Society & Lifestyle >
Ethnicity & Gender (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre gay rights issues parallel or different from race-related civil rights in the US?
Results so far:
| Different | 61% | 405 votes | Total: 667 votes | |
| Parallel | 39% | 262 votes |
Different
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesGay "rights" issues are radically different from race-related civil rights in the US. Every American citizen has civil liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, and whenever these rights have been violated either by reason of race or gender, they have provided a proper focus for the struggle to redress those violations. Historically, civil rights have been violated based solely on a person's skin color or gender. Any effort the parallel the struggle of gays to achieve mainstream acceptance (i.e., to be considered "normal") with that of Blacks and women who suffered under a racist and male dominated society devalues those struggles.
To be fair, homophobia and laws against sodomy have caused stress and suffering for homosexuals in the past. Moreover, discrimination against a person for any reason, including sexual orientation is wrong and unlawful. The latter is gradually being codified throughout our legal system, and gay couples are even gaining the right to join in civil unions that have the legal sanction of heterosexual marriage. There is likewise a more widespread tolerance and acceptance of the gay lifestyle on the part of the public at large.
What is unfair, however, is the assertion on the part of some gay activists that their struggle is the same as what Black Americans had to endure and overcome. In fact, many Black civil rights leaders bristle at the notion the gay rights movement can be placed on the same plane as the fight for racial equality. As a group, homosexuals have never been slaves, nor have they suffered from Jim Crow laws that kept them in a state of subjugation for decades after slavery. There have never been "heterosexual only" drinking fountains and cafes in America's South; nor have homosexuals been sought out by angry white men in robes lighting wooden crosses on their front lawns.
Also, male homosexuals have never been denied the right to vote or own property in their own name. They have always had ready access to America's political process as well as highly paid jobs at the same rate of pay as their heterosexual male counterparts. No gay rights march has ever been met with fire hoses and vicious dogs and cops with truncheons.
There is also a major difference between homosexuals and African-Americans as a class of people who have experienced varying degrees of discrimination, from persecution to mild disapproval. Black Americans (and women, too) could never camouflage their unique physical characteristics and thus avoid persecution or discrimination. On the other hand, homosexuality is normally not manifested in physical appearance. If there is any manifestation, it is behavioral.
Homosexua lity is a sexual preference and a lifestyle that can be practiced in plain sight or in private, depending on the preference of the practitioner. Blacks cannot hide their skin color, nor can women hide their gender. Both women and blacks have been discriminated against solely because of their physical characteristics. Gays, too, have suffered discrimination and homophobic mistreatment, but never to the degree of African-Americans and women. To claim otherwise is a disingenuous effort to garner a level of public sympathy that is disproportionate to the degree of actual "suffering" caused by gays, who want "rights" that they already have by virtue of being Americans.
Of course, the argument as to whether the institution of marriage should be extended to members of the same sex is one that society will have to resolve. However, as long as gays have the option of legalized civil unions, the complaint that they cannot "marry" is really a quibble.
Learn more about this author, Jerry Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Parallel
Once, the color of skin was a reason for discrimination (including not having the right to marry). Historically, gender class was a justification for denying civil rights such as voting. Race and Gender are not the same things, but they both were factors that influenced civil liberties, just like homosexuality is doing today.
Sexual preference may be a different categorization than race or gender, but it is parallel to these groups in that it too is used as a justification to deny equal citizens of the United States certain civil rights.
Throughout history, people have found all manner of reasons to discriminate against one another: race, religion, sex, nationality, appearance (yes, the old Norse used to leave babies who were born imperfect' with birth marks out to the elements to die, so as to keep a strong race).
Today, two people are being prevented from entering into a civil union based on their sexual preference. If the objection is about referring to that union marriage', then the answer is to take it up with the church and attempt to grant churches the special right to deny whomsoever they see fit a marriage' certificate but NOT their legitimate civil rights as Americans that are granted as a part of a union and as members of this country. Separate church and state.
So long as they are citizens of the United States who are being denied the exercising of this right, then the fundamental nature of the issue is no different than if they were denied based on the color of their hair, their genetic code, or their taste in ethnic food: they are still being discriminatorily refused one of the rights and opportunities that belong to all citizens of this country.
The argument is often trotted out that the Forefathers' use of the word "marriage" indicates that they meant specifically between a man and a woman as it is in the bible'. By the same token, as it is in the bible' perhaps they also meant that marriage can only occur with circumcised men?
The Forefathers' built the government of our country and the documents upon which it is based as a living institution. They had the foresight to determine that they might not be able to anticipate every turn and change in society and the country.
They lived in a time period where Christian-defined marriage was the only type of union that society engaged in. At the time, there simply weren't blacks, gays or genetically cloned segments of the population to consider when discussing marriage'; there was no situation which might prompt them to see the possible need to distinguish marriage from civil union for the words were synonymous. Today, they aren't.
No one makes provisions for situations they never imagine existing to begin with.
I feel pretty safe in saying that the Forefathers also never imagined that one day the United States might have to have a legal battle over whether or not cloned babies get the same civil liberties as everyone else.
The point is that whatever the "Flavor of Discrimination" is this year, be it race, belief, sexual preference, gender, political party, artificially inseminated or natural' babies, etc. it is still discrimination, and therefore EXACTLY the same as other related civil rights issues because it is the denial of citizen rights based on prejudice.
Learn more about this author, Ammie Hague.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
