Several high profile gays from the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance have signed onto a letter urging the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority “to reject the misguided censorship advocated by Full Equality Now DC” to pull anti-gay advertising from their buses. The ads, purchased by the religiously motivated anti-gay group Stand For Marriage DC, reads “LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON MARRIAGE.” And while we’re all for free speech, the opposing sides leave us wondering: Would any other group tolerate these advertisements under the guise of free speech?
The same-sex-marriage advocacy group, Full Equality Now D.C., posted an open letter to the WMATA over the weekend decrying the ads as intimidating for gay riders and asking WMATA to pull the ads, but Full Equality Now DC has since pulled the letter from their website saying that it was only a revised draft that they never actually sent.
But these types of situations always require the “Insert Line Here” theory. As in, if the bus ads read, “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE” or “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE ON JEWISH RIGHTS,” would black and Jewish groups say, “Well, we don’t like it, but y’know … free speech.” And in the meanwhile, the only group that seems to get that is the Washington DC City Council:
[StandForMarriageDC], group’s leaders have been continually denied by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, the DC Attorney General, and the DC City Council on the grounds that such a referendum directly conflicts with the City’s human rights ordinances. Councilmembers have repeated questioned why the members of StandForMarriageDC are insisting on a voter referendum on this particular council action when no referendum has occurred on legislative matters in a very long time. Councilman David Catania noted during a November hearing that the last Advisory Referendum that sought to “diminish the rights of a minority” was in 1865 when a near-unanimous vote opted to block the emerging rights of freed African-American males to vote in the District.
No self-respecting black or Latino-American would tolerate advertisements suggesting their rights should be up for a vote. So why should gays?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The question raises the ugly Prop 8 meme of whether or not gay is really the new black. A lot of gays already see same-sex and interracial marriage as landmarks in the same march towards full civil equality, but the trick is whether we can get consortiums of non-gays — in the black and Latino communities, and religious groups — to accept the analogy, or at least respect its foundation.
And even then, the entire premise of the D.C. bus advertisements still present a contradictory message, effectively arguing, “D.C.’s politicians denied us our civil right to deny civil rights to others.” This is grade school banter.
In Austin Cline’s essay on entitled, “Gay Marriage & Freedom: Protecting Marriage is No Reason for Discrimination”, Cline says:
“Even if one concedes the truth [that gay marriage poses] at least some threat on the margins of marriage, that isn’t enough to justify opposing gay marriage because bans on gay marriage devalue same-sex couples and hold gay citizens in a second-class status. You can’t protect a social institution through bigotry, injustice, and discrimination.
The same is true when it comes to arguing that legalizing gay marriage might lead to legalizing polygamy or incestuous marriages. Discrimination against gays is no more a justified means for protecting marriage than discrimination against blacks, atheists, or women would be.”
Thus, it’s entirely possible to be against hate (or hateful) speech, like the ads on the D.C. buses, and for the First Amendment at the same time. Instead of Full Equality Now pulling their open letter from the web or asking the transit authority to pull Stand For Marriage D.C.’s ads, we’d like both the LGAA and Full Equality Now to join in the First Amendment fun by taking out their own ads — and tying Stand For Marriage D.C.’s position to the same arguments made against interracial marriage. Maybe it’ll stir up D.C.’s minority populations to join LGBTs on the same side of bigotry: against it.
MacH
This is right on! Every time someone suggests we “protect marriage from a redefinition,” I remind them that it’s been redefined, and redefined, and redefined.
And the “black” test is still the best one. “Gays shouldn’t get special rights.” “Blacks shouldn’t get special rights.”
naghanenu
You do realise that there is no real correlation between blacks and gays when it comes to gay marriage. Am i the only person who sees this?
Gay marriage is marriage between two people of the same sex. Interracial marriage is marriage between two people of different races. It is possible for a black gay man to marry an asian man and that would be interracial marriage. So i miss the point.
Unless you are refering to miscegenation laws of the 60s…again no relationship..then the main issue was dont marry any white person as a man or a woman. They were clearly intended to be racist thus unconstitutional. And also it was clearly between a man and a woman…so it was still traditional marriage. So hmm where is the correlation? Its not as if gays were marrying before and the law was saying you cannot marry outside ur race.
Gay marriage is a redefinition. Lets be honest. Marriage, for as long as history as recorded it, has been btw man and woman. Whatever the reason of entering the marriage contract, it was between man and woman. I mean look at the laws in this country that are as old as time, man and woman has been the ideal for marriage. Whether its ur first cousin or your neighbour’s underage daughter…male and female.
Now two men want to get married and get all the rights and responsibilites of a married couple. Cool! I support!
However,did you honestly think.. that because it is 2009, people will just amend their mindset and laws and embrace it? Are you kidding me?
My God if things were that simple, then why, 14 years after DOMA was signed, are more than half of the nation still against gay marriage? I mean c’mon. What does that tell you?
When Maine lost, for some reason, we blamed the so called scare ads by the Yes on 1 side as the main reason. Yes, because people are just that gullible and stupid. I mean it takes a poorly executed ad to convince people that marriage between same sexes is unacceptable. (Sighs heavily)
Sheesh, gay movement get your heads out of your asses. DOJ has blown a hole in the interracial marriage argument so im surprised you peeps are still using it.
Taylor Siluwé
I agree with the “Insert Line Here” theory. Unfortunately, vocal bigotry against tax paying gay families is still far too socially acceptable, whereas lashing out against said bigotry is too often painted as infringement of free speech.
We’ve put up with this double-standard BS for too long. Hit back with counter ads, painting the silly bigots as, well, silly bigots – ones who will in no way shape or form suffer any lose of rights or power by allowing all to eat at the same damn table.
This whole matter is becoming tiresome. *sigh*
Ritorna
When the California Supreme Court in 1948 became the first to strike down laws that forbade interracial marriage, over 70% of Californian’s disagreed with the Court. Yet, as hateful as things were back then, the issue was never put to a popular vote. But with the issue of gay marriage the opposition is hateful enough not only to put it to a vote, but to attempt to overturn existing marriages. Nice. Hope they are proud of themselves. Hope they enjoy explaining their attitudes to their children and grandchildren some day when people are shaking their heads at how hateful things used to be.
thomasAlex
“Marriage, for as long as history as recorded it, has been btw man and woman.”
Pick up a History book lately? Gays have been getting married since the dawn of humans. Ever hear of the Greeks, Egyptians, or Romans?
As of 2009 %53 of the Nation now approve of Gay Marriage. A another %57 believe Gays who are legally Married in one State, should have their Marriage legally recognized by law.
Main vote lost by 33k votes, and California lost by over 600k. So the 6 million who voted for Gay Marriage in California don’t deserve their say?
Blacks didn’t choose to be black anymore than Gays chose to be Gay. So Yes Gay Marriage is a Civil Rights issue, just as much as Interracial Marriage was in the 60’s.
Taylor Siluwé
@ no.2 —
I don’t remember anyone having “blown a hole” in the interracial marriage argument. You certainly haven’t.
Yes, it was racist. This fight isn’t racist. But the racist laws were also discriminatory. Disallowing gays to marry is discriminatory as well. The two are connected. No matter how much people hate to admit the WE (Black Americans) do not have a lock on civil rights, we don’t.
And are you sure you’re up on your history of all the types of marriages there have been? Really? Because from were I stand, “traditional marriage” is pretty damn murky.
transracial
Once again this tired, divisive and disingenuous debate has reared its ugly head.
Marriage Equality and the end of miscegination laws are two very very different things.
Folks need to understand — achieving the right for blacks to marry whites/whites to marry blacks was a BY PRODUCT of the civil rights movement — not its main goal.
The Civil Rights movement was about achieving basic rights for black people — voting, equal housing, and end to lynching!!
This is not the marriage equality battle at all.
Grow up people — and do some homework.
Or better yet, just read here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kaufman/co-opted-marriage-equalit_b_393988.html
Tadpolicus Wex
No. 7 · transracial:
Troll much? GLB and probably some T people were a crucial component of the Civil Rights movement; need I remind you it was the Civil Rights Movement not the Black Rights Movement, despite the fact that African Americans were the primary beneficiary. Bernard Rustin must be turning in his grave, he was in a committed interracial relationship, to a man-lotta good his lifetime commitment to matters of equality did for us.
No, being gay & being black are indeed apples & oranges, but the last time I checked they were both fruit motherfucker!
transracial
I think you mean BAYARD Rustin
adx
I have advocated this *repeatedly*. Stir the pot deliberately, in an intelligent and meaningful social way, by inserting the word *BLACK* in contexts where “gay” is — so society is told, by the anti-gay — currently acceptable. Put up those ads! Ask the district if THEY’D like to vote on INTERRACIAL marriage. You’d be shocked to find that it is *not*, repeat *not* universally accepted by a long shot. The younger generations, in particular, have startling, spine-chilling complaints and much rabid vitriol against interracial couplings. The point is that *supposedly* we accept interracial coupling or interracial marriage as a matter of intelligent freedom. So why not gay marriage? I agree with this editorial resoundingly; start asking the public if they want to vote on interracial marriage.
In order to make a *point*. Because the point, even from those who scream that they’re not comparable, *is inescapable*. They’re lying to you if they tell you they don’t see the point.
No matter how many voices screech that there is no comparison between black and gay rights, IF THERE WEREN’T, then the *pro-gay wouldn’t be comparing them*. Of course there are many reasons you can’t compare them … and many reasons you CAN, absolutely, do so.
The “illusion” from many anti-gay individuals suggests that because they are not comparable in *some* ways, they are non-comparable in *all* ways. This is illogical and utterly wrong, plain and simple. MANY people see the comparison.
To be fantastically blunt, people DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOU comparing black and gay rights because … drumroll … it lends gay rights *much greater legitimacy in the eyes of fence-sitters*. Now, isn’t that shocking. Isn’t that surprising. The anti-gay DON’T WANT YOU to have *any* argument for gay rights, not to mention the black community itself, with its horrific, virulent homophobia; in some black communities, being gay would be a *shame* far, far, far worse than murder.
I applaud gay and pro-gay people for a heroism that consists, in part, of refusing to back down. Keep comparing black and gay rights, because it *is* your right and it *is* true and the reasons they *don’t* want them compared are so ugly … that it’s enough to question whether this is really America, after all.
Kudos on the editorial.
Taylor Siluwé
@ no.7 TransRacial —
Okay, I read the HuffPo piece. Drivel. Well written, amusing, and ‘possibly’ well-intentioned, but drivel none the less. Funny how he decries the comparison as divisive, while being divisive. Interesting.
Coretta Scott King saw marriage equality as a civil rights issue. Remember her? After all, how could she not? When the “civil rights” of tax paying gay families are being put to public vote by the masses, a move that would surely have kept my Black ancestors on the back of the bus for a time indeterminent because public support was STRONGLY against giving us our fair place at the table.
It is undeniably “A” civil rights issue, if arguably not actually connected to “THE” Civil Rights movement. No, it’s not exactly the same – but its too far from being different to dismiss.
terrwill
What this whole argument on our side boils down to is this:
There should be no laws, regulations, statues, codes or anything else you want to call it which denies a class of persons born into that class the right to join any other group in a marriage and or civil union and to deny said group the exact same rights and privledges which other classes of people enjoy as a result of being born into their class. I know myself fairly well, I know that I did not “chose” to be Gay. It is the way I was born and I had no more choice in that matter than I did in my having blonde hair and blue eyes. Since I first realized what an attraction was I was attracted to my own sex. In fact I was 8 before I was 7 (do the math : P ) That is why this argument is in fact the same situation as the blacks faced in the 1960’s. They did not chose to be born black. However there were laws prohibiting them from marrying any person whom they wanted to marry and laws denying them equal civil rights as whites did. If in fact the blacks were subject to the same roadblocks we Gays fact today those laws would never have been changed because the majority of Americans did not want equal civil rights for blacks.
We did not chose to be born Gay, no one has the right to deny us the same rights and privledges any other groups enjoy and are entitled to whos membership is determined by birth.
End of argument.
Mark
Why do people continue to believe that interracial marriage is some great thing for blacks? It’s not. The majority of interracial marriages are between whites and Latinos and whites and Asians.
African-Americans are the least likely to intermarry.
terrwill
No. 13 · Mark: No one has claimed it is a great thing. Simply stated no one had or has the right to deny ANY class of persons the rights to marry and enjoy the exact same benefits from said marriage. And again during the fight for civil rights putting marriages between whites and Latinos and Asians to a vote would have been defeated……………..
Mark
Terrwill,
No duh. I’m simply stating that I’m tired of people constantly implying that interracial marriage is somehow a specific benefit to African-Americans. It’s not. This argument constantly comes up but it ignore statistics.
I don’t believe that the majority should have a direct vote over the rights of minorities. The majority is generally self-serving and willing to oppress minorities.
The U.S. was created as a republic and not a direct democracy to prevent a tyranny of the majority. But, referendums have circumvented the brilliance of the founders’ plan.
California has repeatedly seen referendums used to curtail or crush the rights of minority groups, ethnic, racial, economic or sexual.
Chitown Kev
@Mark-
No…I don’t think that a majority of African Americans would vote for interracial marriage were it put to a vote.
And adx, what in the HELL do you know about the black communities “horrific, virulent homophobia?”
Chitown Kev
“No, being gay & being black are indeed apples & oranges, but the last time I checked they were both fruit motherfucker!”
I actually agree with this sentiment.
Chitown Kev
And…I actually do agree that there should ne a counter-ad campaign against these bigots. I just think that the ineterracial marriage idea is a horrific one to campaign on.
Fitz
This issue triggers an emotional response.. and Queerty thrives on emotional response. BUT.. Mark, in the US, and i know this is hard to believe, but it really is true.. so check with the census .. Hispanics can self identify as Black or White. Weird, I know.. but I bring it up because of your example.
“Marriage” isn’t as issue for me, BTW.. But the tremendous economic discrimination that is. As I get closer to retirement-age, and (eventually) mortality, this discrimination becomes even more important. But I really don’t need strangers to validate my relationship. I just don’t want to pay more than them, and get less than them. And I worry about young gays who are chastised for being players, when the established institution for commitment is denied them. It’s kind of crazy-making, no?
terrwill
No. 19 · Fitz: Virtually every study and or survey done recently shows that the approval of the Gays marrying increases as the age of the participants decreases. The Gen X and Y have been constantly exposed to the Gays on the internets and on mainstays they watch like MTV. MTV deserves kudos because on virtually every show they have on that channel they have Gays in some capacity. There is another thread running currently where someone made comments about how homophobic MTV was. I explained that my first roomate in college came from South Carolina, his Father was an evangelical preacher, who preached fire and brimstone would follow the Gays where ever they went. Upon our first meeting I told him my story. He replied he had no problem be cause he was used to Gays from seeing so many on MTV! To the younger Gen it is no big freakin deal. There are now Gay-Straight clubs in elementary schools.
The older generation is simply too damm set in their ways to change their views on the Gays. Basically as they die off the acceptance of Gays will increase as each one does……..We basically have to wait until they fuck off and die (literaly!!)
schulteraffe
@ no.7 TransRacial –
First of all, linking to what appears to be an op/ed piece that you authored as proof of the import and gravity of you views posted here only serves to diminish both.
As to the basic thesis proposed in the op/ed…that same sex marriage is the singular goal and the fight against anti-miscegenation was merely tangential to a greater movement is patently incorrect and clearly false. Same sex marriage is not a singular objective but part and parcel of the gay rights movement now in full, modern bloom for the past forty years in these United States. In addition to marriage and among others the LGBT civil rights movement has endeavored or continues to endeavor to decriminalize same sex sexual intimacy, protect rights to housing and employment, achieve equality in adoption law, achieve equality in the armed forces, prevent targeted raids against places where gay people congregate, prevent violence against gay people, equality in health care, equality in taxation, equal access to government benefits and entitlement, and so on.
The fact that you dismiss an entire civil rights movement to promote you ideas, paint an entire group of people as at best illogical and at worst racist, and build supposition upon supposition without even a hint of a flair for accuracy renders you incompetent to discuss this issue in my mind.
We live in a common law society where legal precedent is a powerful tool for fighting for civil rights both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. While the black civil rights movement is different from the gay civil rights movements, and for that matter the gender equality movement or Latin American equality movement, there are sufficient and substantial similarities between all. To suggest that modern gay civil rights proponents cannot or should not seek to compare or build upon the civil rights movements that have come before is to suggest that they forsake their inheritance as American citizens. Civil rights are for everyone, not just those who think they have a retro-active right to claim their cumulative legacy for themselves alone.
AxelDC
So, GLAAD is okay with these ads because of “free speech”? Isn’t it the job of Metrobus not to offend its riders.
Would the NAACP be okay with the KKK running ads attacking interracial marriage?
Why should a gay group defend our oppressors?
Fitz
Terrwill,yes– I have seen a lot of work showing that true homophobia is inverse to age. Part of that, of course, is that there is a huge hole in the older gay population of a certain generation. (there was this bug going around for a while)… so there are both fewer progressives to even out the right wing nut-jobs, and there are fewer cohorts who are gay to help people feel comfortable. (as your example shows, it’s hard to stay totally phobic when you can attach a face to it). I do worry about the youth, though. Remember (and yes..I know that this seems hyperbolic) that the Nazis were very effective in getting the youth all excited to act-out on their 2-dimensional understanding of the Jews. Of course.. it is totally stereotypical of me to fear the youth, lol.
Brian Miller
Actually, the argument is very simple (and a “civil rights” argument at that):
The law is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. (Constitutional rights are civil rights).
Simple. Easy. Undeniable.
LukasP
Comparing the civil rights movement that fought for the rights of African-Americans to the fight for men to marry men (and for women to marry women) may not play well in many urban areas. DC is a predominantly Af-Am city and I don’t believe many urban Black residents of DC/NYC/Chicago equate their historical struggle with ours.
Until the case is made persuasively–and this means getting many Black churches to see the comparison as valid–I don’t think that lign of reasoning will carry any weight at all.
Better off try taking a different approach!
adx
Response #16 strikes me instantaneously as typical “internet vitriol.” A person accuses *me, specifically*, by implication, of “knowing nothing” of anti-gay attitudes in black communities.
I am a *complete stranger* to the person who responded to me herein. This person cannot see or hear me, and has never met me. The response hints strongly at emotional bias or a personal anger regarding the comment.
Far worse, however, the response implies at least vaguely *that no such bias exists*.
But worst of all, the *tone* of the comment replies that *no explanation on my part* would convince the person that I know as well as any other person who chooses to pay attention to these matters. Most such “internet vitriol” is not about rational discussion, however, but about attacking views one personally deems “unpalatable” or unacceptable in some context.
I stand firmly by my statements above, period. And I don’t know if I’ll be back to this entry to look for further comments, but my commitment to standing by my statements, above, is not going to change. I’ve seen and heard *far* too much to know *far, far* better. Thanks for reading.
terrwill
No. 22 · Fitz: Thanks for a nice chuckle on your “there was a bug going around” riff. Sometimes you gots add a pinch of humor an unimaginable nightmare. And don’t be too worried about the youth, from what I see they are not as apt to mimic bad behaviour shown by their parents as in past generations. And when there are actually kids feeling empowered enough to proclaim their sexuality at ages 12 and 13 that shows they are no longer in fear of what is totally natural. You won’t see as many 50 year old men with a wife and kids suddenly deciding its time to come out. I am out to my family and my nephews think its cool to have a Gay uncle, instead of the stereotypical “weird uncle” of past generations……….
Brian
Poor gay Blacks are MORE likely to be religious than whites. Religion feeds on poor people. Black Mothers have a lot on influence over their children. Blacks are less likely to let go of religion than whites. It will take time.
LukasP
Brian (#27): Exactly–without trying to paint with too wide a brush, my experience in the Hispanic communities in Chicago and DC shows that the influence of the Catholic church and the springing-up-everywhere evangelical Protestant groups continues to grow. What the priest or pastor says about politics –and about gay marriage–holds more sway in the voting booths than anything politicians or GLBT activists proclaim.
The “civil rights” analogy for the DC bus issue ain’t going to save the day for us.
We need to engage the churches. The more liberal congregations aren’t enough to change popular opinion in these urban areas.
naghanenu
Again, i say this tiredly.
Marriage has always been with man and woman. Someone should please give me that history piece where gay marriage has ever been the norm. No really, i have never seen it before. Unless you refer to some Roman ruler who castrated his slave and dressed him as a woman so he could become his wife….which is a bad comparison to gay marriage btw. I mean the man went out of his way to make the boy look as feminine as possible so……
Gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage. It is a new form of what constitutes a marriage contract( the parties are different). So obviously it is a big problem for most people.
As the generations change opinions become more radical and more accommodating but not necessarily more tolerant. Just because now you cant call me a nigger to my face and receive high fives doesn’t mean that blatant racism has reduced. For example, look at California and Maine. Unless you want to believe all young people support gay marriage or that the old people somehow outnumber the younger people…then what is your point?
Get a grip. Face some cold hard facts. Find an adequate response to the bus ads. Leave black civil rights movement alone and create your own. Maybe we might see some progress. Oh and Taylor, read the DOJ brief again…it is very well written and researched. Why gays still hold stubbornly to this analogy only God knows.
Vo Dong Cung
Ask UN make the whole world vote on the bible. Is it truth or fault?
Patrick
Sorry Obama, but your parents could not marry when they met. You are a disgrace to what you preach. Empty words from an empty suit.
Taylor Siluwé
No. 29 · naghanenu —
Puhleeze, you don’t know the meaning of writing “tiredly”, my friend, ’til you’ve argued for a basic ‘civil’ right with those who should know better. Just because you’re black doesn’t make your black opinion on this issue more weighty than my black opinion – or Coretta Scott King’s for that matter. Though, my guess is, you would have probably argued with her on the matter as well, tiredly, and in my opionion, laughably.
We live in an age where information is readily available to anyone with the will and inclination to google. That being said, the history of same sex unions is right at your hot little fingertips – before the Judeo-Christian tradition to plunder and proselytize with their guns and bibles. None of this info ever makes the history books or is taught in schools because we live is an oppressive heterocentric era that has done is damnedest to hetero-wash same sex couples and same gender loving historical ICONS right out of history. It is so laughable to see African leaders profess “this gay thing” is a European import and not African. Puh-leeze.
What is really sad (and tiresome), is the psychological effect centuries of homo-suppression has had on some modern gay people who have internalized the bullshit notion that they are aberrant, that do not deserve the same basic, simple ‘civil’ right to marry the one they love that the hetero-superior take for granted.
No one is co-opting the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. Yes, obvious parallels are made, but that MOVEMENT is an entity that stands alone. Still, you have to understand that the right to marry IS a civil right, for which I and the rest of my gay brothers and sisters (black, white, and purple) are fighting for. I won’t even get into what forbidding us that simple right in America gives the haters and ‘phobes the world license to do. And like it or not, people with your mindset are complicit.
If you are gay, you need to take a breath, relax, get past you’re indignation at the ‘perceived’ misappropriation of the great CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT that our forefathers (including gay ones) fought and died for, and realize that you need to get on the right side of this fight. Fighting amongst ourselves over semantics IS what’s truly tiresome.
Coretta said that Martin would have been a supporter of marriage equality, no doubt based on the premise that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. And that’s one endorsement I don’t think even you can argue with. At least I can hope.
Mark
@naghanenu: regarding your assertion marriage has always been between a man and a woman. For your consideration: From author Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Overcoming Heterosexism – To Benefit Everyone” in Jeffrey S. Siker, 148 “[Noted church historian] John Boswell… has discovered that, whereas the church did not declare heterosexual marriage to be a sacrament until 1215 C.E., one of the Vatican Library’s earliest Greek liturgical documents is a marriage ceremony for two persons of the same sex. The document dates to the fourth century, if not earlier. In other words, nine centuries before heterosexual marriage was declared a sacrament, the church liturgically
celebrated same-sex covenants.” Courtesy Dr Bruce Lowe – a Letter to Louise.
Cam
No. 2 · naghanenu
You do realise that there is no real correlation between blacks and gays when it comes to gay marriage. Am i the only person who sees this?
Gay marriage is marriage between two people of the same sex. Interracial marriage is marriage between two people of different races. It is possible for a black gay man to marry an asian man and that would be interracial marriage. So i miss the point.
_________________________________________________
You miss the point because you want to miss the point. This is a civil rights issue and beyond the superficial it is exactly the same. it is about two of age, consenting adults being denied the right to engage in a legally binding contract with each other. The definitions are exact.
Chitown Kev
@ADX
Defensive much?
I simply asked you to back up your assertions. That’s all.
@Brian…I don’t know about that. I’m black (though I didn’t grow up poor) and Christianity never made sense to me. I do understand the impulse to spirituality or religion of some sort and there are a variety of factors (and even I get bitten by that bug at times, though I subscribe to some form of Taoism more than anything).
Brian
Gays are NOT like the Civil Rights “movement,” Blacks were oppressed – we are hatred. We are hated because religion has taught people that we are wrong. That belief is what defines us.
Chitown Kev
@Brian
Again…blacks are certainly hated too, and much of that was (and to some extent still is) justified by religion.
Apples and oranges but we are in the same basket.
Fitz
No 29:
Yes, there are more older voters than younger ones.
The percent of people who are 65-74 who vote is 80% (!)
The percent of people who vote who are 75-84 is 70%.
You are right that the movement is striving to redefine marriage, but not that this is unique. Marriage has been redefined several times. The most blatant example is the concept of “Till death do us part”, which is a bold faced lie given the statistics. It’s practically tongue-in-cheek.
I think what we are talking about is the argument that asks if the Civil Rights Movement was a singular response to a singular problem, or a more general shift to a more humanistic model. People draw too many assumptions on the one hand, but other people also fail to see that the general concept is one of a group of people no longer willing to be disenfranchized.
“It’s not ok to be a bigot at the government level” is the most basic way that i can think of boiling that down.
Chitown Kev
@Fitz
You know, I’ve never seen the problem with some on are side that deny or get defensive when the “redefining marriage” charge gets thrown out there. OF COURSE, we are redefining marriage but only in the sense that marriage is a civic and not a religious institution (and it really never has been a religious institution).
As far as the Civil Rights Movement, I think that the capitalization of that term speaks to a certain period of time in the 1950’s and 1960’s for many when, in actuality, there was a lot going on leading up to that point in history as well as reverberations afterward. I agree completely with your model and I’m jealous that I never put it quite the way that you just did.
naghanenu
@Taylor..
Ok. I get it. You have a different opinion. Cool, i respect that.
I still do not see the correlation of miscegenation laws and gay marriage. Neither do i see the correlation between civil rights movement of the 60s and the gay movement now.
The difference is clear, lets not drag it. Im tired.
Gays are simply asking for the right to do something they were not able to do before. That applies to serving in the military freely and getting federal recognition to their marriages.
They just want to be free to be who they are and have the same protections and rights as straights. I say give it to em..they pay taxes dont they? They are human beings right? So whats the harm?
Just leave civil rights movement alone…
Chitown Kev
@Naghanenu
What do you mean by “leave the civil rights movement” alone?
I’m not asking this rhetorically, I’m really interested in precisely what you mean by this.
Taylor Siluwé
@ naghanenu –
I think we understand each other. I bristle over certain things, too. This just isn’t one of them.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fitz
“I think what we are talking about is the argument that asks if the Civil Rights Movement was a singular response to a singular problem, or a more general shift to a more humanistic model.”
I think this could be used to discuss any movement….like say the feminist movement as well.
I think the singular problem is that of a human rights issue or violation and the singular response is a change in policy to redress that balance.
But I think people like to think that it was a humanistic model or approach that made people give black people equal rights in the US as whites but it wasn’t. It was about economics. It was about changing times.
Like Slavery, something the UK take pride in having abolished but something they always fail to say is that they were not making as much profit as they were before. They were making a loss, so they astutely used the humansitic approach/model to say that ‘we should abolish slavery because it was/is wrong’.
The issue with the gay movement, in the US, is that the gays who tend to have money don’t care and don’t want to even make their orientation for all to see.
So I think it’s very interesting to look at models, like the civil rights movement, in terms of how the gay movement in the US should progress but if we can compare the gay movement-sexuality-with the civil rights-black people race-than I think we should also look at other movements which may have more similarities with the Gay movement, than the Civil Rights.
Like the ‘Jewish Movement’. Why? Because basically, like gays, many Jews could/can pass as not being obviously Jewish and gays who are ‘straight’ acting can pass too.
So I think a complex movement like the ‘Jewish Movement’ would b an interesting one to research because the ‘gay movement’ is a complex one.
You can’t hide being black.
But you can hide being gay.
And you can hide being Jewish.
Chitown Kev
@John…
Or even the women’s movement even, and especially, that battle for suffrage because…
The right for women to vote was constantly submitted to ballot referendums here in the states.
Now I’ve seen some really good comparisons of the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement (especially in terms of the modes and styles of leadership) but it really requires an understanding of the black civil rights movement in order to make them (and not simply a quote or 2 from the Kings).
Here’s a good example…
Folks that focus on the “passing” thing in the black community have it wrong.
Yes, one thing about being gay is that you will hear all sorts of bigoted shit from the family about being gay.
There is an interesting comparison of that with those in the black community that may have regularly heard a similar type of hatred from others in the family because they were too dark.
But even going there would require the gay community to be far more sensitive about race than they actually are.
Fitz
”
You can’t hide being black.
But you can hide being gay.
And you can hide being Jewish.
”
Yea.. but how many kids blow their brains after their parents find a magazine under their bed and find out that they are Jewish or black? I really don’t think that it is productive to race for the tittle of “Ms. Disenfranchized 2009”.
When you say that the Civil Rights Movement was about “Changing times” you have to understand that it was the PEOPLE who changed those times. Nothing magical happened. No one handed anyone anything. A group of people got close enough to equality to find inequality unacceptable. They got help from the youth who were (as usual) far less fearful than their parents.
I don’t think that it is accurate to state that gays with money don’t care and don’t want their orientation known. Frankly, I see the opposite. The amount of tax that my spouse will pay when I expire is tremendously higher than in a recognized marriage. Things would be even worse if we couldn’t afford to get what legal protections that we can get, but it is still very unfair. Many older gays have heard the story of the gay couple where one dies, and the other is left elderly and destitute.
I just don’t see the capacity to “pass” as relevant (or accurate, for many gays). You do make a good point about needing to look at how other hated-minorities have attained power. It’s through righteous indignation, refusal to step down, and coalition building with sympathetic peers. (I think).
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fitz
“I don’t think that it is accurate to state that gays with money don’t care and don’t want their orientation known.”
I didn’t articulate myself well enough, what I meant was in terms of very wealthy gays who have the power to either work together or get together to really shake things up but don’t.
An example to me is what happened in California with Prop 8. There are a lot of very wealthy gays with disposable income but what did they do? Where were they?
Why is it always people working their asses off every day, always the one who put their money to help the cause?
“I just don’t see the capacity to “pass” as relevant (or accurate, for many gays).”
But it is relevant because this is exactly why there is such a divide in the gay community. This is also were the root of so many in fighting within gays happen, bottom to top and vice versa.
When someone is straight acting, they tend to think they are ‘better’ than those who are effeminate. You know that and I know that. How many times have we read posters say rude remarks about a fey person? Or when Neil Patrick Harris comes out saying he just wants to act like a ‘normal guy, not a gay guy?’ Come on….don’t pretend this isn’t RIFE in the community!!?
So when you a commununity were you have people who look down on others OR who are glad they are not fey therefore don’t look ‘gay’, I wonder if there is a correlation in how ‘out there’ they are pushing out gay rights?
I’m generalising but I’ve read enough times not just on these blogs but others were gay posters say things like ‘don’t act too gay because then people will notice you’…’the reason they got beaten up was because they were camp an holding hands’…’that guy could never hide his love d*ck’…’gay face’….or even ‘why do we still have parades?’
How easy is it to pass judgement if you can pass and thus it has never happened to you?? Same with Jews. I’ve been in situations with Jews who don’t look Jewish and someone has said an anti-semetic comment and they said nothing!? And I would be like ‘wtf?’ afterwards and they would be like ‘oh, doesn’t matter just leave it, they are just stupid’.
Well that’s great for you with youe blonde hair and blue eyes but what about it if you looked like a ‘typical’ Jew and everyone stared at you after the comment was said? You’d have to react either way, like a black person has to either way.
Jewish people were able to assimilate through changing their last names slightly to sound anglo and through that they helped and supported each other to open further businesses and succeed.
Good Case Study is Hollywood. Or the financial sector.
Gays also have that advantaged which Blacks don’t. As a Black person is blatantly obvious if you support other blacks with a leg up. I know in the UK, though it’s so few and far between that people start to whisper and bitch if there is more than one black person within a team, despite how capable they are.
So that’s why I think Gays could really look at how the Jews have done it…
@ Chitown Kev
Yes but women have the same issues as blacks. We are visible. We can’t hide. And again see above. At the moment in the UK we are having big discussions in media and govt about equality, the glass ceiling and affirmitive action. It’s not easy but it’s sill as unequal now as it was then.
The excuse they are saying at the mo is that ‘maybe blacks and women just don’t want senior positions which is why they have not succeeded in high paying jobs’…
Riight.
Sorry but passing has a lot to do with it…
Fitz
John,
I am honestly not getting something. Are you suggesting that gay people should, as some American Jews did, try to pass better in order to be treated well?
AA gay people have it especially rough. The suicide rates and homeless-youth rates are evidence enough. All these issues seem very inter-twined to me. In a world where gays are not treated equally legally, and AAs are not treated equally in deed, the gay AA youth are in double jeopardy. Pushing their own families away from discrimination through de-socialization of homophobia seems essential.
And I fully agree that gay people disparage obviously fey men. Even the whole “bottom/top” dichotomy is amazingly offensive to me. (And don’t even get me started on the sad sacks who seek abusive, “alpha males”, etc.) BUT…
I am still not really understanding how this translates into the marriage question or the question of the Civil Right Movement, or of what (if any) analogies are appropriate.
Chitown Kev
@John…
You misunderstood what I was trying to say…
I meant that a discussion of those blacks that can pass as white would not go over very well AT ALL with the black community.
I meant that on a psychological level, there is an analogy of what Fitz describes as happening to a LGBT teen and that might be a dark-skinned black person that grows up hearing about how useless and ugly they are all day, every day because they are so dark skinned. The same sort of self-hating messages that can be heard at the dinner table apply…
Of course, bringing up the colorism problem in that way in the black community would probably not be helpful either, but in terms of analogies, Fitz’s and mine are somewhat similar.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fitz
For me it simply translates into that there needs to be more openess and dialogue within the gay community as to why it is so disparate and one of those reasons I feel are because of what I have said above,ultimately gays want equality and respect. This means marriage (because of benefits available amongst other things, dignity etc) but so many gays-who can ‘pass’, don’t want to put in the work and it seems this falls on those who can’t pass, to do the work which inc putting up with homophobic b*llsh*t because you’re an easy camp/fey target.
I used the Jewish blonde girl situation as an example because this is typical of people who can ‘pass’ through and are not always a target, so don’t try to understand how hard the fight is. But I’ll bet they will be the first to reap the rewards when the fight is done and won.
So I think it would be interesting to see how the Jewish movement did it…..it’s not over BUT one needs to understand the complex that exists within their group to understand how to begin and affective gay movement campaign that will succeed.
My response to this was very much in response to your very interesting point about movements and their model.
The BIGGEST issue which is messing up this marriage issue is the gay movement itself.
So what do you? I think look at campaign movements from sectors of society who have similar complex issues…
@ chitownkev
I def agree with that but it happens to Jews too but I do think with gays blacks share this common ground of it being worse than ANYTHING you can be.
Very true.
Re ‘colorism’ with the black community, well, dude it needs to happen. You need to open those cans…however much it p*sses people off…
But it’s diff in the states than it is in the UK because we don’t have the same Afro history at all.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t a touchy subject? I’ve pushed it forward many of times…
Abejabi
“When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.
…Not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
…I am proud that Richard’s and my name are on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
— Mrs. Mildred Loving
Fitz
Well good points… Interesting. And I will risk the group beating by wondering out-loud if gay youth would become so “fey” or “butch” if they had less marginalized role models to introject. I think that the hyper-macho gay and the mincing-fey gay are probably two sides of the same coin. In other words, it’s very difficult to pull pieces into your developing personality if those pieces are devalued or over valued. I live in SF. I see 60 year old men pumped up with synthetic hormone, dressed in military garb as frequently as I see the stereotypical ‘fag’ with a spray tan and man-purse. So, while I agree that greater acceptance of each other might lead to a more cohesive movement, I also wonder if greater acceptance of “us” in society wouldn’t also lead to typical acculturation— not acting for the sake of passing, but simply being a little less neurotic in general. (again.. I think it’s crazy making for the kids that they have to choose who to be in these scenarios).
So, the asbestos is on. The hearing aide is off. Not that I am defensive. 🙂
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fitz
“So, while I agree that greater acceptance of each other might lead to a more cohesive movement, I also wonder if greater acceptance of “us” in society wouldn’t also lead to typical acculturation— not acting for the sake of passing, but simply being a little less neurotic in general.”
I don’t think so.
To me it will make the fight have a coherent end game. This is why I used the ‘Jewish movement’. They’ve had to ‘suck it up’ for the greater good but it hasn’t stopped the passion or the need to fight!
ericka v.
In San Francisco and other areas right now there are advertisements on buses from CAIR, and other Islamic organizations who have stated their intent to rid the world of gays.
What is hilarious is that gay activists ride these buses all over town without so much as a peep. What hypocrites!
Just imagine if the buses had a Christian message about gays, queerty and others would be all over it.
These people have an absolute right to their message, just as the atheists have posted theirs all over billboards and buses.
What a bunch of loony hypocrites decrying a message on a bus while riding around on others with messages from groups out to eradicate gays.
schlukitz
No. 53 · ericka v.
What a bunch of loony hypocrites decrying a message on a bus while riding around on others with messages from groups out to eradicate gays.
It certainly does give one cause to wonder, doesn’t it?
Fitz
I am on the bus 5 or 6 days a week.. I have not seen that ad.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Consistent with our obligations under the First Amendment, Metro accepts advertising on a content-neutral basis. We permit advertisements of opposing views or positions to run simultaneously. Metro makes no implied or declared endorsement of any product, service, event or ideology. We simply provide the medium for an advertiser to use.
Please note that the campaign for this advertiser has ended, and the ads are no longer in the Metro system.
AxelDC
@ WMATA:
I wonder if you would be so “obligated” if the KKK wanted to put ads up as you drive your buses through predominantly black neighborhoods.
If not, why do you think it is okay to put anti-gay ads on buses that drive through Dupont Circle?
schlukitz
No. 57 · AxelDC
Touché. Point well made.
It’s absolutely amazing how many people do not seem to know where their bread is buttered!
Chitown Kev
@AxelDC
But is there really anything in that ad that is anti-gay?
Yes, of course I understand that the bigots would love to take this to the ballot box where they are probably pretty assured of a win (in spite of what the DC Council has already voted).
And I suppose that since an anti-gay bigot group posted those ads then, yes, it is an anti-gay ad but…
Is the message of that ad anti-gay, strictly speaking? Strictly speaking, it’s not advocating a position…
Vo Dong Cung
If Maggie ask for free speech on her ads, may I have the free speech to run an ad asking billion Chinese or Indian vote on her Bible? I don’t think this is the free speech that UN Declaration on Human right said, but this is the case Maggie taking advantage of majority to put down minority. The conservative American Christians really put Vatican away from Asian countries and also the rest of the world by putting the bible above state constitution and laws.
schlukitz
No. 59 · Chitown Kev
You posed the question Is the message of that ad anti-gay, strictly speaking? Strictly speaking, it’s not advocating a position…
Technically, this is true. However, asking to let the people vote on marrige, as it applies to the LGBT community is advocating, in effect, that it wants to strip that right away from the folks in Washington, DC. Why else would they be spending good money putting these ads on the sides of buses, if that were not their intent?
From where I am standing, the implication of that message looks and sounds quite anti-gay to me, even if it does not come right out and say so in so many words.
What?
Crying? Check.
Interchanging the words black and gay? Check.
Whining over some nonsense? Check.
Shitting diapers over supposed black homophobia? Check.
Typical Queerty commenter nonsense. Good to see nothing’s changed around here.
Everyone’s trying to take your rights away, there are black people outside of your door waiting to lynch you, and the sky is falling.
Chitown Kev
@Schlkutz
Oh, I agree with every word that you said, of course. But…I am pretty much a free speech libertarian, I really wouldn’t have a problem with these ads if they were advocating an anti-marriage position, fundamentally.
The difference with allowing the KKK to put up ads would be the documented and sustained history of violence of said organization against African Americans.
Not to say that the anti-gay lobby would’t do that…hell, the anti-gay lobby is really about a 1/4 step away from being the KKK, to be honest.
Fight the implied hate speech here with better and more effective speech.
schlukitz
No. 63 · Chitown Kev
Fight the implied hate speech here with better and more effective speech.
Very good advice.
Happy New Year, my friend.