For anyone who says gay rights are not a civil rights issue and "at least they weren't enslaved"

[belladonna]

Tell that to these people:

Matthew Shepard, murdered at age 21 because he was gay.

Teena Brandon (aka Brandon Teena), murdered at age 21 because he reported being raped by two men who raped him BECAUSE they found out he was transgender.

Danny Overstreet, murdered on September 22, 2000, less than 50 miles away from my home, by a man "looking to waste some faggots" who walked into a gay bar in Roanoke, VA and opened fire.

J.R. Warren, murdered on July 4, 2000 in West Virginia by three men, because he was black AND gay.

PFC Barry Winchell, beaten to death by his FELLOW SERVICEMEN on July 5, 1999, because they thought (correctly) that he was gay.

Billy Jack Gaither, murdered on February 19, 1999, because he was gay.

Tyra Hunter, who died on August 7, 1995, after being cursed at by EMT's who refused to treat her once they found she was transgender.

This is a SMALL sample.... sadly,I could go on all night long, posting the names of men and women who have been murdered for no other reason than the fact that they were gay or transgender. Fact is, there is NOT that much difference between what has happened to blacks and what CONTINUES, unabated, to happen to the LGBT community. The only difference is that one is now less acceptable, in the eyes of many Americans and the law, than the other. It is no longer socially acceptable to be an outspoken racist, but I GUARANTEE you that very few people speak up when some idiot in a bar somewhere starts bashing gays. Hell, it even goes on in our schools every single day. Walk into any middle or high school and stick around for awhile.... see how many times you hear the word faggot used casually, as though it's not a big deal. What, I ask you, is the difference between that and what happened to blacks when they had to deal with casually being called the N-word on a daily basis?

What's the difference between lynching a man because he's black and lynching a man because he's gay? What's the difference between a black man being beaten for kissing a white woman and a gay man or woman being beaten because they held hands with their partner in a public place? I have tons of examples and could go on all night, but my threads usually get locked anyway, so why go on and on?

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Gwen Araujo

Beaten to death and buried in a shallow grave on October 4, 2002 for being transgendered.

k&r

[belladonna]

2. The sad thing is this

I could make a list that would go on for at least two or three threads... if not more. No way to fit them all into one post.

[bicentennial_baby]

3. Isn't Roanoke the airport

I flew into?! :scared:

Thank you for posting this. :hug:

[belladonna]

4. One and the same

There WAS quite an outrage over it in these parts... I guess that's something.

[uppityperson]

5. Civil RIghts is Civil Rights. K&R.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. I've never understood that claim (that gay rights aren't civil rights -

that those in support of gay rights are somehow trying to deviously co-opt the civil rights movement by comparing the two.

It's the same fight, to me.

[ck4829]

8. In my studies... (Just my take on it)

I have covered the VERY negative aspects of politics, I decided I would study something I would call "Anti-Movement politics".

Anyway, trying to relabel a movement is an attempt to force an image on it.

The Far Right yesterday assailed the Civil Rights movement as a "Stealth Communist" campaign yesteryear, we all know that. It was an unsuccessful ploy, but today they say that gay rights aren't civil rights in an attempt to force an image that it doesn't want on it, being that if gay rights aren't civil rights, then what are they? It's an attempt to smear and bring down this movement.

[joneschick]

7. if we give gay people equal rights everyone will want them.

bumpersticker on my van. :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

12. I like that! nt

[nickinSTL]

9. for transgendered persons murdered...

there is a website dedicated to remembering them: Remembering our dead

There are many names...

There are, of course, many more gays and lesbians who've paid the same price for being who they are.

[HRC_in_08]

10. I must disagree on some points...

The difference between a gay person being lynched and/or beaten and a black person is none.

However, the degree of the struggle of blacks to attain civil rights in this country as opposed to the gay rights struggle is not even in the same zip code. The civil rights struggle and the gay rights struggle share a common denominator - bigotry. The degree of suffering is not even close. For every instance you can list, there are hundreds of thousands of dead african americans.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. But is it about numbers or about principles?

Injustice is injustice, isn't it?

Shouldn't we have expected to learn something from the civil rights movement?

[belladonna]

15. Sure, we'll assign one less importance because of the numbers

But hey, look at it this way.... with attitudes the way they are, perhaps the LGBT community will catch up in numbers and matter some day :eyes:

[HRC_in_08]

16. Your own post said that there is not that much difference...

between what blacks have faced and what gays face today. I simply do not agree with this assertion.

[belladonna]

20. I don't consider it a major difference

What, the numbers don't match up? It's still the SAME thing... one group of people being discriminated against and even dying because of who they are, whether it be a black man or woman or a gay man or woman. And one other thing, don't forget the fact that these are only the REPORTED MURDERS of LBGT people in the last 20 years or so. You do know that it's ALWAYS been this way... it's only become an issue since gay and transgendered people started being OPEN about who they are. There have always been gays.... they didn't just pop up in the 1960s, you know.

[HRC_in_08]

29. as I said, we disagree on that point...

as to the difference between lynching an african american or a gay person, I say there is no difference. The degree of suffering is where we part ways.

[belladonna]

32. Degree of suffering?

So tell me something then. When will the LGBT community catch up in terms of suffering, in your opinion?

[HRC_in_08]

33. Hopefully never. If things continue unchanged...

who knows. Thousands of years?? This hypothetical is impossible to guess at.

[tuvor]

17. "hundreds of thousands of dead african americans" for each homosexual?

What's your ironclad source for that claim?

[HRC_in_08]

18. No ironclad sources sir....

centuries of slavery, followed by decades of subjugation. I am perfectly happy to hear the numbers you would put forward.

[tuvor]

21. You make the claim, you provide the proof.

[HRC_in_08]

22. I will start with a list of african americans that were LYNCHED only...

from 1865 to 1965.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Base/8507/NLists.htm

[tuvor]

24. I'd have thought it would just be easier to admit that...

..."hundreds of thousands of dead african americans" for each homosexual was a bit of hyperbolic creative license on your part.

Don't bother continuing. This isn't a numbers game, despite what you say.

[HRC_in_08]

28. census records for 1790 show approx. 760,000 african americans...

with approx. 700,000 being slaves. These africans began arriving here as slaves in approx. 1565 or so, and continued to the early 1800's.

The 1860 census had approx. 4.4 million african americans with approx. 4 million slaves.

I do not see creative license at all. Literally millions of african americans have died in the centuries long struggle for civil rights.

[mondo joe]

63. How many gays over the centuries were forced to hide or lie or be killed

or ostracized or tortured?

[NMMNG]

88. So basically what you're saying is

If it were reversed and more GLBT people had been killed over the years than African Americans, then the African American's quest for Civil Rights wouldn't mean squat? After all it's nothing but a numbers game.

[NMMNG]

89. So essentially according to you,

If it were reversed and more GLBT people had been killed over the years than African Americans, then the African American's quest for Civil Rights wouldn't mean squat? After all it's nothing but a numbers game.

[Chulanowa]

141. Look at it this way

Africans have suffered slavery and oppression for five hundred years.
Homosexuals and the transgengered have suffered brutality and murder since at least the inception of monotheism.

Howver, the point being made is that oppression is oppression, that violence is violence. Should a group have to take a number and sit in the lobby to wait for their rights?

[intheflow]

27. Gay Americans or African Americans.

They're both still Americans first, under the Constitution. That's a staggering number of dead Americans any way you slice it.

When any one group suffers, we all suffer.

[uppityperson]

31. I think I understand what you are getting at. Please read whole post before replying.

What happened to blacks in the USA, throughout USA history, is NOT the same as what has happened to homosexuals. The numbers are different, being bred and sold indiscriminately for blacks has not happened to gays. There are differences. They are not the same. However, there are similarities in what has happened to blacks, to gays, to women (to pick 3 big categories of oppressed peoples). Murders, mistreatment, poverty, etc, all have happened.

For those that say what happened throughout history is the same, it isn't. BUT civil rights need to be given to all, and many have been oppressed, killed, mutilated, etc because basic civil rights for all hasn't happened. Doesn't matter your color, creed, sexual orientation, sex, civil rights for all is a Right.

I think this is what you are saying. Am I right?

[HRC_in_08]

34. in my post, i stated there is no difference between beating or killing...

a gay person or an african american. I do not agree, however, that gays have suffered in this country to nearly the degree of african americans, although both are the victims of bigotry.

[uppityperson]

36. So you are agreeing with the basis of OP about civil rights being for all

There have been posters that say because gays weren't enslaved, gay rights are not a civil rights issue. You disagree with this. Gay rights are a civil rights issue and need to be looked at, civil rights for all.

There have been posters who have said what happens to gays is the same as what happened to blacks, and you disagree because gays haven't been enslaved.

Both are victims of bigotry, both have suffered, both need civil rights given to them as to all.

I see no problem with this. Belladona, in case you are reading all replies, which I think you are as you seem to usually follow along in your topics, and for others who are doing the same, I agree. Look at the OP "For anyone who says gay rights are not a civil rights issue and "at least they weren't enslaved"". What is being said here, at least by me and I think by this poster though I can't swear to that, is in agreement with you. Gays haven't been enslaved BUT DESERVE Civil Rights like all do. Even though they haven't been enslaved, they have been hurt, lots, victims of bigotry.

Arguing numbers, who has been hurt worse, as it seems to have happened elsewhere in this topic, is not what you asked, not what we are discussing and I agree with you. Peace and civil rights for all.

[HRC_in_08]

37. are we discussing marriage? in my view this is not a civil right....

gays should be allowed to marry just as straight people with no difference in status or identification, but marriage is not in my view a civil right and a comparison to the civil rights struggle of african americans is off base.

[belladonna]

38. In my view, it is

Why shouldn't it be? When you're talking about the right to make medical decisions for one's partner, when you're talking about the right to adopt children, you're talking about rights that are generally reserved for married people. Why isn't it a civil right? I've got more examples if you'd like, but you can start with that.

[HRC_in_08]

40. obviously we differ on this point...

civil rights to me are free speech, freedom of religion, voting rights, freedom of the press. Again, I strongly feel that gays should be allowed to marry, and call it marriage. Civil rights struggle it is not.

edited for spelling.

[belladonna]

47. You don't think a right as basic as being free to marry who you choose is a civil right?

It's such a basic right, yet it is denied on the basis that only straight people can have that right? Isn't that the same as denying other rights, such as the right to vote, based solely on "we can and you can't because we've claimed that right for ourselves"?

[tuvor]

48. Clearly, he/she has no problem should interracial marriage be banned again.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tuvor]

54. Aw, give it a rest. You said marriage wasn't a civil right.

Sorry for following that crazy notion to one logical conclusion.

[mondo joe]

62. So if interracial marriage were banned it wouldn't be a civil rights violation?

What if just non-whites were not allowed to marry?

[HRC_in_08]

49. i'm sorry, but i do not...

it is not a basic right. it is a religious holdover that has taken on a mystical special meaning in our society. it should be available to all regardless of orientation, but a civil right it is not.

[belladonna]

51. Really? Do you file as a married taxpayer or a single taxpayer?

Guess what? The GOVERNMENT does treat married people differently and THAT, in my eyes anyway, makes it a CIVIL right.

[HRC_in_08]

53. do you feel that a holding a drivers license is a civil right?

or having a good paying job?

[belladonna]

55. Yeah, that's really the same

Example: Two women live together as partners in a committed relationship for 10 years. One of the women is in a horrible car accident and is on life support. She has made her wishes well known to her partner that she does not want to be kept alive on machines. The partner shows up at the hospital and, after having had it made very clear that the love of her life is brain dead and only kept alive by machines, she tried to convey her partners wishes to the medical staff. The medical staff says sorry, no can do. You're not married and, therefore, you have no say in this matter. However, the parents (who, for the purposes of this little story, disowned their daughter after finding out that she was gay) would like her kept alive and they have every right to do this.

Example: A man and a woman are married and the exact same scenarios is reenacted. The difference? The husband is allowed to make those decisions for his wife.

Compare that to getting a driver's license.

[HRC_in_08]

58. your stated criteria for marriage being a civil right...

was the differing treatment afforded married taxpayers as opposed to single taxpayers. The government also treats those that make more or less money in different manners.

Your example above is a good argument for why gays should have the same access to marriage as straight people. That does not make it a civil right.

[belladonna]

59. That was not my "stated criteria"

I was replying to your thread with ONE example of why I happen to think it is.

[HRC_in_08]

60. my reply was to this statement...

I can only reply to one at a time.

"The GOVERNMENT does treat married people differently and THAT, in my eyes anyway, makes it a CIVIL right."

[foreigncorrespondent]

66. Maybe not...

That does not make it a civil right

But this does:

Definition of civil right:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: civil right
Function: noun
: CIVIL LIBERTY; especially : any of the civil liberties guaranteed by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution and by the Civil Rights Acts

Now the all too important Amendment:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By denying gays the right to marry, they are in fact denying section i of the above: "nor shall any state deprive a person of LIFE." By denying marriage to gay people is denying us the right to our life.

On edit: typo

[HRC_in_08]

69. that is your interpretation and I respect your right to say so...

that does not make it so.

[mondo joe]

71. How do YOU define "civil right"?

[HRC_in_08]

78. rights that all humans share that are not given to us by the government...

and cannot be taken by the same.

[foreigncorrespondent]

81. Ok...

...so tell us what those rights which seem to be protected by some mysterious force would be then.

[Solon]

82. OK, name those rights...

Name a single right the government CAN'T take away.

[uppityperson]

107. Please give examples of what you mean.

Don't ask what we think, tell us what you think.

[foreigncorrespondent]

74. Not my interpretation mate!

But it is the laws in which your country is based on.

[HRC_in_08]

79. again, i respectfully disagree. eom

[foreigncorrespondent]

86. Disagree all you like...

... I really don't care. But you should, because you are disagreeing with the laws of your country and what the definition of civil rights, plain and simple.

[Occulus]

111. I'd like to say, I think your SN is incredibly apt n/t

[mondo joe]

65. Being denied a driver's license for reason of race or orientation or religion would indeed be

a civil rights violation.

[HRC_in_08]

70. is it your assertion that holding a drivers license is a civil right?

so i can understand clearly.

[mondo joe]

75. Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to citizens by law -

that would include driver's licenses.

[HRC_in_08]

85. that is your definition. it is your right to feel so. nt.

[mondo joe]

90. No, that's not MY definition. That's what civil rights are.

You seem rather confused on this point.

[HRC_in_08]

95. I guess I can take the same tact and say that you are wrong. eom.

[mondo joe]

97. But you can't support your claim. I can.

http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeTypeID:18

What is a Civil Right?

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.

And that's not all - you still haven't provided a usable definition.

[HRC_in_08]

101. what right of those listed do you feel is not accorded to...

gays as it applies to marriage?

[mondo joe]

102. See the bolded text here

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.

Here's more for you:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1


Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a "civil right< >"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("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").<14>

Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32
http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

[Solon]

76. Yes, but not because of Driving, but because of the Equal Protection Clause...

In the 14th Amendment, THAT would be the civil right that would be violated, not the driving license itself.

[uppityperson]

108. Having the ability to get one, no matter what your color, sex,creed, sexual orientation

That is what makes it a Civil Right. Equal ability to be able to get it.

[Solon]

72. Bad comparison...

Driving is a privilege, not a right, simply because of the fact that depriving someone of a license ONLY restricts them from driving on PUBLIC roads. In addition to this, it is, by itself, a regulation on HOW you operate a potentially lethal object, you do not require a TEST, by the government, to obtain a Marriage license, in only a very few specific cases are Marriage licenses denied, outside of Gay Marriage itself. Even the courts agree on this, in Loving vs. Virginia, which made discrimination in marriage based on race illegal, the majority opinion said that Marriage was a CIVIL RIGHT enjoyed by all.

[uppityperson]

105. Being able to have the same things is a civil right.

Not being denied the ability to apply for and get a drivers license, being able to have the same job regardless of color, creed, sex, sexual orientation. There are Civil Rights. Having the same Rights.

[mondo joe]

61. Ridiculous. What do you think a CIVIL RIGHT is?

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to citizens by law.

What about marriage does not fall into that?

[intheflow]

132. The UN declared marriage a universal human right.

Excerpt from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note this does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but rather puts the emphasis on the family unit. United Nation human rights law is modeled after United States' civil rights law, although it goes much further in its scope of rights protected under international law. The last sentence in Article 16 clearly states that marriage is entitled to protection by the State. So yes, I believe that marriage qualifies as a civil right.

[uppityperson]

136. Thanks for the specifics.

There are 2 ways to argue (actually more but I'm limiting it here), the terms and the ideas. The word of the law or the spirit. I think Human RIghts = Equal Rights for all AND Human Rights=Civil Rights. They can be limited by law and should not be. Thanks for this info. And hiya!

[uppityperson]

104. I am back and no, we are not discussing only marriage but civil rights

The right to be not persecuted due to sex, color, creed, sexual orientation. The right to be able to own property, to inherit, to be not killed, to hold a job, be educated, etc.

As far as marriage rights go: Marriage is a right which I think should be open to all consenting adults no matter what their color or sex or sexual orientation, such as getting rid of anti-racial marriage prohibitions. Should people of different colors be allowed to wed? Then why not people of the same sexual orientation?

[skypilot]

122. "are we discussing marriage?"

How did marriage come into this? As far as I can tell from what I've read here so far the discussion is about civil rights in general, not just the right to marry. I think that this is a part of the problem with some people these days. When they think of gays fighting for civil rights they think that that means simply fighting for the right to marry since the gay marriage issue is so big these days. In short, the answer to your question ("are we discussing marriage?") is NO--at least not exclusively. We are discussing civil rights in general.

[HRC_in_08]

126. it was important to this portion of the discussion....

if there are other issues you would like to add, feel free.

[uppityperson]

137. Equal treatment, equal rights.

Marriage is only 1 part, 1 thing. How about "don't ask don't tell"? How about job discrimination? How about discrimination when you try to rent a home? How about equal treatment irregardless of color, creed, sex, sexual orientation? Do you see gay rights as only about marriage?

[Pushed To The Left]

146. Interracial marriage used to be illegal

I have a hunch that a lot of the people who talk about "protecting marriage" now from gay people are the same ones that would have talked about "protecting marriage" from interracial couples many years ago.

[NMMNG]

39. Um

For every instance you can list, there are hundreds of thousands of dead african americans.

1. I highly doubt the ratio is that high.
2. Nonetheless, the reason there is a higher number of crimes against blacks is because there are more black people than GLBT individuals. That doesn't negate the heinousness of what has been done, and continues to be done to GLBT people or the severity of the struggle we face in our quest for equal human and civil rights.

[HRC_in_08]

42. it is my contention as shown earlier in this thread...

that millions of african americans died under the tyranny of slavery, and thus in the struggle for civil rights. it is your right to disagree.

gays should be allowed to marry and call it marriage the same as straights.

[NMMNG]

46. Yes, more African Americans died than GLBT individuals

Because there have been more AA people than GLBT people over the span of history.

But again, the fact that more AA people died doesn't change anything. Does the fact that six million Jews died in the Holocaust make what happened to African Americans any less significant? Of course it doesn't.

So stop saying that what has happened to GLBT people is less significant just because we don't have the same body count!

[HRC_in_08]

52. I guess from my perspective, what is the point of comparison...

to the african american civil rights struggle when they are completely different, both in scope and definition.

[NMMNG]

57. The point of comparison is this

Civil Rights are Civil Rights--no matter who is fighting for them.

If you can't get past the "numbers", which is the only real difference, that's your problem.

[divineorder]

83. HRC, What About Black Gay People?

Who suffer double discrimination? Should they have civil rights only for the black side? Or if lesbian, only for the female side? Also, the homophobes and the racists are the same people, united for the same purpose: to perpetuate the dominance of white straight European descent men to the detriment of everybody else.

And if the government can give it, every law-abiding citizen should be able to exercise it within sensible restrictions. There simply is no public interest reason why gay people can't, and shouldn't legally marry. Whatever the churches do is their business, but they shouldn't make rules that govern atheist gay people or gay people who have preferences other than the fundamentalist religious philosophy.

[HRC_in_08]

93. if you read elsewhere in the thread....

you will see that I believe gays should have the full privileges of marriage, in name and function. It is my contention that marriage is not a civil right.

[mondo joe]

96. That's only because you don't know what a civil right is.

What is a Civil Right?

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.

http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeTypeID:18

[annarbor]

121. Black, female and lesbian here!

In my life I have suffered discrimination due to the fact that I'm a woman, due to fact that I'm black and due to the fact that I'm gay. I can swear to you that there was no discernable difference between the pain I felt in each instance. Would it help others understand what Civil Rights are if suddenly I am no longer allowed to vote because I'm gay? Not being able to marry or being denied a driver's license doesn't seem heinous enough to get the point across.

Ann Arbor

[nofurylike]

41. tens of millions of lgbtq in each generation, where do you think

they all went in previous history?

where not able to, or agreeing to fake it as straight, for life!, they were executed, thrown into snake-pit asylums, tortured, used in human experiments, handed over to ruling classes as (unwilling) prostitutes - including to the opposite sex when believed it would cure them...

rape, battery and murder of homosexuals was not even illegal in many places.

we are even still called "freebies" in many places, because prosecution for raping us is still so rare.

in this country, homosexuality was executionable until the late 1800, on some states' books even longer.

these are only SOME of the reasons why people do not know the history of our persecution and genocide.

i have given my entire life fighting for Justice for all - for people of color even more than for my lesbian self.
i will never ever understate the horror of crimes against people of color. i wail of those crimes, every single day.... shriek!!

important quote:
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
Coretta Scott King (Chicago Tribune, 4/1/98)

now, how 'bout we stop having to pass-or-die; knowing we will always be charged with 'asking for it' if we do not agree to pass for straight.

passing equals denying my love for my partner. would you deny love of your spouse? for a roof over your head? to keep a job? to not get battered? to not be murdered? to not be electroshocked? to not be lobotomized?..... ?

and it is true that "silence=death"

so, should i pass, or take it?

not all of the above is in reply to just your post, but i can not stay online to reply to others', so i'll hope some read it in this reply, thank you. and thank you for your opening line of it still being a human being lynched, beaten, either way.

[belladonna]

44. You said that better than I could

I don't know why people think that gays only started being persecuted in the last 20 years. Thank you for clarifying what I couldn't.

[nofurylike]

45. thank you, belladonna. and for this thread.

i will check back later to see how it's going.


peace and solidarity

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. You seem to forget that...

...the killing of gays for the longest of time went unreported as a hate crime. Therefore Joe Blow was murdered, but the fact that Joe Blow was murdered because of who he happened to sleep with, never entered into the equation.

But this isn't about which movement has had the most murders happen now is it? Because all murders are senseless acts regardless of the situation behind them.

There isn't one gay person in this entire world who would ever deny what an atrocity the civil rights movement was. The killings, the disenfranchised people because of their skin colour, not having a voice, being used to do the work white man was too lazy to do. It is just a shame that in return many with in this community like to cry foul, and not recognize that there are in fact similarities between the two. Regardless of numbers. A good example of this is:

During the era of slavery and beyond a black man was not allowed to look at a white woman, let alone marry her. Yet a white man could take the wife of a black man out of their marital bed and fuck her no questions asked. As a lesbian in this world, I am not allowed to marry the person I am in love with, yet I am told if I would just get over this faze I am going through and marry a man, I would have all the rights I want.

Both situations are denying one thing, and that is the love two people have for each other. There is no difference in that.

While the similarities may not always be exactly the same, the simple fact is that the denial of rights for ANY person is in fact a civil rights issue. It doesn't matter what any numbers are. And as progressives in this world, whether those numbers add up to one person or millions doesn't matter because the end result is always the same. People being denied rights because of who they are. And we simply should not accept that under any circumstance or excuse.

[HRC_in_08]

67. marriage laws should be amended to include gays...

and/or should not recognize a difference between gays and straights. this does not make marriage a civil right.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. Oh please!

See post #66

[mondo joe]

77. Equal protection is a civil right - that includes marriage. NT

[uppityperson]

109. Are you seriously saying that equal protection is not a Civil Right?

I left, came back and am reading through the rest of this thread. You seem to be saying that there should be equal protection, but that this is not a Civil Right. What is it then?

[HRC_in_08]

112. sorry, left the computer for a while....

let me be clear - equal protection is a civil right. marriage is not. I will limit my replies, as the posts have gotten spread out and divergent.

[mondo joe]

114. Equal Protection includes all rights and privileges - Marriage is one of them.

[uppityperson]

120. OK< I'll put the ones I replied to together for you to answer

You seem to be arguing semantics and I would like you to clarify what you mean before going on. If you share a bit about what you are thinking and why, it would help. (edited for typos)

1. You have defined "Civil Rights" as " rights that all humans share that are not given to us by the government and cannot be taken by the same. " Please give examples of what you mean. Don't ask what we think, tell us what you think. What DO you consider a "Civil Right"?

2. You say marriage isn't a civil right. First, do you mean at all for anyone? Freedom of religion is given by the government, is that a Civil Right? How about the ability for blacks to not be sold into slavery? That was given by the gvt and can be taken away by the same. As the gvt said no more owning or being owned (slavery), they can take that away also. Does that mean freedom of passage due to skin color is NOT a Civil Right (according to your quoted comment above)?

3. Having a drivers license I do not consider a civil right. I do consider the ability to be able to get one an equal right and I consider Equal Rights a Civil Right. The right to be not persecuted due to sex, color, creed, sexual orientation. The right to be able to own property, to inherit, to be not killed, to hold a job, be educated, etc. Do you consider Equal Rights to be Civil Rights? (I think you said yes in the post I am replying to but wanted to clarify)

4. As far as marriage rights go: Marriage is a right which I think should be open to all consenting adults no matter what their color or sex or sexual orientation, such as getting rid of anti-racial marriage prohibitions. Should people of different colors be allowed to wed? Then why not people of the same sexual orientation?

[HRC_in_08]

123. thanks for gathering everything in one place...

1. rights as outlined in the Constitution...press, religion, equal protection, speech.

2. marriage is not a civil right for anyone. it is a contract, an institution, a license granted and limited by the government. slavery stripped humans of their inalienable rights as outlined in the Constitution...the work around to this was the definition of slaves as property and not people. there is no comparison here to who gets marriage priveleges.

3. equal protection is a civil right. a drivers license is not. a good paying job is not. a college degree is not.

4. interracial marriage prohibition was a violation under equal protection. many feel gay marriage is the same...that does not make it so. time will only tell. it is my opinion that it is not. i have said numerous times that people of the same sexual orientation should be allowed to marry.

[uppityperson]

124. Thank you for the longer reply. 1 last question.

If, for some extremely odd reason, sexual orientation or (god forbid) rights based on sex (female, women's rights, equality) were to pass via Constitutional ammendment, would they be considered a civil right? (rhetorical questions, why the hell haven't they passed the equal rights ammendment pertaining to women yet? Will sexual orientation equality be passed before women's equality ammendment passes? End of rhetorical questions).

[HRC_in_08]

125. could you please be more specific....

what exactly would be added? a marriage ammendment will never be added to the Constitution. it was just a construct of the Republicans to fire up their base. i do not know the details of the equal rights amendment...i believe the rights of women are covered under equal protection and the civil rights act.

[uppityperson]

133. Equal Rights Amendment info (only Wiki but a start)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment, as proposed in 1972 by the 92nd Congress, and as published in Volume 86, United States Statutes At Large (pages 1523–1524), reads as follows:

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Map 1972/73 ratification

[HRC_in_08]

135. what specifically are you asking? if a gay equal rights amendment...

was ratified and added to the Constitution, whether gay marriage would fall under equal protection?

[uppityperson]

138. You said you didn't know much about the Equal Rights amendment for women

I gave you info.

What do you mean what am I asking?

[HRC_in_08]

139. sorry, misunderstanding..

i thought you were asking a specific question in the original post.

[mondo joe]

127. You don't understand Equal Protection.

Equal protection means equality in law and privileges which includes marriage.

How can you think prohibition of interracial marriage is an equal protection violation, but marriage is not a civil right?

[HRC_in_08]

128. interesting, as i don't think you understand equal protection...

apparently we are far apart on the issue and further discussion is pointless.

[mondo joe]

129. The difference is I can - and have - provided legal backup of what it is.

You can't.

[HRC_in_08]

130. you provided legal backup, citing a case that was cut...

in convenient locations to make your point. A case that is used just as often by anti gay marriage proponents as argument for their position with the inclusion of some of the text you left out. Again, we disagree and I will leave it at that.

[mondo joe]

131. Not at all. Marriage is a right covered by Equal Protection.

Why you insist it isn't is a mystery.

[Sapphocrat]

144. I'll just die if I don't get this recipe.

I'll just die if I don't get this recipe.
I'll just die if I don't get this recipe.
I'll just die if I don't get this recipe.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Marriage is not a civil right.
Marriage is not a civil right.
Marriage is not a civil right.

Did any other tapes come with that screen name, or is that all that come out when you pull the string?

[tbyg52]

116. The only reason the number for gays is smaller, IMHO

Is that it's easier to hide being gay than it is to hide being black. The prejudice is the same.

[uppityperson]

118. The prejudice is the same. HOW it has been applied is paritally same, some different

I think that is what this poster is getting at. Bigotry is bigotry. Murder is Murder. HOW the bigotry has been applied has been some the same (murder is murder, inability to have equal rights such as marriage, etc, same) BUT blacks were bred, sold, used as slaves while gays haven't been. This in NO WAY means that gay rights are NOT equal rights as they are. This in NO WAY means thaty the prejudice or bigotry is different as it is the same (prejudice based on 1 characteristic, bigotry spun on 1 characteristic).

Does this make sense? I really hate to see people working together towards Equal Rights for all irregardless of color, sex, creed, sexual orientation, etc, get bogged down in the argument of "has every oppressed group suffered the same" and even the OP is about this. Just because they weren't enslaved, gay rights are human rights.

[tbyg52]

140. Uh, I agree with you....

I *thought* I was agreeing with the OP as well. Wasn't I....? ;)

[uppityperson]

142. You were, sorry. My mistake as to whom the poster was (you). sorry

I was going to fast, saw letters and numbers and got to rant. Apologies. (Or would it be I got to be pedantic. Again?)

[madeline_con]

11. Who said THAT?!

:eyes:

[undercutter2006]

13. i agree

50 years ago from today african americans had same basic rights (at least on paper) as the rest of the citizens, while gay people would be sent to mental hospitals for lobotomy as a matter of business

[sendero]

19. Trying to argue..

... that gay rights are not civil rights is for dumbasses. You'll get no argument from me, and frankly certain groups who try to claim that "it's completely different" ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are like folks who got on the lifeboat and are now stepping on the hands of others trying to get in. They suck.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Please Tell Me This Wasn't Something Debated On DU.

I couldn't even begin to imagine the rationale behind putting forth the concept that gay rights is not a civil rights issue.

[belladonna]

25. Since I can't call anyone out specifically

I'll just link to the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=414117&mesg_id=414117

Keep in mind that some of the worst posts were deleted.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Thanks.

[DIKB]

30. We need to keep

reich-wingers from framing the debate. Science and nature support the fact that people are BORN that way. As long as the bigots keep claiming that it's a choice, they feel justified in their hatred.

It is a civil-rights issue, and the GLBT community is the new group of ni**ers.

[nofurylike]

35. thank you posting this, belladonna. eom

[NMMNG]

43. A-freaking-men

:applause:

[omega minimo]

64. the sooner the gay rights issue finds solidarity with women's rights as human rights gender issue,

the better :thumbsup:

[Madspirit]

73. CORETTA SCOTT KING

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.

[Duncan Grant]

106. Thank you, Madspirit.

I was hoping someone had posted these words.

Yours in solidarity,
9_S_F

[FreeState]

113. DESMOND TUTU "To penalise someone because of their sexual orientation is like what used to happen...

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_81771_ENG_HTM.htm

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu, the former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, has warned African churches against paying too much attention to the issue of homosexuality while ignoring real problems facing the continent.

"I am deeply, deeply distressed that in the face of the most horrendous problems -- we've got poverty, we've got conflict and war, we've got HIV/AIDS -- and what do we concentrate on? We concentrate on what you are doing in bed," Tutu told journalists in Nairobi during the World Social Forum.

***

Tutu likened discrimination against homosexuals to that faced by black people under South Africa's racist apartheid policies.

"To penalise someone because of their sexual orientation is like what used to happen to us; to be penalised for something which we could do nothing -- our ethnicity, our race," said Tutu. "I would find it quite unacceptable to condemn, persecute a minority that has already been persecuted."

[helderheid]

80. GBLT and Women's Rights Are THE Civil Rights' fight of my generation.

[Colobo]

84. It should trascend gender and sexual orientation itself

These are human rights. Period.

[helderheid]

91. As it should be for race as well. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. I'm unsure why sex and orientation have been

such a challenge - more so than any other.

[marmar]

92. The race one is far from solved....

:think:

[helderheid]

94. So is the women's one. Hence why I included them

[Colobo]

98. I think it's Western culture

The construction of Western "masculinity" is controlling and excluiding... I truly feel Western patriarchy is the main root of our social inequalities.

[helderheid]

117. AGREED.

[Colobo]

87. What about black homosexuals and lesbians?

Race and sexual orientation aren't necessarily two separated realms...

[helderheid]

99. Not at all. We ALL DESERVE EQUAL TREATMENT. Yes, I will yell that.

[Colobo]

100. But, do you notice

How the OT presents Race and Sexual Orientation as a dichotomy when it is not?

[helderheid]

103. The OT is pointing out how others do this,

[uppityperson]

110. Equal Rights are Civil Rights are Equal Rights are Civil Rights are Equal Rights are Civil Rights ar

Regardless of color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, height, eye color, number of toes, etc.

[gollygee]

115. There's plenty of hated for everyone, sadly

No need to compete.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. Anybody who says it's not a civil rights issue...

is a troll, and it's better to hit alert than to feed them.

IMHO.

[treestar]

134. It is comparing apples and oranges to some degree, but there are

similarities, but still, blacks at least legally and on paper have all their rights today, but without a fundamental right to marry or being considered a suspect class for constitutional law purposes, gays do not.

[JerseygirlCT]

143. The very point of civil rights

isn't that those denied them are all the same, or even denied them for exactly the same reason. Or being treated badly in the same way.

All of that is completely beside the point, really.

Civil rights belong to everyone, and ought to be extended to everyone.

You shouldn't have to prove your worth by a certain amount or type of suffering. You shouldn't have to prove anything in order to exercise these rights. No one gives them -- they belong to everyone.

The problem is that civil rights are still being withheld from some in our society. That problem needs to be fixed. If some who have fought for civil rights in the past no longer see the fight continuing, that's sad.

[booley]

145. it's sad some people see suffering as a contest

As if one groups sufffering and oppression must the same as another to deserve protections from oppression and discrimination.

No, gay people didnt' have to worry about slavery (except for black gay people)

Of course Black people didn't and still don't have to worry about thier friends and families finding out they are black and what they might do. (again with the exception of Black Gay people)

And then we have the problems women have faced which blacks and Gays haven't (well, unless you count black women and lesbians)

and then there are Hispanics and Asians and just about every other group that has ever been a minority.

Ect ect...

There is no magical thresh hold of oppression before it becomes wrong. It' s just wrong.