Proposition 8 and Civil Rights: Is There A Parallel?
On this video, Dee Garrick, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, says no: "It's not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. This is about society, our future and our children."
Watch and see if you agree with Ms. Garrick.
Update: Here's a related report: "Over 1000 Congregations Represented, Black & Hispanic Clergy Hold Press Conference To Say YES on 8, "Our Children Have Civil Rights Too." One of the highest ranking African American religious leaders in California and in the country has endorsed YES on Prop 8."
posted by Lowell Brown at 4:47 PM
|
9 Comments:
I've never in my entire life heard of Dee Garrick. Have you?
I'm right now in the middle of the third book of Taylor Branch's trilogy about Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, and not once in the 2000+ pages of the trilogy has the name Dee Garrick been mentioned.
However, frequently mentioned in the trilogy, of course, is the Southern Christian Leadership Conference... the civil rights organization founded by Dr. King himself.
And, guess what? The SCLC has taken a firm stance *against* Prop 8!
Rev. Eric Lee (of the SCLC):
“The Southern Christian Leadership Council is the only organization founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The entire core of SCLC is about fighting for justice for all people and against discrimination… As a result of that – this issue about marriage equality requires that we speak out against this proposition because anytime any group of people are denied the right afforded to another group of people, it is an issue of the violation of civil rights. And we need to be clear about that."
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick, I hate to burst your bubble, but it's a well-known fact that African-Americans are the demographic group most supportive of Prop 8. They generally resent the hijacking of the civil rights movement by proponents of same-sex marriage.
So, then, you *haven't* ever heard of Dee Garrick before. Good, I thought it was just me.
Now then, have you heard of the SCLC... the organization founded by Martin Luther King, Jr.?
And do you know where the SCLC stands on Prop 8 and marriage equality?
And have you heard of Dr. James Lawson, Dr. King's spiritual compatriot, and King's mentor with regard to the philosophy and tactics of nonviolent resistance (Dr. King referred to Lawson as “the mind of the movement”)? Do you know where Dr. James Lawson stands with regard to the analogous nature of racism and homophobia?
"At an April 27 rally held in Fort Worth, TX where the (United Methodist) denomination’s 2008 General Conference is meeting, retired United Methodist clergy the Rev. James Lawson and the Rev. Gil Caldwell spoke of the connection between racism and “heterosexism.” The rally was organized by the national, gay advocacy organization Soulforce."
And how 'bout Coretta Scott King? Have you heard of her? Do you know where she stood on the subject of marriage equality?
Coretta Scott King: "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
And if you know anything about the civil rights movement, you know who Bayard Rustin was. Rustin was one of King's most trusted advisors, and he actually planned and coordinated King's famous March on Washington in 1963. Note that the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition is leading the fight in the African American community to stop Prop 8.
So those are some of the American Civil Rights heroes whose names are burned into the hearts of every freedom-loving American. They're some of my own personal heroes.
And now you know where they stand on Prop 8, and on the extent to which homophobia is the new front in the fight for civil equality for all Americans.
Now then, who is Dee Garrick, again?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.
If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.
As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.
The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.
The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.
What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.
More here
Nicely, respectfully said 'Anonymous.' Why are they trying to raise the preference of homosexuality to a race? It's a creed, a choice. If we are to say marriage is okay for Party A and party B then why can't cousins and siblings get married too? They say no because there's medical proof that it's bad for the offspring. Well that explains that marriage is an instituion set in place to bring about children through the love of a man and a woman. Two siblings can't do it for medical reasons and two men or two women can't do it physically. You homosexuals have every right...every one the same as a married couple. Why fight so hard for the definition of marriage?? It's not discrimination, you are not a race. I don't care if you sit at home at night watching dancing with the stars or whatever...I don't care if you live together, commit to each other, live your lives together...why do you have to take the religious rights of your neighbors and coworkers because you want the term marriage?? Are you aware that churches, temples, synagogues can be forced to close their doors if you vote No on Prop 8?? Your sexual orientation will be raised to the level of a race and if any religious organization says no to a gay couple being married in their facility, the couple is given the right to sue on grounds of discrimination. It's ridiculous!! Millions of citizens freedom to practice religion is at risk so gay couples can use a marriage license application at city hall instead of a civil union application. And those against Proposition 8 say those in favor are haters and against civil rights...you've got it all wrong and you should fully examine the whole spectrum of this Proposition. Perhaps it is the homosexual community and their supporters that are the haters of religious freedom. PLEASE think these facts over and VOTE YES on 8!
Great video. It is a really good response to the "no on 8" commercial comparing the gay marriage issue to interracial marriage and Japanese internment camps which is totally irrational.
http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com
Vote YES on Proposition 8!
Just from various comments I've seen.
1) Patrick Meighan: High-five for bringing in authoritative people in the civil rights movement.
2) Lowell Brown: No one "owns" the Civil Rights Movement. It involves many people and is still going on today in various ways. So a group of people shouldn't feel like it's been hijacked.
3)Anonymous:
a) "If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority..." - Once there are legal (government) factors involved, it is no longer a religious argument. The argument here shouldn't be about religion, but about what the government can provide equally to everyone.
b) "...as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family." - By who's definition, but your own? There are plenty of families with gay parents that are raising children well. Is this to say that a man and a woman who cannot physically have children are not truly married in either the eyes of God or the eyes of the government? Or the fact that they can or only choose to adopt children creates a fundamentally flawed example of "family"?
marie g: I would going to be mean and catty (gay people activities are as different as everyone else's. plenty of straight people watch "Dancing with the Stars"), but please just read: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story .
Thank You Patrick for your reasonable and academic response to an issue that is emotional on both sides of the fence.
Civil rights are not limited to people of color. It considers every person, regardless of race, creed, education, sexual orientation, 1 parent or 2 parent families, etc. It exists for all.
Bayard Rustin (March 17, 1912 – August 24, 1987) was an American civil rights activist, important largely behind the scenes in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and earlier, and principal organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. He counseled Martin Luther King, Jr. on the techniques of nonviolent resistance. Rustin was openly gay [1] and advocated on behalf of gay and lesbian causes in the latter part of his career.
A year before his death in 1987, Rustin said: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
The fact that one group of people believe they alone own the civil right struggle is an example of why we need civil rights for everyone. I believe we should never stop fighting for civil rights until anyone who has been marginalized because of who they are no longer needs to fight. That is true equality.
Reading one of the blogs above reminds me of a married heterosexual couple that lived two doors down from my old apartment. Both of them cannot have kids "naturally" and would need to adopt. They both knew this was a problem prior to getting married, but decided that they loved each other and married. By the definition above, they're not supposed to be able to get married. I'm sure if they had the option they would procreate "naturally" and not adopt. I guess I should go back to my old apartment and tell them that their marriage is a lie and they should get a divorce. Let's go more extreme..I might as well tell all handicapped people from the waist down that they shouldn't get married.
This is in reference to:
"The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.
The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship."
Post a Comment
<< Home