she says:
"That this is suffering because someone is being treated like a black person– as though, we don't deserve to be treated any better ourselves."

AGAIN she makes stuff up–no one said anything like you 'don't deserve to be treated any better yourselves'. The point is that NO ONE deserves to be treated that way.
And it is NOT considered suffering just "because someone is being treated like a black person" it is considered suffering because it is unequal treatment! It's wrong for blacks and it's wrong for gays! We're all in this together, Renee.

Then she says:
"How dare we uppity blacks demand that we have control over our history and how it is used when white gays and lesbians have a point to make?"
Well, first of all, the photgraph of separate drinking fountains is part of our COUNTRY'S (very ugly) history. It is not the exclusive property of blacks. Why should it be? Whitey needs to drag that one out more often and think long and hard about it.
And NEVER repeat it. Does she really think that blacks have some sort of ownership over images from our past that deal with blacks? That really sounds divisive to me. Does she think whites were not present in that era? Hell, whites were the reason that blacks were fighting for their rights for Pete's sake! Whites were participants on both sides of the black civil rights struggle and I think we get to (need to) include that, for better and for worse, in our collective history. I think it is imperative that we do.

And then she gives away her agenda again when she says " The world needs to know that they are being treated like niggers and all is wrong with the universe if whites are being reduced to status of blacks…"
The protesters are saying all is wrong with the universe if GLBTs
are being reduced to the status of blacks. SHE is the one who keeps trying to make it a white vs. black thing.

See, the problem I have is that she has to spin the meaning and make stuff up to prove her point. She keeps replacing GAY with WHITE, setting up a straw man so she can tear it down. She lacks credibility and sounds shrill and like she has a big chip on her shoulder. And, yes, I'll say it, she sounds racist.

If someone else can make the same argument rationally, using the facts, I'm all ears. But she fails.

I'm sorry this is so long, but I never really wrote much before just recently and it keeps pouring out.

As to the last (which I know is supposed to be the point of the interview), I don't understand it, and I've tried. God knows, I've tried. Maybe I'm just simple, but to me civil rights are civil rights, and I thought anyone who understands oppression in any form would understand that. I've never thought of "us" having "our" rights, that group over there having "their" rights, and another group somewhere else having "their" rights. They're just civil rights, human rights — *our* rights. And if there's a distinction made between "our" rights and "their" rights, then we're not talking about equality anymore; we're holding a competition. A very stupid, pointless competition that's self-defeating for everyone involved.

In the meantime, I've never heard a Jew rail against comparisons between anti-gay legislation and the Nuremberg laws. Why is that? Because gay men went to the gas chambers, too? Does that mean I, as a lesbian, don't have the right to make those comparisons, because lesbians were not imprisoned and slaughtered the way gay men were? Of course I do — and I'm neither Jewish nor a gay man (nor Roma). I readily acknowledge that I don't share "the Jewish experience" — and yet I didn't have to *be* there, or have a grandparent survive the camps, to see the blinding similarities. And nobody jumps on me for making that observation.

So why is it so *verboten* to point out the blinding similarities to the AA civil rights movement? Nobody's saying LGBTs were enslaved and bought and sold as property — but the similarities between the *movements* to gain full equality are just too stark to ignore, and take so many of the same paths, those paths are not only parallel, but often intersect. Why is that so offensive? We're not trying to rewrite history, nor "diminish" the AA fight for human rights.

Maybe I just answered my own question. I hear that a lot: that citing the AA civil rights struggle somehow "diminishes" its importance. Ironically, that's the same argument I hear most often against marriage equality: that our marriages somehow "diminish" the value of "traditional" marriage.

I'll never understand that line of thinking. Nothing we do will ever "diminish" anyone else's marriage — and no comparisons we make could ever possibly "diminish" the importance, or the uniqueness, of the AA civil rights movement.

Maybe it's territorialism — or maybe it's just good old-fashioned homophobia; *nobody* wants to be associated with us in any way, shape or form because they just plain hate queers — and use the flimsy excuse that we're somehow devaluing their existence as a mask for that homophobia. I honestly don't know what it is, because I've never felt that way. (I do know some G/L's feel that way toward T's — but I honestly don't. It's *our* fight, not one fight for gay men, another for lesbians, and another for transgender.)

I also find it highly ironic that while we're not supposed to draw parallels between the gay & AA movements, the two most oft-cited Supreme Court cases working in our favor are Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia. Obviously, somebody — in fact, a whole lot of somebodys — realizes there's a lot more to these parallels than some pointless, academic exercise in "appropriation."

Sign me: Perpetually Confused and Frustrated

Lamar didn't focus on the but gay blogs, generally, have done a pretty good job been covering homophobia in Africa and the Caribbean. Sadly, it seems as if many black communities could care less.

But that may be because I read mostly gay blogs?

Lamar, this is what I'm talking about. Gay Rights mean more than just "Gay Rights for gay whites and coloreds by proxy". There are tons of examples of gay persecution that happens outside of Europe for fucksakes. You do understand many black lgbtq (aka, THEY ARE AS QUEER AS ANY WHITE QUEER PERSON AND HAVE AS MUCH INPUT IN THE GAY COMMUNITY AS WHITE LGBTQ PEOPLE HAVE) people have a problem with slogan? You need to understand that although Kev, and I and others are black that were are also openly queer and that when you talk to us, treating us only as black instead of black gay, you purposely leaving out our queer side to focus on our race.

Gays continue to be killed in many countries in Africa. No disrespect to the European queers who died in the past but why not use the plight of present day African queers to make a point about gay oppression?

One note on the gay rights movement, they wanted to work with the black civil rights movement because they thought it was the right thing to do. Many gays and lesbians did. But the highest profile homophile movement, The Mattachine Society, did not and for good reasons.

They were already subject to arrest just under those and under heavy surveillance by the FBI for suspected Communist sympathies. I believe Hay decided that their participation would place both movements in jeapordy and decided not to do it. Which was the right thing to do, IMO.

Like Perdue said, the comparisons and analogies are not perfect, but do them. Don't equate. Tell your own story.

And the histories are more than "slightly similar."

Far from that. I simply say that the content of our struggle has to be of us. Comparison and contrast can and should happen.

Gay folks in Massachuseets have googles of right, including marriage. Gay people in Tennessee, on the other hand, have none. Gay people in California have all but marriage (fuck that nomenclature shit!)

Just like in Jim Crow when blacks in the North had more rights (voting, etc.) than the South. They had more economic opportunities. Not to say that blacks in the North were all fine and dandy, but they were better off.

Federal guarentees of protection will soon be needed, because pretty soon we will have separate but equal that exist in the gay community, for real.

As they enter the voting age, we should find a far greater number of allies who, even in their relative youth, have a better sense of justice than many of their parents.

Well said.

Homie, where did you grow up? I graduated in the mid-80s but didn't sick around long 'cause, well, it's Detroit.

That's why everytime I post, I always bring up the Michigan numbers when Propposal 2 was passed. It passed 59-41 (Based on election returns). Polling showed the same percentages for black and white. And Proposal 2 only won by 54-45% in Wayne County. If it weren't for that hole of a city called Detroit and a few of the suburbs surrounding it, Proposal 2 would have passed by even a wider margin.

It's absolutely fascinating because my suspicion would be that large portions of Detroit are not unlike Watts or Compton, in fact, Detroit looks like post-Katrina New Orleans and has for 20 or so years. But the percentages of those who voted to ban gay marriage in Wayne County (Detroit), based on election returns, are noticeably lower than the lowest figures coming out of California and Prop H8 (and may I add the percentages of black communities that voted for Prop 22 are lower than the percentages for Prop 8)

Folks really need to dig into a lot of tha data there instead of casting blame, there's a lot in the data that can tell us how to turn the tide around in minority communities.

I have read your post up until this point and I see something interesting here. You cannot seem to stand the fact that gays and lesbians are using "slightly similar" history to equate their struggles.

However I come from Detroit and my hometown was quite accepting compared to the suburbs that surround it. I am sure you know that the gay rights movement worked with and even before the time of the civil rights movement. Before Lawrence V. Texas gay people were often denied services at any store or restaurant in religious cities and towns if it was known that they were gay. Why? Because the bigots considered them unconvinced felons and therefore could refuse service to them. Some stores in towns have even placed signs that said "No fagots allowed."

LGBT have been fighting for rights with not just the white but all communities. We have been segregated, brutalized, lynched, tormented, forced from our homes, prosecuted, and abandoned since the inquisition. So tell me how I cannot equate my heritage and our communities fight and freedom from injustice.

When I saw that sign, "Gay is the New Black." My grandma, a fighter during the times of anti-miscegenation stood up and clapped her hands raw. She was also a fighter for LGBT rights back then as well. She saw the symbol behind the poster that I, as a generation that didn't struggle with the civil rights movement,could not see. That gays are still being treated with the same disrespect and intolerance that people like my grandma had to deal with in their time, and LGBT people were finally seeing our struggle as equal and similar to theirs.

I however, believe this poster is a little late in the party line. This poster would be more appropriate during the late seventies and early eighties when police happily brutalized gays and swooned lesbians with derogatory remarks. However it's better to see it now than never. But I would change one thing. Gay is not new black, but gay is the old black. We as the African American community have to stop seeing ourselves as the only victim during the 1850-1980 civil rights movement who fought for our freedoms and faced the hardships we have. LGBT people have faced just as much oppression as we have. The history of the Inquisition only constitutes the brutality they faced back then. Its time we stop being offended by others who are struggling just like we have and start embracing them.

Gay is the old, ridiculed, tormented, and oppressed black. Peace

-Lamar Jonson

In passing (as this episode of the gays vs. the blacks fades away, tune in next time)…

Because this society is the way it is, everyone (and I mean everyone!) has all sorts of racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist modes of thought. (I know I have tones of issues related to classist and sexist assumptions, for example). It's difficult as all out hell to unlearn all of this shit. And some of us may be so invested in these assumptions that we don't want to unlearn it.

Thanks for the honesty.

Hell, I can be sort of an asshole too that I might not be successful in Orange County or Watts. And, yeah, I remember as a kid with my stepdad and bro being the only black people at a hockey game. I can relate.

And I've actually canvassed in places like Orange County for other causes in previous jobs.

I may be being simply racist here in the belief that I am being the opposite. This is what I think, and I want to know where you think I'm wrong. Orange County is a safer place than Watts. The people there are richer. They are less angry. There are fewer violent crimes there. Many more people in Watts have been victims of violence and of bigotry. Many more people in Orange County have the resources and education to learn to disguise their bigotry.

Because I believe those things, rightly or wrongly, I think it is safer for gay people of any color to engage with people in Watts than in Orange County. But the class dichotomy there is not one that I brought in or one that I care to focus on. I know nothing about either Orange County or Watts that goes beyond ridiculous stereotype. I have very rich friends and friends who live on and off the streets, but that doesn't mean I really understand where either is coming from.

Here's something I can say. I live in a lower middle class neighborhood in San Jose, CA. Most of my neighbors are Latino. Not one of them had a Yes on 8 sign in front of their houses. Not one of them commented negatively on the No on 8 sign on my lawn. I know for a fact that the Yes on 8 signs that two of my white neighbors had on their lawns were stolen by straight
Latina teenagers. Nobody touched my sign.

In other words, I don't always feel safest with people who share my race. I am always shocked by white friends who don't recognize that they are being racist when they mention, with discomfort, that we are the only white people in a restaurant or at a concert. Then I remember how uncomfortable I was to be in that situation a few years ago. People can change. I am becoming less racist.

Thanks for helping me along.

Now we're getting somewhere.

But why would you assume that Orange County be safer (or easier) for you to canvas than Watts (given, Watts wouldn't be safe for either one of us)?

Because I can speak a damn good "white upper middle class protestant" myself. At least, if you were to go into Watts, they're going to be suspicious off jump street but if you engage them you might be in for a surprise.

Now, yeah, I could go into Watts and I look like I belong, I suppose. But I don't speak their language, I speak yours. (And my attempts at speaking "bi-lingually" do not work (and my family tells me this!) I get called on it and viewed very suspiciously, it happens within minutes, it never fails. The walls go up and nothing else I say matters.

I got so exhausted with the "you talk and act white" comment I've stopped going to Black Pride events for the time being. Sad but true.

Yes! I am every bit as responsible for Orange County as you are for Watts. In fact, I am more responsible, because going to Orange County is easier and safer than going to Watts. Actually, thanks for kicking my butt on that score. I can speak "white upper middle class protestant" fluently. I should use that to engage with powerful enemies in helpful ways, rather than screaming at those fucking bastards because I hate them so much.

And I never mean to deny that white gays are guilty. I never meant to deny that we must take MORE responsibility because we have more advantage. I am perfectly willing to take responsibility for my share of the blame, and my primary reason for engaging on this issue is because I want to do a better job with it.

If Little Richard had gotten the royalties that Boone and Presley stole from him he could have bought Portland as a summer home and Miami as a winter home and rented out what he didn’t need.

It’s instructive to compare struggles but it’s not just wrong to equate them, it’s divisive.

Some facts.

The GLBT communities are broadly representative of US society and are not composed solely of male Euroamericans. If I had to guess I'd say the majority of GLBT folks in LA, Miami and similar cities were Latino/a, even if extreme disparities in income and opportunity keep them and others from developing venues and institutions to match their numbers.

In fact no movement organization comes close to representing all of us much less uniting us. None. Not one. Zero. Nada.

The US is a cesspool of prejudices which do not come from out of the blue. Each of them was created at a specific stage in US history to oppress a particular group or like misogyny and homophobia were carryovers from English christian colonialism. The last of these to be supressed will be the ones most deeply interwoven in the economic functioning of US society, racism and sexism.

Now all these different bigotries are used to divide and rule. Who's going to notice the next $700 trillion dollar giveaway to the looter rich or the next racist war against a muslim people if they busy comparing levels of oppression instead of fighting oppression.

This kind of discussion needs to be replaced by one aimed at building an authentic GLBT fighting organization, a left wing to lead our discussions and our battles. That left wing has to be nationwide, GLBT exclusive, democratically run, secular and combative. We've had quite enough of Quisling groups like HRC and other fronts for Democrats. All they can offer, now and in the future are more defeats on ENDA, same sex marriage, hate crimes and hate speech.

Understood, Landon but here is the point.

I could deal with you holding me (as a gay black man) responsible for the vote in Watts and Compton. But do I get to hold you responsible for the vote in Orange County and Fresno solely becuase those had huge white majorities? After all, it's places like that where most of the votes and the money for Yes On 8 came from.

Or…tell you what, I'll canvass in Orange County and Fresno and you canvass in Compton and Watts.

"I've been reading gay lit, columns, internet forums, etc, since then too and not once, not once have I heard or read about a group of black lgbtq people chastising white gays for the white homophobes who infringe on their lives because it IS mostly white homophobes who pull the strings when it comes to disinfranchising lgbt people."

Then you didn't read any articles written in response by African American gays to the racist rants which followed the passage of Proposition 8. I'm not saying that it's not a valid point or a legitimate criticism. I own that. But to claim it's not been said over and over again? Please.

And my point is that I'm fucking furious that black gays have blamed white gays for inadequate outreach into nonwhite communities. I'm not saying that white gays have done enough. I'm saying that I have not seen one fucking African American commentator make the obvious point that it is insane to blame white leaders because people of color failed to step up to the plate. I'm not saying that none have, or that that is the only legitimate point of view to have. I expect to accused of racism for suggesting that white gays are not to blame for every thing that has ever gone wrong in the gay rights struggle. I expect people to ignore 90% of what I say and then attack me as though I had not already thrown the steak in with the sizzle.

Your anger at me is legitimate. I see that.

But so is my anger at you.

I think you have every right to speak about Canada. Whenever people down there notice us they have no problem doing it ad nauseum. I'm just exercising my own right.

And my post is perfectly relevent; you are the one who brought up the issue of what is an "american" issue or not. Am I supposed to not defend my position?

Frankly I think we should just agree to disagree on this, because you have no power to prevent us from expressing our opinions, and those who wish to pay attention to them will do so.

"they have just as much if not more right to speak about it than you may have"

Not really. This question is about gays in the US using language of and drawing parallels to the US Civil Rights movement. It's fundamentally, an American conversation. Personally, I think it would have been more constructive for Japhy to discuss this with an actual African American.

"Sorry.. your history IS our history. part of my family came up here during the revolutionary war… blah, blah, blah"

And both my grandmothers were Canadian. That doesn't entitle me to appropriate Canadian history for my own purposes.