Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

America seriously needs a lesson in civics, most particularly the Bill of Rights. In three states this past Tuesday, as voters took a historic leap forward in electing Barrack Obama, they simultaneously said “separate and not really equal” to gays and lesbians. But we will not give up, we will not accept second class citizenship, and one day, we shall overcome.

We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

The issue in California will go back to the courts to decide whether this initiative measure meets Constitutional muster or not, so the battle continues, it has just changed the venue. But that does not address the appalling lack of understanding about equal rights by those who voted to ban gay marriage.

For some, they believe that being gay is a choice and therefore not entitled to legal protection. Ask any gay person and they will assure you it is not a choice to prefer their same gender, even if it is a choice whether to act on those feelings or not. How many heterosexuals do you know who say their orientation is a choice? Should gays have the right to prohibit opposite gender marriage? If not, what is the difference?

Some base their position on religion, and to them I say I won’t impose my views on their religion and ask that they not impose their religion on my life. If I don’t have the right to tell you who you can marry, why does your Bible have the right to dictate who I can?

The bitterest pill of all though comes from African Americans who voted overwhelmingly for these bans. One op-ed written by a self-described black lesbian contended it was, after all, just a white gay male issue and not a civil rights issue at all. She argued that gay white males didn’t reach out to her community to show why they should vote no on 8 (our proposition here in California).

My response is that no one from her community came to me when at age 17 I read about a demonstration against racial segregation in housing at a Los Angeles new tract of homes. That was 1957. No one had to tell me to keep marching, demonstrating, protesting, writing, voting and otherwise insisting on equal treatment for all ever since. No one came to me when, driving from L.A. to Texas with my buddies, one Hispanic, another Afro Cuban, we were denied service at every restaurant, motel and other facility along the way. I knew that it was up to me to stand for the rights of all people, so I insisted in sitting in at a lunch counter, the right to integrated housing at the Kiwanis sponsored convention in Texas, and even the right to sleep in an all “negro” motel on the way.

I just don’t buy all the excuses and explanations for those who cannot own up to their bigotry. Yes, that is what it is. I do not care what you think of my sexuality, I don’t care what your damn Bible, Koran or whatever has to say.

This is America. Our Constitution demands equal rights for all, not just those we are “comfortable with” or approve of. I may be going to hell in your way of thinking, but the Constitution gives me the same rights as you along the way.

We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day
We shall overcome some day.

-

Well, marriage seems to be an increasingly antiquated way to manage sex, companionship and the raising of children. But if people want it, why not? Different strokes for different folks.

At last resort, if people who want equal rights fail in our increasingly corrupt courts, why not change the focus to, in law, abolishing the status of marriage for everybody? It might be amusing to see how heterosexuals react when it is done to them!

-

HUmm
might it be possible to pass an amendment that makes marriage a religious institution... and specifies that all domestic partnerships are civil unions as far as the law is concerned

All those things you can do without marriage, as Phil has pointed out elsewhere it is the tax advantages, insurance advantages, property ownership advantages and many more that are being denied same sex couples on a federal level. These are simple constitutional rights denied on the basis of gender.

If the next Congress revokes the DOMA - "Defense of Marriage Act" and changes all federal laws to recognize non-marriage relationships, it would be a big step. Obama pledge to work to revoke DOMA< but it has to be way down the list.

Passing a federal level amendment is impossible at this point.

In response to Jeffros post from the closed thread:

That was an enlightening response Jeffro, and made me think about things I never considered before. Thank you. A “funny” aside from my standpoint is that I have sometimes wished I were religious, (I lean between agnostic and atheist in case you were unaware—I just don’t friggin know) and could somehow accept that fairytale, and then I would not have to think about things but just accept things as I was told to believe. It would seem like such a relief. But my brain just cannot accept religious dogma so I am as I am, and that’s all that I am, and I am not Popeye the sailor man. (I’m sorry, sometimes I just cannot help myself.)

Ahem: Getting back to the topic…..Indeed, not sinning by not acting on it. How fu….absurd. I too am always perplexed by how some religious types want their freedoms (to worship, pray, believe, not be persecuted etc) yet they want to control the behavior of others that have no affect on themselves in any way whatsoever. That is why I arrive at the “creeped out” conclusion. Perhaps, as others have suggested, it’s because they are closeted or at least concerned that they are somehow “infected”. Getting into someone else’s head is always an exercise fraught with peril IMO.

I hope society can get beyond all of this, and gays can get the rights that they deserve. And then in 100 years or so people will look back at all this hubbub and wonder what the big deal had been all along. But I also realize that for you, Phil and others time is short and getting shorter.

If gays want to marry, who does it hurt? I remember Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I" where he portrayed the second prehistoric marriage of a gay couple.

Thank you Ken (you forgot the toot toot at the end of the Popeye quote - it's okay, I heard it in my head ) I was sort of raised Catholic. Mom was, Dad wasn't and it wasn't until I was 12 years old that Mom started taking us to church. I was put on a fast track: baptized, confirmed and first communion all within a year. It may have been too late for me as I was always an independent thinker. While I tried to embrace the positives, I found way too many inconsistencies. By 16, I was frequently confronting Mom with something the priest had said and she would state emphatically that he did not (Yeah, Mom, I couldn't believe it either! . What is very telling, is the Sunday after I came out, Mom stopped waking me for mass.

I have settled into atheism. I did the agnostic thing for awhile in my 20's but it was too much like a spiritual insurance policy. If I'm wrong, I go to hell, I'm taking personal responsibility. Ironically (or not) it has been the silent respect that has allowed for a dominance of religion in this Country that has driven me to a more definitive non-belief. I am not alone.


I think there is something in the Bible, end times prophecy or something that tells the fundamentalists that they will be persecuted (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) so not only do they mangle and distort their thinking, common sense and logic to believe in a literal Bible, they do the same thing in order to feel victimized. This same simplicity of thought also seems to allow them not to see blatant contradictions and furthers their denial of facts and radical double standards. Logically speaking, if their main purpose was to protect traditional marriage - they would be working day and night to ban divorce. If they honestly feel that marriage should produce offspring, they would ban infertile couples from getting married.

None of their arguments stand up to scrutiny. This is an emotional issue, which, when not blocked by religious meddling into a secular issue, is (disturbingly enough) anchored by a single word. Marriage. It is all a semantics game.

Look at all the the comments from people saying "I'm fine with gays having equal rights, just don't call it marriage". They don't even notice that the second part of their statement completely negates the first.

I don't care what mental gymnastics they have to perform to make everything fit into what they believe. I really don't. I have no problem with people having faith, believing what they want to believe, praying, whatever. They have every right to do so. AND they have every right to be heard when they disagree, they do not have the right to make laws that ultimately force me to accept their beliefs.

All this vote did was to say: We are better than you. You do not deserve what we have.

All they did to deserve what they have was to be born heterosexual. What a struggle that must have been.

I completely agree with Phil above when he says that we should not have to reach out to a minority community to let them know our side. They should know our side, I have always made it a point to know theirs.

What would the people who voted "yes on 8" lose if "no" had won?

-

Those who cling to something are enchained by what they cling to.

-

Los Angeles Times