Years before the nation's capital legalized same-sex marriage in March, one church in Washington, D.C., opened its doors to gay couples as part of its mission to establish an "inclusive body of Biblical believers."

Pastors Christine and Dennis Wiley performed a 2007 commitment ceremony at their altar.  That action split the historically black church, prompting half of the congregation to leave.

Yvonne Moore not only left Covenant Baptist, where she had worshipped for nearly 40 years: she filed a lawsuit for her weekly tithes because, as she said, "They didn't respect the members enough to listen to us."

 Moore said she attended the 2007 commitment ceremony and found it "totally disgusting."

"I don't believe in that, I'm southern Baptist," Moore told CNN's Soledad O'Brien.  "The bible speaks against that. You cannot take that in the church."

So she sued the church for a portion of the estimated $250,000 that she estimates she had paid in weekly donations over the past 37 years.

Read how race and ethnicity can be a challenge to gay acceptance

Moore's now former pastors believe that gay rights are a natural extension of the black Civil Rights movement.

"I don't think we as a people have a lock on civil rights," Pastor Dennis Wiley said.

The struggle for civil rights is something that Moore can relate to:  Growing up in Florida, she said she was one of the first blacks to eat at a lunch counter in her hometown.

But she is still on the fence about comparing her situation, as an African-American, to that of the gay community.  She said Dennis Wiley asked her to consider the situation of her friend, who is gay.

"Dennis asked me ... 'How do you feel the way you were treated and just think about the way he was treated.'  And I was like, 'Oh, OK,'" Moore said.

She later dropped her lawsuit, but has not returned to the church.


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/...can-church/?hpt=Sbin

Original Post
Reference:
Moore's now former pastors believe that gay rights are a natural extension of the black Civil Rights movement.

I couldn't disagree more.

The fact is, as a civil right, gays are not barred from marrying.    A gay person CAN get married - under present legal law - to an individual of the opposite sex.  They just don't want to.  And that's fine ... but that's personal.  Not civil.  Their individual 'civil right' to marry is not being violated.  Their personal preference to marry a certain type of individual is what's being blocked.  There's a big difference between the two.

A Black person used to be prohibited from entering a White-owned establishment (or school) based on the color of their skin.  And their "civil right" to not be barred from public places is what was violated.  As a matter of social policy, wholesale discrimination of any individual's right to be treated fairly and equally as any other person is what lead to the need for the Civil Rights Act ... to ensure that no citizen was unjustly treated differently than any other.

So, it's not that as a civil/social individual the right to marry -under law - is not offered to a gay person.  They do indeed have the same right to marry as does any other one of us.  But what they want is more specific to their individual preference.  When we asked for the "civil right" to be able to go into a cafeteria and sit at the lunch counter, we didn't specify, "Black people ... but only the men," or "only the women who wore their hair naturally," or "only Black people who were willing to socialize with White people."  EVERYBODY has the same "right" as everybody else.  And that's what a "civil" right is and does. 

Wanting to marry somebody - but only with certain conditions and specifications attached - is not the same thing.  And to call that a "natural extension of the Black civil rights movement" is not only highly insulting ... but a uninformed mischaracterization of what that fight was all about.
ER,



I believe that the arguement that you are referring to is historically called the Equal Application Claim.



It held sway in Pace v Alabama (1883).



The same arguement was tried again in 1967 during oral arguements in Loving v Virginia.



In fact, the audio record of the oral arguements for Loving v Virginia are available online, and can be listened to online, or downloaded from the following website:



http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395



For those who do not wish to listen to the entire oral arguements for the case, I'll include some of the relevant quotes, along with timestamps for your convenience.


I would also note that while the arguement was apparently convincing to the US Supreme Court in 1883, it failed to convince the court later in 1967, when the precident of Pace v Alabama was overturned.




Timestamp: 1:11:50 - 1:12:30

"If the statute equally forbad the white race to marry the colored race, and the colored race to marry the white race, then in the opinion of the framers, that was not a violation of equal protection or due process. In other words, the classification itself was not a violation."

Timestamp: 1:13:00 - 1:13:40

"Now under this, the language which they used in saying that it had no relation, that it had no effect in the state's power over marriage, they also said provided no discrimination is made by it. It is clear, under the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, that if a statute had forbad white people from marrying colored people, and then had a different penalty for violation of that statute, that even the framers of the 14th Amendment would have thought that that would have been unconstitutional, and that the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to <*unintelligible*> that difference in penalty problem."


Timestamp: 1:17:09 - 1:17:24

"But, it is clear that the framers understood, that in their intention, a law that equally forbad the members of one race from marrying the members of another race, with the same penal sanction on both, did treat the individuals of both races equally."  









Reference:
The fact is, as a civil right, gays are not barred from marrying. A gay person CAN get married - under present legal law - to an individual of the opposite sex. They just don't want to. And that's fine ... but that's personal. Not civil. Their individual 'civil right' to marry is not being violated. Their personal preference to marry a certain type of individual is what's being blocked. There's a big difference between the two. A Black person used to be prohibited from entering a White-owned establishment (or school) based on the color of their skin. And their "civil right" to not be barred from public places is what was violated. As a matter of social policy, wholesale discrimination of any individual's right to be treated fairly and equally as any other person is what lead to the need for the Civil Rights Act ... to ensure that no citizen was unjustly treated differently than any other. So, it's not that as a civil/social individual the right to marry -under law - is not offered to a gay person. They do indeed have the same right to marry as does any other one of us. But what they want is more specific to their individual preference. When we asked for the "civil right" to be able to go into a cafeteria and sit at the lunch counter, we didn't specify, "Black people ... but only the men," or "only the women who wore their hair naturally," or "only Black people who were willing to socialize with White people." EVERYBODY has the same "right" as everybody else. And that's what a "civil" right is and does. Wanting to marry somebody - but only with certain conditions and specifications attached - is not the same thing. And to call that a "natural extension of the Black civil rights movement" is not only highly insulting ... but a uninformed mischaracterization of what that fight was all about.
  I totally AGREE!
Reference:
ER,

I believe that the arguement that you are referring to is historically called the Equal Application Claim.

I have no idea what you're talking about, ricardomath.    I wasn't referencing anything 'legal' ... didn't know there was such an 'argument' on the books.  What I said above is just what is common sense to me!  If it's been litigated .. it'd be interesting to know who won! 

But ... because I don't know what you're talking about, I have no idea what the relevance of those quotes are supposed to be.  But what I notice is that they are dealing with the issue of race.  Which is precisely my point in what I wrote above.

Being gay is not the same as being Black.  Being gay is not an issue that is comparable to or can be equated with - especially at the social/civil level - with the issue of race.  The Loving case served its purpose for the particular racial discrimination cause that it sought to correct.  But, trying to use it as justification for a non-race-related issue doesn't really work ... because you are trying to compare apples to a T-bone steak!! 

The truth is ... gay people already enjoy many of the "civil" rights to do the things they are demanding special consideration for.  They say they cannot get married ... but that's simply not true.  It's not a matter or whether or not they can go into a justice of the peace's office and get married .. just like anybody else.  It's that they want special consideration of being able to marry someone of the same sex.  And those are two different things.

Now ... when Black people couldn't enroll in public school ... or go into certain public stores or restaurants or establishments, or were denied jobs - because they were BLACK .. that was a violation of the civil right of citizenship .. the denial of being  considered an equal member of society.

It's apples and a T-bone steak.  And gay rights activists really need to find another argument - one specific and unique to their cause - to justify their claims.  Because the "it's the same thing as what happened to Black people" argument just doesn't fly. 
Reference:
Now ... when Black people couldn't enroll in public school ... or go into certain public stores or restaurants or establishments, or were denied jobs - because they were BLACK .. that was a violation of the civil right of citizenship .. the denial of being considered an equal member of society.

But Black people could go to public schools, the all black public schools - from elementary schools through college. Black people could go into almost any white restaurants and order food, they simply could not sit and eat in the restaurant. Black people could go into public stores, they simply had to enter by the rear door as opposed to the front door, and if they were purchasing clothing, they were not allowed to try them on. Black folks could ride on buses, they just had to sit in the back - but they paid the same fare and got to the same location as the white folks. Finally, prior to the Loving case, blacks could marry whomever they wanted to as long as it was a black person of the opposite sex.
Reference:
Being gay is not the same as being Black. Being gay is not an issue that is comparable to or can be equated with - especially at the social/civil level - with the issue of race. The Loving case served its purpose for the particular racial discrimination cause that it sought to correct. But, trying to use it as justification for a non-race-related issue doesn't really work ... because you are trying to compare apples to a T-bone steak!! The truth is ... gay people already enjoy many of the "civil" rights to do the things they are demanding special consideration for. They say they cannot get married ... but that's simply not true. It's not a matter or whether or not they can go into a justice of the peace's office and get married .. just like anybody else. It's that they want special consideration of being able to marry someone of the same sex. And those are two different things. Now ... when Black people couldn't enroll in public school ... or go into certain public stores or restaurants or establishments, or were denied jobs - because they were BLACK .. that was a violation of the civil right of citizenship .. the denial of being considered an equal member of society. It's apples and a T-bone steak. And gay rights activists really need to find another argument - one specific and unique to their cause - to justify their claims. Because the "it's the same thing as what happened to Black people
 Again....I totally agree.  You're on a roll my sista.  And I also "get" what you mean in terms of when black people couldn't do certain things as EQUALS.  And yes it is like apples and a T-bone steak....great methaphor/analogy!  But!  I'm just sayin
Reference:
Their individual 'civil right' to marry is not being violated.  Their personal preference to marry a certain type of individual is what's being blocked.  There's a big difference between the two.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That makes no sense. You just made the argument for denying someone the right to marry. If you reference the Loving vs. Virginia 1967 case that made its way to the Supreme Court (it was upheld by the lower courts after their arrest and conviction in 1959) , you will see that the law did not forbid someone to marry –as long as it was whites with whites and blacks with blacks (state of Virginias “Racial Integrity Act of 1924” ). Again, it was not the “right to marry” in question –it was whom an individual chooses to marry (in this case, a white man and a black woman).  By forbidding them to marry, you are violating their constitutional right to choose whom they desire to marry (again –a white man and a black woman). Same goes for gays. They can marry whomever they choose - as long as they are not of the same gender. By having such a law, you are infringing on their right to choose who they want to marry (a person f the same sex).  The only difference here is substituting black and white for same gender. It’s a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. End of subject.

Now, you personally may have moral or religious reasons for not wanting same sex people to marry.  And that is fine since that is your constitutional right to hold such beliefs.  But when you make laws based on such beliefs –you are denying people the right to marry whomever they choose. And for the record, white racists used the exact same arguement against blacks and whites marrying –it was against God, nature and was immoral.  Done…..

Reference:
But Black people could go to public schools, the all black public schools - from elementary schools through college. Black people could go into almost any white restaurants and order food, they simply could not sit and eat in the restaurant. Black people could go into public stores, they simply had to enter by the rear door as opposed to the front door, and if they were purchasing clothing, they were not allowed to try them on. Black folks could ride on buses, they just had to sit in the back - but they paid the same fare and got to the same location as the white folks. Finally, prior to the Loving case, blacks could marry whomever they wanted to as long as it was a black person of the opposite sex.

Almost, kresge.   But actually .... you, too, have just both missed and proven the point I am trying to make.  And I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

First of all, I know you know that things weren't nearly that cut-and-dried ... nor accessible for most Black people.  Some "guud" White folks allowed access to their stores and businesses ... but most did not.  And it's not that Black people had a whole lot of money to patronize a lot of White establishments ... due to the employment discrimination they faced that relegated them to maids, trash collectors and the cleaning crew.

Racial discrimination was a public - "civil" - violation of the equality of ALL citizens.  The Civil Rights Movement was not some 'personal preference'-based agenda where Black people were asking for special consideration of rights they already had!  Public access and consideration IS the "civil" part of the Civil Rights Act and Movement.  Gay people aren't asking for anything new.  And considering the fact that they make up less than 5% of the population .. they could be, at best, considered a 'special interest group' ... but certainly are not representative of anything that could be considered in the same light as the overall population - or "public" sector.

It's not their "civil" rights that are being violated. Their complaints as to not being able to make decisions in a time of crisis of a loved one is the same for everybody else ... if you're not family, you have NO legal rights!!  Period.  Now, there are remedies being put into place to rectify that (as it should be).  But crying "foul" as a 'civil rights' violation for something that is simply bad policy is an insult to what the fight for civil rights was all about.

And, lastly, it's simply not true that prior to the Loving case, a black person was only relegated to marrying another Black person.  Black people were allowed to marry whomever they chose to - the Lovings were in fact already married at the time of their lawsuit.  The state of Virginia barred them from living as an inter-racial married couple in that state.  It wasn't a systemic discrimination that blocked an entire race of people from being able to enjoy the institution of marriage.
Reference:
Now, you personally may have moral or religious reasons for not wanting same sex people to marry. And that is fine since that is your constitutional right to hold such beliefs. But when you make laws based on such beliefs –you are denying people the right to marry whomever they choose. And for the record, white racists used the exact same arguement against blacks and whites marrying –it was against God, nature and was immoral. Done…..

Oh, get a grip!!    There is no such thing as a constitutional right to "marry whomever you choose".  Never was .. never has been ... and never will be.  That's a total fabrication .. or hallucination ... valid only in the far reaches of your mind! 

There have always been laws on the books regulating marriage and restricting certain certain types of marriages  (cousins, family members, the mentally infirm).  Where you got the notion that everything and everybody was fair game ... well, I don't even wanna know!!

Again .... the Lovings WERE legally married.  They didn't win the right to marry!  They didn't win the right to marry each other.  They ALREADY had that right.  What they won was the right to not be discriminated against for it  ... in the state of Virginia.  Constitutionally, it wasn't against the law to marry inter-racially.  It was Virginia that was in violation of constitutional law by not allowing such marriages or cohabitation.

If you're gonna try to argue a point .. the least you can do is try to get it straight!
Reference:
Again....I totally agree. You're on a roll my sista. And I also "get" what you mean in terms of when black people couldn't do certain things as EQUALS. And yes it is like apples and a T-bone steak....great methaphor/analogy! But! I'm just sayin
 Thank you, Ms. Koco!! 

I am so tired of people taking our struggle and twisting it into something unrecognizable  to try to justify their own personal agendas.    The experience of Black people in America is unique and unmatched.  NO ONE has faced the same hardships we have... and the rights we secured through the CRM were for the benefit of us and EVERYBODY ELSE!!  Some simple appreciation would be nice ... but, in the long run, none of those people give a damn about us .. or what we're going through, been through, or will have to face in the future.

People with 'other' problems need to find their OWN solutions ... fight their OWN battles .. and establish their OWN victories!  And stop trying to ride us and the pain and suffering we've experienced like a $2 hooker .. just to get their way!!

Oh, get a grip!!    There is no such thing as a constitutional right to "marry whomever you choose".  Never was .. never has been ... and never will be.  That's a total fabrication .. or hallucination ... valid only in the far reaches of your mind! 

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny. I'm afraid you may be wrong my friend. In reference to marrying someone of another race (marrying whomever you choose), in 1948, the California Supreme Court of California ended its miscegenation law (anti interracial marrying law) when it broke a sixty-five year string of post-Reconstruction judicial precedents based on race -it declared California's miscegenation law to be unconstitutional. State Supreme Court Justice  Roger Traynor stated, "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups." And in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court agreed by striking down all anti-interracial marriage state laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, "There can be no doubt, that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." Laws forbidding people to marrying whomever they pleased of another race or ethnicity, was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. So, I don't think I'm fabricating nor having an hallucination. 

There have always been laws on the books regulating marriage and restricting certain types of marriages  (cousins, family members, the mentally infirm).  Where you got the notion that everything and everybody was fair game ... well, I don't even wanna know!! 

I think you are somewhat twisting the debate. The reference to the right to marry someone you choose does not hinge on brothers and sisters, parents and offspring. There are scientific reasons for banning marriages between people of the same family genetic pool. There is no scientific reason for banning people to marrying of a different race or gender. Sorry…. 

Again .... the Lovings WERE legally married.  They didn't win the right to marry!  They didn't win the right to marry each other.  They ALREADY had that right.  What they won was the right to not be discriminated against for it  ... in the state of Virginia. 

Doesn't matter. It depended on where the marriage license was issued. In the case of the Lovings, they produced a marriage license because the police wanted to charge them with fornification (which was illegal). As you stated, they were already married but it did not matter because the marriage license was illegal in the state of Virginia. Perhaps you have overlooked the fact (or may not be aware of it) that during World War II, social dislocations were common in a time of war. This led to interracial marriages at home and abroad. The NAACP (sometimes with the help of the Red Cross) attempted to assist individual couples evade the miscegenation laws of their home states by directing them to marriage license officials in Northern states. The Lovings were issued a marriage license and married in 1958 in the “District of Columbia” -not in the state of Virginia. When they lived in Virginia, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages

 Constitutionally, it wasn't against the law to marry inter-racially.  It was Virginia that was in violation of constitutional law by not allowing such marriages or cohabitation. 

Ummm, once again, you are greatly overlooking something here. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court stated under the US 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 ban on interracial marriage was based on state law -not US constitutional law. The 1967 US Supreme Court decision overturned the laws against interracial marriage that were still in effect in “16 states”. In fact, if you recall, the state of  Alabama did not repeal its state ban on interracial marriage until 2000 (although it was not enforced). 

If you're gonna try to argue a point .. the least you can do is try to get it straight! 

Just did……

Reference:
Thank you, Ms. Koco!! I am so tired of people taking our struggle and twisting it into something unrecognizable to try to justify their own personal agendas. The experience of Black people in America is unique and unmatched. NO ONE has faced the same hardships we have... and the rights we secured through the CRM were for the benefit of us and EVERYBODY ELSE!! Some simple appreciation would be nice ... but, in the long run, none of those people give a damn about us .. or what we're going through, been through, or will have to face in the future. People with 'other' problems need to find their OWN solutions ... fight their OWN battles .. and establish their OWN victories! And stop trying to ride us and the pain and suffering we've experienced like a $2 hooker .. just to get their way!!
 You know my sista....folks JUST don't get it!  They have a blind eye to the main issue.  Same sex marriages!  Wheree is that.............anything like WHAT we've been through as a people?  And I agree.........fight your OWN focking battles.  Don't use our format to make a point...cuz it is NOT the same.....Nope!  And whatever these folks say will not change the fact that CIVIL RIGHTS were about HUMAN RIGHTS-not about violating same sex
"rights" to legally marry[each other].  Whoa!  What is WRONG with folks?  A person can walk around and be gay all day long and still have his/her civil rights.  So...just cuz like you said they just want to  "get their way"...they want to lump US in their plight to make  it sound serious and/or equal to what we went through historically but their personal "fight" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with blackfolks.  Bottom line. 
Reference:
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny. I'm afraid you may be wrong my friend. In reference to marrying someone of another race (marrying whomever you choose),

Really, we you could have spared yourself some typing .... 'cause we can just stop right here!! 

"Marrying someone of another race" and "marrying whomever you choose" are not the same thing, my dear.  If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, now would we??  The Loving case secured the right to marry someone of another race .. it was a race-based, civil rights lawsuit based on racial discrimination, challenging the constitutionality of laws that prohibited interracial relationships.

What I'm really not understanding is what part of "Being gay is NOT the same as being Black" is so hard to comprehend??    Do gay people have their hardships and issues??  Absolutely.  Do they deserve to be harassed and discriminated against because of it?  No. Of course not.  JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE they deserve to have their civil rights respected.  To not be turned away from housing, obtaining employment, getting an education, public facilities ... they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity .. to be acknowledged as a citizen the same as anybody else.

The bigger question for me is one of (not moral or religious considerations, as you suggested above) but of legality and societal concerns.  And that is ... Is the issue or circumstance of 'sexual preference' really that significant of issue to qualify for constitutional amendment protections??   I mean, really .. I personally don't care who somebody .... ANYBODY else is sleeping with.. And that goes for gay, straight, and anybody in between! 

So what makes the individual and specific complaints/concerns/dissatisfaction of such a relatively small number of people whose particular desire for non-conventional sex  warrant the consideration of something as dramatic as amending the Constitution??  Again ... being gay is not nearly as impacting as being ethnically BLACK.

I read yesterday that the governor of Hawaii vetoed a bill that would have allowed civil unions to be recognized in that state.  More importantly, it would have allowed gay couples the same entitlements that heterosexual couples enjoy.  Although I found her reasoning to be sound, her motives were far from pure. She is a Republican and opposed to the idea of gay marriage ... but, her stated reason for the rejection was that she did not feel that the issue should be decided upon by one person or a small group of politicians ... that the issue should be put to a vote by the people and that the majority should decide.

Gay rights activists are all for invoking the Constitution when it comes to the argument FOR their side of the debate .... but, the most basic fundamental of constitutional right .. to vote and let the people decide an issue ... is considered the biggest no-no and enemy of the cause of all!!!    On the one hand they are waging this fierce fight for the protection of (their) "civil rights" ... but have no problem trampling on the "civil rights" of those who oppose them by denying democracy to decide the issue.
Reference:
Gay rights activists are all for invoking the Constitution when it comes to the argument FOR their side of the debate .... but, the most basic fundamental of constitutional right .. to vote and let the people decide an issue ... is considered the biggest no-no and enemy of the cause of all!!! On the one hand they are waging this fierce fight for the protection of (their) "civil rights" ... but have no problem trampling on the "civil rights" of those who oppose them by denying democracy to decide the issue.



Isn't "trampling on civil rights" (as you rather oddly put it) precisely what Loving v Virginia did?


I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling that interracial marriage will be allowed if a referendum results in 50%+1 approval of the "special consideration" of being able to marry somebody of a different race.


And, according to gallup poll results that I have seen, it seems unlikely that a referendum in 1967 would have been successful.


  Everyone keeps talking about those of a different RACE!  We are talking about those of the SAME gender.  A goat cannot marry a HORSE and have the SAME consideration of another goat i.e. give birth.  So in that analogy[for me], marriage between the same sex is NOT the same agrument/debate as if we were discussing the issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN. Cuz in ANY race there is still the same consideration which is procreation for those who want it[not talking about those marriages that can not produce  children or those who don't want to-that's different].  And so, if that's the case in terms of one of the purposes of marrage, same sex union should create their own INTERPRETATION of consideration totally apart from unions between heterosexuals.  Cuz why?  It. Is. NOT. The. Same.  No matter how you try to force it in the thinking process.....a square can NOT fit into a circle reasonably...unless it's forced.  And that's not the natural order of things.  And I'm not saying these folks shouldn't find their OWN source of marriage recognition....I'm saying they CANNOT use CIVIL RIGHTS/HUMAN RIGHTS violations[that many blackfolks died over] as their platform.  Cuz why?  It doesn't FIT!  Or for a better word....it doesn't apply to them as same sex couples.  It just doesn't. Bottom line. 
Reference by ricardomath:
Isn't "trampling on civil rights" (as you rather oddly put it) precisely what Loving v Virginia did?
 No, not at all.

First of all, the case against the Lovings was brought against them ... they weren't asking for a spectacle to be made of their marriage.  They were minding their own business, simply wanting to left alone to love each other as a (legally) married couple.

This is not the case in the current demand by gay rights activists for the consideration of the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage.

They didn't try to 'sneak behind the back' of the will of the people by asking the judicial/legislative branch to give them legal remedy to their situation.  They were defending themselves from a(n) (il)legal assault brought by the State of Virgina (and by extension the federal govt.).

Same-sex marriage advocates are ASKING the people to support them ... and when the people reject that request, they go around them by asking that the matter be decided by a minority vote (of a few legislators) rather than the majority vote (of the people).  The Constitution denotes that a majority vote of the will of the people should decide matters of civil/social significance that affect the country as a whole.  Legislators are supposed to be our respresentatives and respond in the way we want them to.  But ... we all know how well that's working out for us these days, now don't we?? 
Reference by Kocolicious:
And I'm not saying these folks shouldn't find their OWN source of marriage recognition....I'm saying they CANNOT use CIVIL RIGHTS/HUMAN RIGHTS violations[that many blackfolks died over] as their platform. Cuz why? It doesn't FIT! Or for a better word....it doesn't apply to them as same sex couples. It just doesn't. Bottom line.

Thank you again, Ms. Koco!! 

You are soooooo right!!    And that's another thing about this whole argument that I find so questionable!!  You have gay people saying that they are 'just like everybody else" and merely want to be treated in the same manner as 'everybody else' ... when the fact is that they are NOT like 'everybody else'.  In fact, they're not like MOST people .... (the estimates are that they only comprise somewhere between 3-to-5% of the US population).

That doesn't mean that they should be allowed to be targeted with discrimination for their differences ... but being 'different' they can't and shouldn't be expected to be treated 'the same as' either!!

You know ... it's kinda like the fight of the handicapped in wheelchairs to be able to have public access to the same places and events that people on two legs can enjoy.  Without ramps or elevators or some other way to get them into buildings or on buses and give them access, they were being barred from being treated 'like everyone else' even though they weren't!

They based their fight on discrimination ... not as a civil rights violation ... but simply on the premise that as a matter of public/social policy, their differences should not be a barrier to them being able to be fully participate in social activities.

I can understand gay people's objection to certain discriminatory practices (i.e., being turned down for a job based on an employer's prejudice against a person who wants to sleep with someone of the same sex) as a basis for a violation of 'civil rights' ... something that Black people fought and died for to benefit ALL of society.  But the "we want to get married so you need to change the definition of that just to suit me" thing is going just a bit above and beyond in my opinion.
Reference:
Same-sex marriage advocates are ASKING the people to support them ... and when the people reject that request, they go around them by asking that the matter be decided by a minority vote (of a few legislators) rather than the majority vote (of the people).  The Constitution denotes that a majority vote of the will of the people should decide matters of civil/social significance that affect the country as a whole.  Legislators are supposed to be our respresentatives and respond in the way we want them to.  But ... we all know how well that's working out for us these days, now don't we??

You really do not understand what equal protection under the 14th Amendment means do you? You seem to struggle with the meaning and legality of its purpose. Perhaps I can clear your confusion. It means: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that, "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." This means no one will be denied their civil rights ( listed in the Bill of Rights) without due process of law. It also means that no American citizen, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or gender,  will be denied these rights by the states or any other entity. The analogy of the Loving v. Virginia, was to show that no American citizen will denied their right to marry a person of their choice regardless of race. Once again, the key words are the –“right to marry a person of individual choice”. 

You have failed to give a logical reason why this does not apply to someone who is gay. Your support (in your post) for denying them the right to marry is based on what? The fact they are of the same gender? Again, what is your “legal reasoning” for denying same gender people the right to be married as heterosexual couples? How does this not deny someone their constitutional right to be legally married to an individual of their choice? Your logic: It's not ok (to be legally married) if you are the same gender. But it's ok (to be legally married) if you are of a different gender…right? And your comment, “ ... but have no problem trampling on the "civil rights" of those who oppose them by denying democracy to decide the issue”, makes absolutely no sense. Sorry, but I can’t say it any other way…..

 

Xeon, for the record, the same-sex marriage legal issue is fundamentally different from the Loving v. Virginia issue, in part because in the same-sex marriage issue you're dealing with resolving the question of how "marriage" is defined.  Historically, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman unrelated to the man (beyond a certain level of relatedness).  With Loving, there was no such issue.  Everyone agreed that marriage was man-woman.  It's just that some states were overstepping their bounds by using a racial basis for barring certain marriages.  

The same sex marriage issue, by definition, is not about barring certain men from marrying certain women.  If we're going to allow same sex marriage, then we have to first recognize some kind of change or expansion to the definition of marriage.  Really, the legal issue is about the definition of marriage.  In other words, as EbonyRose said -- and I realize this is a bit legalistic -- a gay man is not legally barred from "marrying," if "marriage" = man-woman.  So in that case, there is no equal protection issue.  

This may seem really unjust if you don't get the distinction, but that is the distinction, and it's a valid one IMO.  What gay-marriage proponents have to do is focus on the definition of marriage.  I feel like they've resisted doing that, but that really is the issue.  The Loving case is not an appropriate comparison.
Reference:
The analogy of the Loving v. Virginia, was to show that no American citizen will denied their right to marry a person of their choice regardless of race. Once again, the key words are the –“right to marry a person of individual choice”.

No.  Once again, the key words are "regardless of race."  Loving was (primarily) a race issue, not (primarily) a marriage issue.  It wasn't against the law for either one of them to be married.  Just to be married to each other.  BECAUSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RACES.

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment is there a reference to sexual orientation.  No protections are guaranteed to anybody based on who they prefer to have sex with.  The (legal) claim of gay people is that they are covered under that Amendment.  That they have certain "civil rights" protections under that clause.  And that simply isn't true.  "Gender" is not the same as sexual orientation.  And gay people are protected from being discriminated against by "gender" (just like every other citizen).  But they want special consideration for the fact that they want to have sex with someone of the same gender (unlike the majority of citizens in the United States .. or anywhere else in the world, for that matter).

I suspect the reasons you don't see the difference between a person's race, their gender and their sexual orientation is because you just don't want to.  The differences in definition really aren't all that hard to grasp.  Legally, I question whether or not sexual preference is a substantial enough criteria upon which to base legal justifications and modifications - especially to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I'm not sure it's all that serious an issue.  And CERTAINLY ... CERTAINLY not nearly as substantial as the issue of race.

There is no comparison, IMO, between the two.  And I don't think I can make myself any clearer about that than I already have.
Reference:
I suspect the reasons you don't see the difference between a person's race, their gender and their sexual orientation is because you just don't want to.  The differences in definition really aren't all that hard to grasp.  Legally, I question whether or not sexual preference is a substantial enough criteria upon which to base legal justifications and modifications - especially to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I'm not sure it's all that serious an issue.  And CERTAINLY ... CERTAINLY not nearly as substantial as the issue of race.

Late post. I know, but I was just perusing through the threads and I thought I would respond. Sometimes I post and there is a dialogue going on that I don’t finish because I come and go to the forum and sometimes I lose track. Anyhoo, yes, I am very aware the difference between an individual’s race and their sexual orientation. Where you and I differ is I do not believe in discriminating nor limiting an individual’s full constitutional rights based on an arbitrary and capricious prejudice. You have still failed to explain in plain English as to why a person should be prohibited from marrying someone of the same gender. Please state a definitive legal reason why it should not be permitted.

Again, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why they should be denied this right. It’s not ok to deny the right to marry someone of a different race but it is ok to deny them the right to marry if they are the same gender. Correct? Your logic: Getting married? Are you of a different race or ethnicity than your partner? No problem. Are you of a different gender than your partner? Great! Get married. Are you of the same gender as your partner? Huh? Oh helllll nooooo! I don’t think so. No legal marriage for you! Why not? Well, because….because you shouldn’t be allowed to because I don't like it. There ya have it….

“Nowhere in the 14th Amendment is there a reference to sexual orientation.”

That means nothing. Nowhere did it say that lynching was illegal. Nowhere did it say it as legal to employ children under twelve years of age for labor. Nowhere did it say it was legal to have racially segregated schools and housing. Nowhere did it state that you had to read someone their right to not answer questions or to have legal consultation present when arrested. Nowhere did it originally and  specifically state that women were not allowed to vote. All of these issues were addressed at later dates by the Supreme Court. During the time of framing and confirmation, all of the aforementioned conditions existed. But because of the evolution and changing of society, the courts were forced to deal with the constitutionality of these issues. Major Supreme Court decisions that fall under the 14th Amendment were; Miranda vs. Arizona, Korematsu vs. US, Plessey vs. Ferguson and Roe vs. Wade.  The final results of these rulings were not covered under the original framing but had to be addressed in the future. So, your statement about the 14th Amendment not specifically addressing sexual orientation carries no weight. Sorry……

“But they want special consideration for the fact that they want to have sex with someone of the samegender (unlike the majority of citizens in the United States .. or anywhere else in the world, for that matter)

I can understand your personal disdain for people of the same gender having sex. I don’t really have a problem with that since like you, I am not attracted to nor interested in having sex with someone of the same sex. But where you and I differ is that you are ok with the denial of the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy based on (an only) their sexual preference. I am not. And once again, you have failed to provide a clear and compelling reason why they should be denied the same rights as heterosexual people. 

Reference:
I can understand your personal disdain for people of the same gender having sex. I don’t really have a problem with that since like you, I am not attracted to nor interested in having sex with someone of the same sex. But where you and I differ is that you are ok with the denial of the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy based on (an only) their sexual preference. I am not. And once again, you have failed to provide a clear and compelling reason why they should be denied the same rights as heterosexual people.

I don't know what in the hell you are talkin' about. 

I don't even want to KNOW what brought you to concoct that piece of fiction!!     Whether you smoked it or shot it up, though ... you have obviously never asked me what my opinion of same-sex couples is .... and I would thank you not to try to interpret what that's supposed to be!!  'Cause you done screwed that chit allll up!!

I have no 'personal disdain' for gay people!  I like most of the ones I know!    As people.  As who they are (friends, family, acquaintances) to me.  They're just like anybody else that I know.  And they're good people just like everybody else.   And as for their sex life ... the same applies.  I couldn't care any less about what they do or who they do it to as I do about any heterosexual person - or any other human being.  I'm sorry, but I just don't care!!  It's not my business, I don't want it to be my business, I hope nobody makes it my business.  Sex is between you're and who you're doing it to.  If you're happy, I'm happy.  And that's just the way that is.

Also, I am not opposed to same-sex couples being "wedded", "joined", "united" or whatever (else) they may want to call it ... I just think they should call it something else!!  IMO, "marriage" already has it's own historical and legal* definition (*although that is the technically that would be debated in the courts if it goes that far), ..  and gay couples just don't 'fit the profile!'

I am of the opinion that the meaning and significance of marriage (and subsequent family) is the coming together of one (1) man and one (1) woman in religious, moral and social commitment with the ultimate purpose of 'bearing fruit' and multiplying, ...  thus (supposedly) providing an orderly way of contributing to the continuation of human kind.  IMO, that's what's supposed to happen.  That's the way it's been happening for a few eons, now. And, in my personal opinion, that's the way it should continue to happen!!

Let gay people "tie the knot", "jump the broom", "get hitched" ... again .. I'm really not that interested in their (or anybody else's) relationship to give that much of a damn!! I hope they're happy with one another.  In the words of the great songstress Gladys Knight ... Everybody needs love.    But .. I do object to same-sex couple wanting to redefine the definition of the word "marriage" ... which is what they are demanding to do.  And I say, "No, I don't think so!"  I don't have to agree with what they want.  I have my own mind.

I am entitled to my own opinion.    And just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong.  It simply means we don't agree.    I may not make an argument that makes you agree with me or that you even understand... but, that doesn't make your opinion or way of thinking the right way of thinking.  Again, it simply means we fall on different sides of the coin.

A quick example:  Some people are vehemently opposed to the death penalty.  While I (and I believe you agree) feel that there are some cases such as child rape/abuse/murder, (or other heinous crimes) - in which the guilty party should be deep fried like a piece of catfish!!!


Now, personally, I understand many of the reasons that anti-death penalty advocates give for not wanting to put any convicted criminals to death.  Some of 'em are pretty good, too, and I even agree with two or three!!    Others are stretching and far-fetched and not eve deserving of consideration, IMO.  But I wouldn't look down on any of them or their strongly held beliefs.  I don't agree with their rationale ... but, (and unlike many of them in reciprocation), I wouldn't call them names, think of them as depraved or brain-damaged people for their views.

We simply don't see things the same way.  And personally, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that.

Reference:
I don't know what in the hell you are talkin' about.  I don't even want to KNOW what brought you to concoct that piece of fiction!!     Whether you smoked it or shot it up, though ... you have obviously never asked me what my opinion of same-sex couples is .... and I would thank you not to try to interpret what that's supposed to be!!  'Cause you done screwed that chit allll up!!

 Ha! Ha! Ha! I don’t think so. I just responded to what you said. You were very clear about your opinion and now you are denying it? WTF?! You said, “I have no 'personal disdain' for gay people!  I like most of the ones I know!    As people.  As who they are (friends, family, acquaintances) to me.  They're just like anybody else that I know.  And they're good people just like everybody else.   And as for their sex life ... the same applies.” Ok. But then you said,” But they want special consideration for the fact that they want to have sex with someone of the samegender (unlike the majority of citizens in the United States .. or anywhere else in the world, for that matter)”.

 You also said, “……the coming together of one (1) man and one (1) woman in religious, moral and social commitment with the ultimate purpose of 'bearing fruit' and multiplying, ...  thus………orderly way of contributing to the continuation of human kind.  IMO, that's what's supposed to happen.  That's the way it's beenhappening for a few eons, now. And, in my personal opinion, that's the way it should continue to happen!!”. Well, sounds like you’re not exactly comfortable with their lifestyle and you believe marriage should be for men and women only. Now, I have no problems with your thinking but you did clearly express a disapproval of gay marriage based solely on a personal moral and religious precedent. Your words –not mine! You say you don’t have a problem with them and you could care less what they do,  yet you would deny them the right to be married (for moral and religious reasons) because “they want to have sex with someone of the samegender (unlike the majority of citizens in the United States .. or anywhere else in the world, for that matter”! Duuuhhhhh??!! If you were indifferent, could careless and they were like everyone else (your words), then why can they not be married like everyone (heterosexual) else? Oh! My bad! That’s right. They can’t reproduce, want to have sex with someone of the same gender unlike the rest of the citizens in the US and the world and want special considerations. Yet you say, “Sex is between you're and who you're doing it to.  If you're happy, I'm happy.  And that's just the way that is.” Ok, ok, I got it. Makes sense. No contradictions here…..

I am entitled to my own opinion. And just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong.  It simply means we don't agree

Agreed. You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that and I have stated this more than once. But the core of this discussion is not about your right to an opinion but a cogent and compelling reason as to why gay people should not have the right to be legally married. You wrote a long ramble and rant about how you could careless, don’t matter to you yet you made personal comments that somewhat contradicted your alleged ambivalence and how I allegedly twisted your words (which I did not do). I have asked you numerous times to give a definitive reason other than moral or personal objection as to why they should be denied the right to marriage. You have failed to do so. 

We simply don't see things the same way.  And personally, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. 

Once again, I agree with you. I have no axe to grind with you about your disapproval of gay marriage nor am I going to castigate you for your disagreement. I’m a fair guy. I was only asking for a compelling reason to deny them the right to be married other than personal dislike (for gay marriage). As you know, a legal precedence is not based on a personal dislike or emotions but definitive legal reasoning. And for the record, a federal judge just ruled that Proposition 8 (ban on gay marriage in California) is unconstitutional because it prevents gays from marrying a person of their personal choice. It’s as simple as that. You cannot legally prevent someone from marrying a person of their choice simply because you don’t like it. Yes, there is going to be anger and bitterness among those who think gays don’t have the right since it offends their religious and moral beliefs (sound familiar?). But just like people believed marriage between a white and black person should not be permitted for the same reasoning (moral and religious), such a defense holds no weight in a court of law (something I have repeatedly said). Fortunately, the courts do not recognize specious rationalizing and reasoning. 

Finally, I guess this subject has run its course and there is no reason to continue the discussion. We have differing opinions and I can live with that. And once again, I have no problems with your disapproval of gay marriage. I was looking for you to give a compelling legal reason for a ban. Didn’t happen and that’s fine. I’m sure there are other issues we can both agree on…..

 

Reference:
Finally, I guess this subject has run its course and there is no reason to continue the discussion. We have differing opinions and I can live with that. And once again, I have no problems with your disapproval of gay marriage. I was looking for you to give a compelling legal reason for a ban. Didn’t happen and that’s fine. I’m sure there are other issues we can both agree on…..

You know, Xeon ....

The fact of the matter is that that "definitive legal reason" that you are seeking (from me or anybody else), in actuality, does not exist.   And maybe that's why you can't seem to find it in my words.  The whole entire matter of "gay marriage" is right now being debated, deliberated, discussed, legislated, and bounced back and forth in courts and state legislatures in various parts ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!!!    The issue of whether it is "legally" right is the reason we (and everybody else) are having this discussion right now!!  And the "conclusion" of that debate seems to change by the day .... depending on where you are and what side you are on ... to the point that no clear and concise decision has been made on the subject. 

Some states allow it ... some states don't.  Some courts have upheld it ... some have rejected it.  Voters (when actually asked) have given their opinions at the ballot box.  And those opinions are ultimately challenged and more than likely sent to someone or somewhere else to reverse it.

So, it sounds to me like you're sitting here wanting to chastise me for not giving you a "definitive legal reason" for not allowing gay marriage ... when there's yet to be one established ... and the subject is still in the "fact-finding" and "discussion" state to determine whether or not there actually is one.  How you expect ME to be able to give you something that doesn't exist yet ... I really don't know!!  But you know what?  That's fine!  I have no problem with that.  Whatever floats your boat!!   

As I have tried to explain to you ... my reason for rejecting the idea of gay marriage is INDEED on moral and conscious grounds!!  I have never tried to shy away from or discredit that in any way!!  My reasons are - and have always been - based on my opinions and feelings on homosexuality.  That all I - or anybody else at this point - has to go on ... since the 'legality' of it has yet to be established.

Be that as it may, though .... I'm not sure everything in this life should or needs to be 'litigated'.  IMO, a big part of the reason we are in such a societal decline in this country (and in this world in general) is due to the lack of moral and conscious judgment of people - us as human beings.  We are going to hell in a hand-basket .... daily .... because of the chipping away of basic human decency and morality, the ever-so-slippery-slope of what constitutes right and wrong .. what is good and what is bad.

When you have to 'draw a line in the sand' by determining through litigation whether or not the word "fuck" or showing acts of sexual intercourse should be acceptable conversation or viewing for content shown to our kids ... there's something very wrong with that .... 'cause, as far as I'm concerned, the answer should simply be a matter of common sense.  But, clearly, that's not the case, is it??   

When rich and powerful countries choose to discuss and decide through legislative means whether or not to save the lives of tens of millions of people dying through an epidemic with cheaply-made, life-saving medication that they can more than afford ... instead of just doing the right (humanitarian) thing just because it's the right thing to do .... we are in big trouble as a society.

But that's EXACTLY where we are at in this world.    In a decline of moral consciousness and basic human decency.  And there's a lot of people for whom these things are archaic, unnecessary or just don't have much meaning or carry much weight.  I am not one of those people, though.  I see nothing wrong with using one's sense of morality and consciousness - a basic belief in right and wrong - (if one even has that!) to structure an opinion around. 

In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if more people did that.  But ... it may not be the most popular or commonly used way of thinking of things ... but ... it is mine!    And I'm not about to feel ashamed or remorseful … or apologize to you or anybody else for feeling that way.

And I understand that may not be good enough for you.  But … so be it.  That is the way the ball bounces.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×