Gay/civil rights debate splits black leaders: Local rev bucks stand by NAACP

Boston Herald ^ | 03/10/04 | Elisabeth J. Beardsley

[nypokerface]

A fierce clash broke out in the black community yesterday, as religious leaders who oppose gay marriage bucked national civil rights leaders over whether homosexual struggles can be compared to black oppression.

The Rev. Eugene Rivers, head of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation, joined with Catholic leaders to launch radio ads that insist same-sex marriage is about ``special rights,'' not civil rights.

``Just as Jews would not tolerate the exploitation of the Holocaust, black people must not tolerate the exploitation of the civil rights movement,'' Rivers said.

Rivers is at odds with the national NAACP, whose chairman, Julian Bond, called on lawmakers yesterday to reject a constitutional amendment that would ``write bigotry into the constitution.''

``There is no race-based admission test requirement for civil rights,'' Bond wrote in a letter to House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. ``Discrimination is wrong no matter who the victim is.''

Legislative leaders claim they have a slim majority for an amendment that bans gay marriage and creates full civil unions - but the compromise is fragile enough that Finneran and Travaglini issued a public appeal for lawmakers' votes.

The letter from the two top pols cites a ``clear majority'' for two positions - a ballot question banning gay marriage so the people ``have a voice'' and an upfront guarantee of ``equal rights and benefits'' for gay couples, so they don't lose rights if voters approve the ban.

As the politicians scrambled, children of same-sex parents took to the State House to plead for marriage in their homes. ``We love each other and we're a family. I can't understand why the state can't see that,'' said Newton South student Kate Brodoff, 15, daughter of one of the original plaintiff couples.

Gov. Mitt Romney said he would advise local clerks ``days or weeks'' before May 17, the day licenses are to be issued - but insisted now is not the time, given the legislative uncertainty. Clerks have voiced concern over how to handle out-of-state couples who want to marry here.

[Bismarck]

Well, at least some people are pointing out the obvious fact: The NAACP has been taking over by politically correct imbeciles.

[Ol' Sparky]

If Republicans had any guts or brains, they would be seizing this issue to attract a larger percentage of the black vote. Unfortunately, on a national level, the majority of Republicans appear to be gutless. Even Bush has mentioned the issue since announcing his support of the FMA.

[farmfriend]

ping

[King Black Robe]

I'm 100% with Rivers on this one. Homosexuals are not denied equal representation in government. It is not even close to the same. And if behavior cannot be a basis for discrimination then we had better unlock the prisons. For that matter, we had better elevate all interest groups as equal -- the KKK being equal to the NAACP. Ludicrous? Of course it is. Just as the so-called rights demanded by homosexuals.

[tessalu]

Homosexuals are not denied equal rights. As individuals they are the same as all of the rest. But black people were denied equal rights, and in no way is it the same.
To equate black people with perversion is an abomination, totally unforgivable.

[King Black Robe]

I agree completely.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[mrustow]

The Rev. Eugene Rivers, head of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation, joined with Catholic leaders to launch radio ads that insist same-sex marriage is about ``special rights,'' not civil rights.

But although blacks were denied equality under the law, the civil rights movement was about special rights -- quotas, reparations, and such. MLK opposed racialism -- for about five minutes, in August, 1963. The rest of the time he supported racial rights, including in the same speech. And so, I think it's perfectly legitimate for homosexuals to call themselves a "civil rights" movement.

[cake_crumb]

"The letter from the two top pols cites a 'clear majority' for two positions - a ballot question banning gay marriage so the people 'have a voice' and an upfront guarantee of..."

Ahem...a clear majority has ALREADY used their "voice" by overwhelmingly VOTING DOWN same sex marriage when it HAS BEEN - many times - a BALLOT QUESTION. Our "VOICES" our WILL, is being SUMMARILY OVERRULED by MINI-DICTATORS WRITING LAW FROM THE BENCH.

Marriage is not a right. It is more like a privilige, and it's between a man and woman AS IT HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY. Gays can already set up insurance and inheritance for their partners.

I can't believe the TWITS at the NAACP are now SO FAR GONE they can't understand that marriage, following it's historical definition as being between a man and woman has nothing WHATEVER to do with RACE, religion, civil libetrties OR human rights. It has EVERYTHING to to with MEN AND WOMEN, PERIOD! Marriage defined as being between a man and woman is HARDWIRED INTO US. It's part of our GENETIC MAKEUP.

</end rant>

[cake_crumb]

"Even Bush has mentioned the issue since announcing his support of the FMA."

"Announced his SUPPORT of"? He is the one who PROPOSED IT. There's a difference.

[King Black Robe]

I am not an expert, but wasn't the whole 1965 voting rights act about securing the intent of the 15th Amendment for blacks? I mean, there were real problems, so I understand (I am not that old) with blacks realizing their equal representation rights because some officials were deluting or otherwise denying them their voting rights. I realize there are many false claims of racism today, but you do not need to go too far back in our history to realize that blacks were in fact treated unfairly on issues as basic as their voting rights. The bias was so obvious. They had separate bathrooms for gosh sakes.

Equating the history and struggles of a people who were treated differently solely because of their skin pigmentation to the history of the natural function of culture to order itself with taboos against certain immoral behaviors is like saying zero is equal to infinity simply because they are both numbers.

[kenth]

In elevating the perceived homosexual suffering to the actual civil rights struggle is to diminish what these people went through. They aren't attacked en masse with water hoses, attack dogs, etc. I have yet to see a sign that says 'Heterosexuals Only' above any water fountains.

It's an insult, but not surprising. Among the arsenal of tools of the left, one of the most used is moral relativism, which is rooted in the most basic of evil; deception via good is evil, evil is good. The most outrageous argument along this vein I've seen (regarding The Passion) is one in which lefties exclaim that Jesus wasn't unique in his suffering. They say that many suffer worse than He did every day. This is used to pity themselves. They are spoiled children and want to whine that easing their 'suffering' at not having everything they want should be the goal of all mankind.

[cake_crumb]

"I have yet to see a sign that says 'Heterosexuals Only' above any water fountains."

Or rest room, or restaurant or school...thank you for that talking point. It's a keeper.

[King Black Robe]

Careful with that talking point. It's a good comparison only to a point. Government can differentiate between behaviors, even legal behaviors. It can encourage some and discourage others. Smoking for example. A better comparison is their voting rights. They have the same right to representation in our government as everyone else. They can argue their issues before legislatures they had a part in choosing.

[longtermmemmory]

But will this be enough to have actual black voters vote for president Bush? do black voters identify Kerry as teh homosexual candidate?

[cake_crumb]

True. It IS a very good rebuttal though, especially when used in conjunction with their right to vote. It just angers me that anyone could so callously compare an issue that transcends race, religion or location on this planet with the civil rights movement or ANY civil rights issue at all.

[longtermmemmory]

I would like to talk about a group.

a group that is have been oppressed.
a group that is discriminated against just because
of what they do in private

a group that is subject to ridcule
a group that has to be carful about who they reveal themselves to. Because they may be persecuted at work or by collegues.

a group that is treated differently at universities.
a group that is denied access to the marketplace of ideas.
a group that is invisible to the media because of their fear of different.

Yes I speak of the freeper, that humble densien of free thought. That minority voice of the majority who speaks out across the ether where other fear to tread.
Please donate generously to keep Freep America going.

[cake_crumb]

Also, if they didn't have the same right to representation in their government as everyone else, why are there openly gay state legislators, mayors and senators? Why did we have a lesbian AG?

[King Black Robe]

Oh I agree completely. But we have to be sure we do not inadvertantly let the premise that their behavor SHOULD be treated as equal slip into our defensive language. They will be quick to bring up don't ask/ don't tell and the Boy Scouts as their wimpy proof of water fountain style discrimination. It's not the same at all.