USA Gay is the new Black

seven.sixtwo

Inactive
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459348,00.html

NEW YORK — Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all.

Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.

The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples.

Racism was defanged by Obama's triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied.

"Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man and the editor of Giant magazine. "I always have this discussion with my friends: What's worse, being a black man or a black gay man?"

"Civil rights have come much further than gay rights," he said. "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked."

In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled "Gay is the New Black," Michael Joseph Gross wrote, "These past few years we've made so much progress that we'd begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don't like us, don't think we're normal, don't believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs."

Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.

"I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization.

"We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences," he said. "What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work."

Complicating the issue is the domination of minority politics by blacks and Latinos, who can be less than friendly to gay issues.

In the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which repealed gay marriage, about 70 percent of blacks favored the ban, according to an exit poll; Latinos' close vote may have favored it, though the poll's small sample left some uncertainty. In Florida, 71 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos favored a similar ban.

Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"I do not consider (gays) to be a minority in legal and adjudicated terms, the same way people who only like to eat broccoli with butter aren't a minority," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "We can't categorize things according to behavior. It's based on ethnicity, on who we are rather than what we do."

"Who am I to say that you weren't born that way ... (but) sexual activity, what you do, who you sleep with, is your business," Rodriguez said. "That's between you, your lover, and the good God Almighty in heaven. I don't want to know. Let's leave sexual activity in the bedroom. The government shouldn't be legislating what we do behind closed doors between two consenting adults. And to compare it to the African-American struggle, to me that's an abomination."

So is gay the new black, or did the election define a new and unique set of gay challenges?

"The gay fight for marriage has its own integrity, its own background," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The experience of blacks in the United States is very different. ... I don't think it helps the fight for equality to make that claim."

Cherlin says that fight began in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic unfolded. Gay partners had few rights to help their ailing loved ones, visit them in hospitals or inherit their property, which led to the push for civil unions.

Today, only Connecticut and Massachusetts permit gay marriage, and a few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage. Galvanized by the stinging Nov. 4 defeat in liberal California, the marriage movement is now as much symbolic as practical.

"There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols."

One symbol that some see missing from the gay rights movement is a figurehead. There are famous people who are out and proud, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., or Ellen DeGeneres. But "we don't have our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Barack Obama," Wilbekin said.

Yet the nature of activism has changed since the days when King proposed the idea of a mass march on Washington. The recent nationwide gay protests were instigated by a Seattle blogger who set up a Web page three days after the California vote.

And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress -- even though he opposes gay marriage.

Obama is in favor of civil unions, and during his victory speech, when he included gays in his description of America, it made them feel part of the historic racial milestone.

Solmonese said that the election defeats of Nov. 4 have inspired a level of gay activism not seen since the early days of the AIDS epidemic.

"That is buoyed by equal parts anger and rage about Proposition 8," he said, "but also hope and inspiration about doing something that for a long time we didn't think possible -- like electing Barack Obama as our president."

Cry me a fricken river you pathetic people.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress -- even though he opposes gay marriage.


this is a contradiction in terms
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Every society needs their outcasts.

Something in the human psyche - there has to be a lowermost caste.

We used to tell the entering plebes that in military college.

Joe
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I don't understand this article. There should BE NO CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES for homosexuals. They shouldn't need to claim "minority status." The article is right, in that minority status comes from who you are, not what you do. And since homosexual behavior is LEGAL IN AMERICA at this time, depriving those couples of ANY civil right exercised by regular Americans should be disallowed. Period.

You know folks, once this gets to the Supreme Court, their rights WILL be affirmed. You heard it here first....
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
article said:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]"There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols."[/FONT]

And this is a mistake. I think homosexuals should have exactly the same considerations from the government has heterosexuals, but they could achieve this more easily by going with civil unions instead. Asking for the same rights under the term "marriage" makes everything more difficult.

On the other hand, if people who want to preserve marriage as a religious institution were willing to make that separation - putting government in charge of civil unions and religions in charge of marriage - marriage could probably be kept separate. Instead, by forcing homosexuals to fight for the same partnership considerations from the government, they will eventually win not just civil union, but marriage as well.

In the end, we'll see that if we had agreed that the government has no role in deciding how people choose to associate, everyone would have been happier with the results.
 

topcat46

Inactive
This is not about civil or legal rights.

Gays want FULL ACCEPTANCE that their lifestyle is AS LEGITIMATE AND MORALLY THE SAME as a marriage between a woman and a man. This is why they insist on redefining MARRIAGE and are not content with having civil unions.
 

seven.sixtwo

Inactive
This is not about civil or legal rights.

Gays want FULL ACCEPTANCE that their lifestyle is AS LEGITIMATE AND MORALLY THE SAME as a marriage between a woman and a man. This is why they insist on redefining MARRIAGE and are not content with having civil unions.

they will twist it into "civil rights" to get the same sympathy and treatment that the black got in the 60's. when the gays get their martin luther king, they will get the favor of the govt.
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
This is not about civil or legal rights.

Gays want FULL ACCEPTANCE that their lifestyle is AS LEGITIMATE AND MORALLY THE SAME as a marriage between a woman and a man. This is why they insist on redefining MARRIAGE and are not content with having civil unions.

I think you are right. I also think that if gays had the option of a civil union that conferred the same legal benefits and restrictions as marriage, most of the pressure on marriage would go away. Sure, there will always be women who want to crash male-only clubs, boys who want to join the girl scouts, and gays who want a Christian marriage in a church, but those are the extremists.

The problem is that this is an area where religion and government are tied together and one is like a giant lead weight that will eventually drag the other to the bottom of the ocean.
 

BillyT

Contributing Member
I think that Govt. should get out of marriage all together. Let people marry in their own religious traditions and let the free market of employers decide how they want to work benefits and medical coverage for dependents. Why is a marriage only legitimate if the Govt. recognizes it?
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
I think you are right. I also think that if gays had the option of a civil union that conferred the same legal benefits and restrictions as marriage, most of the pressure on marriage would go away.

Wrong. The gays want equal rights, but it is a lot more than that. Most are rabid leftist, and total hypocrites. If you ask gay folks where sex education should be taught: The home or the government funded and ran schools, most will say the schools. These hypocrites turn right around and then demand government not be involved in their sex life. So they want government involved in your kids sex life, but not in _their_ sex life. That is the first issue. The second issue is that since they really actually do support government getting involved in people's lives, they want the government involved in marriage. Most of the libertarians are calling for government to totally get out of marriage, call everything civil unions and let the churches deal with the "marriage" word issue. I have not seen one protesting gay person take this line of thinking. Why? Simple, they want government to call unions between gays marriage. Why do they want this? Simple: They _hate_ anti-gay Christian's and this is a large knife into the heart of anti-gay Christianity. This is what this whole thing is about, getting government to call same sex unions marriage to piss off the Christians and other religions that don't believe in same sex practices.
 

Cascadians

Leska Emerald Adams
In the end, the Supreme Court will have to pry apart church and state per our Constitution.

There is only one rational outcome to the whole thing. It will end up in the Supreme Court for the whole nation.

It will have to be decided that marriage is a religious institution and civil union a government institution. Civil union will have to be equal for all and marriage will have to decided upon by each religion, each church.

The Constitution guarantees equal rights and eventually all discrimination in legal matters will be eliminated.

This is the only possible outcome over time; it is just a question of how long it will take.


The Supreme Court will have to pry apart church and state. This is more important than semantics or word definitions.

State = civil unions with all attendant federal and state benefits, for ALL.

Marriage = not a government issue. Church.

Even in civil unions the legal benefits are not the same because the FEDERAL government will not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

This is about legal benefits, equal under the law.

I know, because I AM in a legal domestic partnership and am NOT gay. I am asexual, no sex of any kind with anything or anybody. I believe all sex of any kind is disgusting and the cause of many a downfall. We decided on domestic partnership because we needed the legal protection for ourselves and our business which is our home. It truly is a domestic partnership.

Because the domestic partnership law went into effect in Oregon, a memo from Human Resources went out saying domestic partners would be entitled to family health insurance. Lynn is a Director and gets completely covered health insurance for herself and spouse. So we got domesticated the first legal day we could because I was dying and needed health insurance ASAP.

It saved my life. There's still more testing to be done but I can function now. It has absolutely zero to do with sex and everything to do with survival.

We were both married, me for 19 years, Lynn for 29. Our husbands ended up being the worst sour lemons. It was really sad. We would both like to have good husbands but are too busy to even think about looking for that right now.

The Federal government, the IRS, does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. And so the desire for equality and equal protections is understandable. And persons attracted to the same gender have been so persecuted and discriminated against that they can be forceful about insisting on equal rights, as are all people who have historically been hurt en masse.

If you detach yourself from emotion and look objectively at the vociferous arguments against gay marriage you will see that most vilification is laced with religious hatred. It is religion driving this issue. The Supreme Court will be forced to remove religion completely from civil unions.

Ironically, it is the fundamentalist religious right who will be responsible for forcing the Supreme Court to divorce religion completely from marriage and relegate marriage to a purely religious choice while instituting civil unions equally for ALL under government jurisdiction.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Wrong. The gays want equal rights, but it is a lot more than that. Most are rabid leftist, and total hypocrites. If you ask gay folks where sex education should be taught: The home or the government funded and ran schools, most will say the schools. These hypocrites turn right around and then demand government not be involved in their sex life. So they want government involved in your kids sex life, but not in _their_ sex life. That is the first issue. The second issue is that since they really actually do support government getting involved in people's lives, they want the government involved in marriage. Most of the libertarians are calling for government to totally get out of marriage, call everything civil unions and let the churches deal with the "marriage" word issue. I have not seen one protesting gay person take this line of thinking. Why? Simple, they want government to call unions between gays marriage. Why do they want this? Simple: They _hate_ anti-gay Christian's and this is a large knife into the heart of anti-gay Christianity. This is what this whole thing is about, getting government to call same sex unions marriage to piss off the Christians and other religions that don't believe in same sex practices.


brilliant summation
 

Cascadians

Leska Emerald Adams
Sex should not be taught in schools. That is solely the parent's prerogative.

The problem is that too many parents have abdicated this duty, and therefore .gov thinks it has to "save" the children by informing them. This opens the door to too many perverse agendas and corruption.

How many of the world's troubles come down to somebody not doing his duty?
 

SouthernGal

"Don't retreat...reload"
In spite of the pseudo-christians (whom I think are pretty pathetic) whining and bitching about this.

I want to know, in your opinion, what exactly constitutes a "true" Christian, as opposed to a "pseudo-Christian".

And, why is it that the homosexual terrorists haven't dared to go after any black "pseudo-Christians" or Muslims, or Buddhists, etc? I really want an answer to that question.
 

Nanook

Inactive
I believe the Bible, in Leviticus, is pretty clear about homosexuality. But what do I know, I'm just a "pseudo-Christian."

Something about for a man to lie with a man as with a woman being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

No wonder gay activists are after Christians. Nothing like that exists in other faith's sacred books, at least not in that exact wording.

An abomination in the eyes of the Lord is pretty strong stuff.
 

Warandra

Membership Revoked
I am friends with a number of Gay Christians. In Christ there is no male nor female. So, get over it, people.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
I am asexual, no sex of any kind with anything or anybody. I believe all sex of any kind is disgusting and the cause of many a downfall.

And I thought I had heard it all. Wow.

I am friends with a number of Gay Christians. In Christ there is no male nor female. So, get over it, people.

This is laughable. The current concept of "Christianity" is whatever one wants to make of it, making the whole thing a joke. This is exactly what happens when states don't enforce a version of religion, the individual makes it what _they_ want to make it. I personally don't care, but to claim to be gay and Christian is laughable given the history of the religion. That being said, if people are gay and want to worship Christ and a Christian God, so be it. It is just so funny to watch people twist Christianity into something that supports the thing they do: Homosexuality, child molestation, plural marriage, spreading the seed (having tons of kids out-of-wedlock with different women) etc. etc.. Of course this isn't shocking considering that the vast majority of the followers are hypocrites who don't think they do anything wrong because "all is forgiven" over and over and over and over again.
 

Cascadians

Leska Emerald Adams
aka monks, nuns, monastics, renunciates, celibates, etc, long tradition in cloisters for centuries, strange that what once was a well-known and revered ideal is no longer known.
 

Scotto

Set Apart
I am friends with a number of Gay Christians. In Christ there is no male nor female. So, get over it, people.

All of these gay freaks who think you can still be a Christian and gay at the same time are morons. Like said above, an 'abomination' is as bad as it gets in the eyes of the Lord.
 

kozanne

Inactive
aka monks, nuns, monastics, renunciates, celibates, etc, long tradition in cloisters for centuries, strange that what once was a well-known and revered ideal is no longer known.

Hang on there, they were not ALL celibate.....sorry, but it's true. Some of those popes in the middle ages were 'in a scandal' or two.....

I don't know how 'revered' the idea is, but I know it's been around a long long time.
 

Monkeywrench

Land Owner
No need for us to cry for you or anyone else.

We'll get what we want.

Eventually.

In spite of the pseudo-christians (whom I think are pretty pathetic) whining and bitching about this.

The one great thing that we Christians have going for us is that we can multiply. All the deviants will just die eventually. Their contribution to mankind will remain zero.
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
The one great thing that we Christians have going for us is that we can multiply. All the deviants will just die eventually. Their contribution to mankind will remain zero.

Presuming, of course, that all your contributions to mankind come from below the belt.
 

Ender

Inactive
I think that Govt. should get out of marriage all together. Let people marry in their own religious traditions and let the free market of employers decide how they want to work benefits and medical coverage for dependents.

Spot on, BillyT.
 

Kook

A 'maker', not a 'taker'!
No need for us to cry for you or anyone else.

We'll get what we want.

Eventually.

In spite of the pseudo-christians (whom I think are pretty pathetic) whining and bitching about this.

The homosexuals will not get what they want. That is a self delusion. No matter what laws are passed, no matter how much 'acceptance' is enforced by the state, drummed into children's heads by the government schools, or taught in business seminars, the homosexuals will never be fully accepted or thought of as equals in any society, ever. The most 'liberal' of parents, who may actually say they don't care if their child is gay, will continue to have a cold shudder go though them when the thought of little Johnny telling mom and dad he's gay passes through their mind. The most 'open minded' people will, when the 'gay gene' is discovered, seek abortions when any mathematical probability of having a gay baby arises. (Pseudo Christians would seek abortions in that circumstance. Real Christians will not, as we value all life, just not all lifestyles.)

By the vary nature of mankind, because of the fact that the equipment is made for another purpose entirely, because everyone with a logical mind can see that something is unnatural about the whole thing, gays will never be accepted deep in the hearts of everyone.

The homosexuals may very well win legal battles that force their ways on the world, at the most a temporary thing, but changing the real feelings of the majority of people? Ain't gonna happen. The peace will be Carthargenian, bludgeoned into existence by government command, not real at all.

A certificate issued by a beaurocrat will never make someone married, and workplace smiles brought about by fear of lawsuits will not mean societal acceptance. This whole mess just engenders more and more resentment those those being coerced.
 

kozanne

Inactive
Can't legislate acceptance. Cover yourself with paper, I really don't care. Makes no difference. People are going to resent it, and some people will find a way to express it. Hey, law is easy to get around......

I'm still waiting for white to be the new black. That's how I'll know America has just gone all stupid beyond hope.
 

Grantbo

Inactive
No matter how badly you damn dirty homo's want to be accepted as 'normal', you will NEVER EVER be. Live with it.

Keep pushing normal society to accept your perversions and you'll likely see a backlash which will force you all back into the closet where you belong. :lol:
 
Top