Black Republican: Don’t Equate Black Rights And Gay Rights

[Liability]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.

Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.

The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.

So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I don’t believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.

Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the “rights” argument in this issue but, let’s face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyone’s right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.

And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.

You have to have a legal reason to exclude. For driving they exclude blind folk.
What legal reason is there to exclude gay folk?
None, as the Constitution does not address it.
You can not just make it up as you go.

The legal reason would be that, legally, marriage is an exclusive contract between a man and a woman.

Where is that anywhere in the law?
No where.

 

[Trajan]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.

When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.


But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.

that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.


when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.

in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.

 

[Seawytch]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.

When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.


But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.

that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.


when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.

in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.

And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.

 

[Trajan]

Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.

When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.


But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.

that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.


when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.

in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.

And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.

that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.

 

[Seawytch]

that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.


when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.

in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.

And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.

that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.

It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.

 

[Trajan]

And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.

that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.

It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.

sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.

 

[Seawytch]

that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.

It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.

sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.

It is running its proper course...through the judicial system.

 

[mal]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.

Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.

The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.

So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.

The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...

Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...

There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.

If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...

Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Innate traits are innate traits wether visible or not.

 

[Liability]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.

Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.

The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.

So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.

The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...

Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...

There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.

If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...

Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...



peace...

I don't agree with your analysis, starting with my disagreement even with initial premise.

I think the laws used to discriminate against gays for perfectly private behavior.

In any event, it used to be the law (in many states) that a black person and a white person couldn't get married, either. That was strictly based on race. What possible interest the state might have in that realm was never really established.

I'd say the same is pretty much true now, with gays. I remain at a loss to understand how or why the state (any state) might think it has any valid concern with the gender of a the individuals getting married.

A loves B. B loves A. A proposes to B. B accepts A's proposal.

In the past and today, if A is a male white and B is a female white, they can get married.

In the past, if A was a white male and B were a black female, the could not legally get married.

In the present (in a number of states), if A is a male and B is a male, the couple cannot legally get married.

Since I don't give a damn if A marries B and the State cannot articulate one stinking coherent reason why the law should prevent them (strictly on the basis of their same-gender status) from getting married, I don't see how their situation is different than the status of a mixed-race couple in the days of the Miscegenation laws prohibiting cross-racial marriages.

My wife is a Catholic. I'm not. Oh oh. I sure hope the State doesn't come up with some law prohibiting such marriages. Cross-religious marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Cross-racial marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Same-gender marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ???

Polygamy -- by stark contrast -- is a very real concern of the State for a whole number of valid state interests. Those have been and CAN BE articulated.

I'd love to hear a rational argument by which cross-racial marriages can be stopped as a matter of legitimate State interest. Similarly, I have YET to hear a legitimate valid argument for a State interest in the gender issue of marriage.

 

[Trajan]

Maybe this image will help clear up the difference between the black struggle for equal rights in the US and gay "issues":

One runs a little deeper than the other.

IMHO

yeah. Gays have it so much easier.

This is where they lynched Matthew Shepard

Is the problem that some Blacks (who are homophobes themselves) resent the notion that crimes can be committed in the name of bigotry against anyone other than one of their fellow Blacks? Isn't that rather petty? Is the victim card so precious that no other group can play it, even if it's truly justified?

conflation, on a huge scale.

 

[Trajan]

It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.

sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.

It is running its proper course...through the judicial system.

Oh I see...its always interesting when the ole flip flop occurs. its majority rule when it suites, then the courts when you need them if a referendum or the state legislature isn't amendable...how predictable. .....

 

[Seawytch]

sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.

It is running its proper course...through the judicial system.

Oh I see...its always interesting when the ole flip flop occurs. its majority rule when it suites, then the courts when you need them if a referendum or the state legislature isn't amendable...how predictable. .....

Civil rights are won through the judicial system, not by popular vote.

 

[Gadawg73]

If I had been oppressed and persecuted for any reason, no matter how large or small the scale, I woulc not care or object and embrace everyone and anyone that supported my cause.
Of course thare are many blacks that are royally pissed off that many supporters of gays and lesbians and the persecution they receive compare their journey to that of the civil rights movement.
Homophobia is common amongst all groups of folk.

 

[bodecea]

If I had been oppressed and persecuted for any reason, no matter how large or small the scale, I woulc not care or object and embrace everyone and anyone that supported my cause.
Of course thare are many blacks that are royally pissed off that many supporters of gays and lesbians and the persecution they receive compare their journey to that of the civil rights movement.
Homophobia is common amongst all groups of folk.

And as I have said before, during the Women's Liberation Movement days, we heard the same thing from some (not all) black civil rights people...about how it was not the same...

Civil Rights are civil rights....some groups have had more of a struggle than others, no one is denying that....but the end result SHOULD be the same, just as the excuses by those denying civil rights are often the same.

 

[mal]

The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.

Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.

The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.

So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.

The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...

Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...

There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.

If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...

Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...



peace...

I don't agree with your analysis, starting with my disagreement even with initial premise.

I think the laws used to discriminate against gays for perfectly private behavior.

In any event, it used to be the law (in many states) that a black person and a white person couldn't get married, either. That was strictly based on race. What possible interest the state might have in that realm was never really established.

I'd say the same is pretty much true now, with gays. I remain at a loss to understand how or why the state (any state) might think it has any valid concern with the gender of a the individuals getting married.

A loves B. B loves A. A proposes to B. B accepts A's proposal.

In the past and today, if A is a male white and B is a female white, they can get married.

In the past, if A was a white male and B were a black female, the could not legally get married.

In the present (in a number of states), if A is a male and B is a male, the couple cannot legally get married.

Since I don't give a damn if A marries B and the State cannot articulate one stinking coherent reason why the law should prevent them (strictly on the basis of their same-gender status) from getting married, I don't see how their situation is different than the status of a mixed-race couple in the days of the Miscegenation laws prohibiting cross-racial marriages.

My wife is a Catholic. I'm not. Oh oh. I sure hope the State doesn't come up with some law prohibiting such marriages. Cross-religious marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Cross-racial marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Same-gender marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ???

Polygamy -- by stark contrast -- is a very real concern of the State for a whole number of valid state interests. Those have been and CAN BE articulated.

I'd love to hear a rational argument by which cross-racial marriages can be stopped as a matter of legitimate State interest. Similarly, I have YET to hear a legitimate valid argument for a State interest in the gender issue of marriage.

Marriage is a Product of ProCreative Coupling... Denying a Man and a Women from Marrying based on Race Defies our Natural Design.

A Black Man and a White Woman can Physically Reflect Marriage.

If Marriage is whatever any given Adults say it is, then it has no Real Meaning and if it is Expanded as a "Right" that way, then Denying any Variation of Adult Marriage, be it 2 Sisters or whatever, would be Unconstitutional.

You can't Expand Rights to SOME Adults to the Exclusion of others.



peace...

 

[g5000]

Marriage is a Product of ProCreative Coupling... Denying a Man and a Women from Marrying based on Race Defies our Natural Design.

There are racial bigots who would give you quite an argument about that.

 

[Liability]

The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...

Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...

There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.

If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...

Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...



peace...

I don't agree with your analysis, starting with my disagreement even with initial premise.

I think the laws used to discriminate against gays for perfectly private behavior.

In any event, it used to be the law (in many states) that a black person and a white person couldn't get married, either. That was strictly based on race. What possible interest the state might have in that realm was never really established.

I'd say the same is pretty much true now, with gays. I remain at a loss to understand how or why the state (any state) might think it has any valid concern with the gender of a the individuals getting married.

A loves B. B loves A. A proposes to B. B accepts A's proposal.

In the past and today, if A is a male white and B is a female white, they can get married.

In the past, if A was a white male and B were a black female, the could not legally get married.

In the present (in a number of states), if A is a male and B is a male, the couple cannot legally get married.

Since I don't give a damn if A marries B and the State cannot articulate one stinking coherent reason why the law should prevent them (strictly on the basis of their same-gender status) from getting married, I don't see how their situation is different than the status of a mixed-race couple in the days of the Miscegenation laws prohibiting cross-racial marriages.

My wife is a Catholic. I'm not. Oh oh. I sure hope the State doesn't come up with some law prohibiting such marriages. Cross-religious marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Cross-racial marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Same-gender marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ???

Polygamy -- by stark contrast -- is a very real concern of the State for a whole number of valid state interests. Those have been and CAN BE articulated.

I'd love to hear a rational argument by which cross-racial marriages can be stopped as a matter of legitimate State interest. Similarly, I have YET to hear a legitimate valid argument for a State interest in the gender issue of marriage.

Marriage is a Product of ProCreative Coupling... Denying a Man and a Women from Marrying based on Race Defies our Natural Design.

A Black Man and a White Woman can Physically Reflect Marriage.

If Marriage is whatever any given Adults say it is, then it has no Real Meaning and if it is Expanded as a "Right" that way, then Denying any Variation of Adult Marriage, be it 2 Sisters or whatever, would be Unconstitutional.

You can't Expand Rights to SOME Adults to the Exclusion of others.



peace...

Marriage WAS originally designed for pro-creative coupling AND for certain other financial contract or social contract reasons.

If a man and/or woman are unable to "productively" couple, they aren't properly denied the right to marry.

So, I just don't see that the "pro-creational" aspects of marriage have anything to do with it anymore.

And if procreation is not the basis for "marriage," then there's no longer any reason to exclude it from gay couples.