"Is Gay the New Black?"

[Cheesesteak]

@brickbacon

That’s not what you said. You said gay people were stripped of their rights. Aside from your first example, which is valid but still ongoing, gays had neither of the “rights” you mentioned. It’s debatable whether serving in the military and getting married are traditional “rights” in the first place.

I suppose riding in the front of a bus, eating at a restaurant and drinking from a water fountain ARE traditional rights? How about a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren from Loving v Virginia? “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

[brickbacon]

@Cheesesteak

I suppose riding in the front of a bus, eating at a restaurant and drinking from a water fountain ARE traditional rights?

They are not. Those things were overturned on the basis of those segregation laws being ruled unconstitutional. One does not have an inalienable right to sit anywhere on a bus, drink from any water fountain, or eat at any restaurant.

@Cheesesteak

How about a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren from Loving v Virginia? “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

And do you think Justice Warren was advocating gay marriage? I support gays having the right to get married, but there isn’t a “right to get married to whomever one wants to”. I guess I should have stated that more clearly, but it’s clear to me that this “right” was not extended or interpreted in that way.

[Cheesesteak]

@brickbacon

And do you think Justice Warren was advocating gay marriage? I support gays having the right to get married, but there isn’t a “right to get married to whomever one wants to”.

If he wasn’t talking about marrying whomever you wanted to, what was he talking about? The entire point of the case was that the law denied people the right to marry who they wanted to.

[descamisado]

@brickbacon

And do you think Justice Warren was advocating gay marriage? I support gays having the right to get married, but there isn’t a “right to get married to whomever one wants to”. I guess I should have stated that more clearly, but it’s clear to me that this “right” was not extended or interpreted in that way.

No, he wasn’t advocating gay marriage but the inference can be made – only if you include homosexuals under the phrase “free men,” (and “men” to mean “humankind”), worthy of being allowed the personal rights essential to . . . pursu[it of] happiness.

If you don’t, then well . . . .

[Ludovic]

That’s a really self defeating argument in the context of this thread. If the judge meant that the right to marriage does not extend to same sex couples, it supports, not contradicts, the assertion that gay people suffer inordinate discrimination up to the very highest levels of the justice system.

If you’re arguing on the other hand that they did not have a right that they previously had taken away, one could argue the same for the civil rights movement, most of the strugglers also never had the rights to be taken away in the first place.

[Steve_MB]

@brickbacon

So yes, there were plenty of people out and protesting for gay rights, which is very admirable. They co-opted many of the strategies the Black civil rights movement employed, yet they did not feel the compunction to meaningfully pitch in to their struggle. They are well within their rights to do so, but don’t surprised when Black people take offense today they attempt to use their brand name.

The Goddess of Democracy (Chinese: 民主女神; pinyin: mínzhǔ nǚshén), also known as the Goddess of Democracy and Freedom, the Spirit of Democracy (minzhu jingshen[1]), and the Goddess of Liberty (ziyou nushen[1]), was a 10-meter-tall (33 ft) statue created during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

The freaking GALL of those people! Where the hell were they when Washington’s troops were starving at Valley Forge, huh? :rolleyes:

[Miller]

@brickbacon

So yes, there were plenty of people out and protesting for gay rights, which is very admirable. They co-opted many of the strategies the Black civil rights movement employed, yet they did not feel the compunction to meaningfully pitch in to their struggle.

Would they have been welcomed, if they tried to do so? If one of those “homophile” organizations had sent a delegation to Selma, would they have been allowed to march? I rather suspect they would have been met with a “thanks, but no thanks” at best. A significant majority of blacks, even among the leadership of the civil rights movement, are openly hostile to gays and gay rights. Let’s face it: a big reason so many blacks object to comparisons between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement is nothing less than the feeling that gays do not deserve equal rights. This was demonstrated rather neatly in the recent election, where over 70% of black voters turned out in favor of Proposition 8. Can you provide a cite for similar opposition to black rights on behalf of gay voters?

[brickbacon]

@5-4-Fighting

No, he wasn’t advocating gay marriage but the inference can be made – only if you include homosexuals under the phrase “free men,” (and “men” to mean “humankind”), worthy of being allowed the personal rights essential to . . . pursu[it of] happiness.

No, it can’t see below.

@Cheesesteak

If he wasn’t talking about marrying whomever you wanted to, what was he talking about? The entire point of the case was that the law denied people the right to marry who they wanted to.

Well, if you’d read the opinion rather than taking a quotation out of context you would have a better understanding of the court’s reasoning.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy

“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”

As for why the the Loving case does not apply to same-sex marraige.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

“[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[10] ”

Similarly the concurring opinion in the same case stated that:

“Plaintiffs’ reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which precluded “any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian” (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States,” the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification” (id. at 10, 11). It made clear “that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause” (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[10]

Justice Warren most certainly did not mean for his comments to be applied to same-sex marriage at the time.

[brickbacon]

@Ludovic

That’s a really self defeating argument in the context of this thread. If the judge meant that the right to marriage does not extend to same sex couples, it supports, not contradicts, the assertion that gay people suffer inordinate discrimination up to the very highest levels of the justice system.

No it does not. Marriage was never thought to apply to two men marrying each other. It may be discrimination strictly speaking, but polygamists, and others could make the same argument. I don’t see how you can apply a modern appreciation for gender roles and sexual orientation to a SC justice in late 60’s. His comments don’t imply anything.

@Ludovic

If you’re arguing on the other hand that they did not have a right that they previously had taken away, one could argue the same for the civil rights movement, most of the strugglers also never had the rights to be taken away in the first place.

But that’s simply not true, and ignores disparate histories of the Black civil rights movement, and the Gay civil right movement.

[Guinastasia]

So wait-if MLK acknowledges Gandhi’s struggle, it’s admirable. But when the Gay Rights’ movement mentions and credit’s that of MLK, they’re stealing his thunder?
Can we say, double standard? You’re a bigot, brickbacon. Just admit it already.

[tomndebb]

@Guinastasia

Can we say, double standard? You’re a bigot, brickbacon. Just admit it already.

And you’re out of line posting insults in Great Debates.

[ /Modding ]

[Ludovic]

@brickbacon

No it does not. Marriage was never thought to apply to two men marrying each other. It may be discrimination strictly speaking, but polygamists, and others could make the same argument.

They could…so? you’re allow to marry anyone you want as long as they’r e the same ra…i mean gender. In the laws of the 1800s it was unthinkable to allow otherwise, so therefore it must be some sort of new right those liberals in the mid 20th century made up out of thin air for miscegenists.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Most of the time I find myself wanting to refer to concepts and principles that were established in previous movements (particularly the Civil Rights movement and Women’s Sufferage) not try to make and apples to apples comparison. As I’ve said previously, I see it as a comparison between two different varieties of apples.

Lately I’ve been using “Civil Rights” to denote the fight for racial equality and “civil rights” for referring to the struggle civil rights for everyone in general. When I say something verbally with that phrase, I try to qualify whether or not I mean with a capital C, capital R or not.

Another example, I’ve used terms like “uppity” to refer to aspects of the LGBT Rights movement, and even to myself sometimes in more heated discussions with those advocating intolerant and bigoted behavior. Now I am not using the word in exactly the same context and with the same significance as it has held with respect to Civil Rights, but it is compelling civil rights significance as the oppressed standing up against their oppressors and demanding equality.

I don’t see why we can’t apply at least some fundamentally common concepts to the LGBT Rights movement. Do we really need to coin the term “guppity”?

And lastly, I hold the Civil Rights movement in extremely high regard, and I consider my motivation to utilize some of the same arguments and tools that have been successful for that movement, as a homage to that movement, a movement which I also feel I am a participant and ally, much like many straight people are participants and allies in the LGBT Movement.

[Cheesesteak]

Brickbacon, bridging from your second citation, doesn’t it speak volumes that gays have not even been able to ASK for the right to form a legitimate family unit until recently? Sure, Warren didn’t intend for his remarks to apply to gays, because at the time he was striking down racial laws as a violation of basic human rights, he probably didn’t even consider that gays deserve basic human rights too.

[Beware_of_Doug]

I thought gray was the new black.

[Miltonyz]

November 2nd was a day I lost a little bit more faith in my fellow man. African American voters voted by a convincing margin against alowing gays to marry. I believe it’s been cited at 70%. A community that as little a fourty years ago was eating firehouses in the streets trying to gain equal rights. A community that had dogs set upon them. A community whose leaders died in order that maybe their children would be able to have a better life. And yet even as they struggle to this day under the weight of instituional racism, the community as a whole goes gladly to the polls and denys others their rights.
Gay marriage isn’t just an ethical issue it’s a humanity issue. I can’t understand a society that says the two guys can’t experience the same love for each other that my girlfriend and I feel. I can’t imagine the hell of having someone I love severely injured, and not being able to visit them.

[Ludovic]

@Miltonyz

November 2nd was a day I lost a little bit more faith in my fellow man. African American voters voted by a convincing margin against alowing gays to marry. I believe it’s been cited at 70%. A community that as little a fourty years ago was eating firehouses in the streets trying to gain equal rights.

See, the benefit of being cynical is that I didn’t lose any faith in mankind. Sure, it would make sense if A-As (as a tendency within a group) overcame their tendency to social conservatism in the face of memories of racial oppression, but the universal tendency to selfishness means that while it wouldn’t be surprising if they did support gay marriage because of it, my opinion of the ones that voted for 2 or 8 did not sink much.

Because my view of humanity didn’t have that much further to sink. (OTOH, of course, even in the reddest areas there was 30% + Obama support, and 30% of voting A-As voted against 2, so no group is completely solid.)

[Guinastasia]

@tomndebb

And you’re out of line posting insults in Great Debates.

[ /Modding ]

I’m sorry, tom. I never thought of “bigot” as an insult-type insult, more like “liar”. Perhaps I should start a Pit thread?

[Grumman]

@Guinastasia

I’m sorry, tom. I never thought of “bigot” as an insult-type insult, more like “liar”. Perhaps I should start a Pit thread?

Just so you know, “liar” is also considered an insult. There’s a sticky about it at the top of GD.

[EasyPhil]

Gay will be the new Black when a cab driver stops for a Straight White Man but not a Gay White Man.

Gay will be the new Black when you can send test groups of individuals to job interviews and the Striaght White Man gets the job or a call back even if he has a criminal record and a similiary qualified White Gay Man doesn’t or when you send a similiarly qualified White Gay Man and a Black Man of any sexual persuasion and the White Gay Man isn’t preferred.

Gay will be the new Black when Gay communities are redlined, denied adequate services and generally not seen as good places to live.

Gay will become the new Black when the population of White Gay Men in prison is dispraportionate to that of Gay White Men in the general population.

Gay will become the new Black when a name assumed to be “Gay” results in a job application being cast out for that reason and that reason alone.

Gay will become the new Black when “Driving While Gay” becomes a phenomena.

The life of a White Gay Male in this country is not even close to that of a Person of Color in this country with respect to bias and discrimination experienced.

So, no, in no way is Gay the New Black from my point of view.