Proposition 8 and the civil rights struggle: A tough comparison

Since the passage of Prop. 8, some supporters of gay marriage have likened their cause to the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s. This is significant because exit polls showed blacks in California overwhelmingly backed the ban on gay marriage. But Clarence Page writes in the Salt Lake Tribune that he doesn't think comparing California in 2008 to the South in the 1960s will draw many blacks into the pro-gay-marriage camp:

"Gay is the New Black," declares the Dec. 16 issue of The Advocate, a leading gay-oriented magazine. Well, not quite. How about, "Gay is the new gray"? The gray area for a lot of black Americans like me is not in the issue of gay rights but in the comparison some gay activists make between that issue and the movement for racial equality. I don't oppose same-sex marriage. After years of arguments from the other side about perceived threats to the sanctity of marriage, I have yet to see any impact by gay marriages on my marriage. Nor do I expect to see any. Besides, single-parenting has climbed so high in the past half-century, especially in black America, that I am delighted whenever anyone still wants to get married. But gay rights leaders should think twice before drawing too many comparisons to the fight for racial equality. They are tragically correct to point out the murders, beatings, arsons and other hate crimes that continue to be perpetrated against homosexuals. But the history and nature of our oppression is so different as to serve to alienate potential allies instead of winning them over.

Meanwhile, Caitlin Flanagan and Benjamin Schwarz write in the New York Times about the liberal angst in California over the Obama/Prop. 8 win: "Left-leaning California’s horror about this newly revealed schism between two of its favorite sons is a situation that cries out for a villain, but the one that liberal white Hollywood has chosen for the role probably won’t make it all the way to the third act. 'It’s their churches,' somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election."

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Flex]

Who cares what anybody thinks. Nobody should have their rights voted on, like the right to marry was voted on in California. The California Supreme Court should stike prop 8 down. The people who voted for prop 8 wouldn't be able to handle it if their right to marry was voted on.

The right for gay people to marry in California was a real, tangible, right in the California constitution. This is a fact that every opponent of gay marriage is in absolute denial of.

Also, the definition of marriage has already changed. It changed in 2003, when the Mass Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state. So, the opponents of gay marriage who are so worried about the definition of marriage changing, they've already failed!

[slp]

Blacks may feel insulted by GLBT people drawing the comparison, but that hardly justifies the "payback" mentality that I think is behind African American support for Prop. 8. And in making the statement that GLBT people are not making any allies, well, we could as easily point out that by not supporting us, you are taking the low road once again opting for vengence, which will definately not help your cause either.

[Shawn]

Not a civil rights issue?

As reported by this very paper:

In a 4-3 decision, the justices ruled that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

[...] The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be **** constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender*** [emphasis added] [...]

Personal belief is supreme in this country until you use it to discriminate against someone else. That is where America draws the line, and that is where this debate will end up.

Evidently some Prop 8 supporters did not realize that discrimination is wrong *even when motivated by a personal belief* That's a big problem for many of them, now that they are on record as supporting this measure that introduces discrimination into the state constitution.

One cannot discriminate against the Jewish community out of a personal view of the Crucifixion. One cannot discrinminate against the Black community out of a personal view of "white man's burden". And one cannot discriminate against the Gay (LBGTQI) community out of a personal vew of Marriage.

For those that believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman, we support your faith, and your right to take this personal view into consideration when choosing the person with whom you will marry.

Supporters of Prop 8 are accountable for supporting discrimination in the state constitution and we will *not* go away until our civil rights are restored-- end of story.

[MikeNYC]

While marriage is just one issue, the history of discrimination against homosexuals dates to Bible times. Few cultures have NOT discriminated against homosexuals. Few times in history has there not been wide spread discrimination against homosexuals. There are still placed in the world where it is illegal just to be homosexual. The Pope has opposed a UN resolution calling for the end of the illegalization of homosexuality in the world. When was it ever illegal to be black? How many black children have been disowned by their own parents for being black? During the Third Reich, homosexuals were sent to death camps right along side of Jews, Gypsies and others. At the liberation of the camps everyone else was allowed to go home except for homosexuals who were returned to prison to "finish" the sentence imposed by the Nazis. There is no comparison between the discrimination against homosexuals and any other group. To this very day the discrimination continues with the blessing of the law, the churches and the voters.

[nialla]

You can support traditional marriage (traditional meaning the way it's been for, oh, all of human history) wiithout being a bigot or "homophobic" or any other silly thing. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot is lazy, presumptuous and bigoted in itself. You don't know the soul, mind or heart of another. All human beings have the right to their beliefs and conscience, and that is one of the things this country was founded on.

And it is NOT the same as the civil rights movement. No true Christian doctrine supported racial segregation (although many misguided Christians and others did), and instead, it was Christians who led the movement to recognize the equal dignity of all persons, regardless of color. Without the efforts of Catholics, Quakers, Congregationalists, Methodists and others around the world, the institution of African slavery in Europe and America would have gone on far longer than it did.

Slavery continued and still continues in non-Christian countries -- as does the rampant persecution and even execution of homosexuals -- which is something to consider before the "bigot" label is thrown around heedlessly.

In Christianity, all people also have equal dignity before God regardless of sexual inclination, but male and female are not interchangeable. Gender represents is a fundamental difference, unlike the more superficial differences of color or culture. It goes to the heart of biology and the human condition.

Gay relationships are the choice of the willing participants, who are welcome to pursue them freely and to seek whatever property or inheritance rights they can under the law. No reasonable person disagrees with that.

But whatever that relationship is, no one should compel people of faith to reject their beliefs and call it a marriage. That denies their right to free expression of religion and conscience.

To people of faith -- and even many without faith who are still strong believers in the traditional family -- marriage is more than the public recognition of romantic love, more than sex for pleasure and affection, more than friendship, more than simple property rights. It is the fundamental union of male and female, the reconciliation of opposites, that produces new life.

Even if men and women marry without the intention or ability to reproduce, that doesn't change the basic intent of the institution, no more than using an umbrella to shade one from the sun invalidates its intended purpose to shelter one from the rain.

No religious person I know argues with domestic partnership rights or civil unions. That's just recognizing changing cultural mores in a pluralistic society.

But the fight to change the definition of marriage goes far beyond that. At some point, social mores must bow to natural law and biological reality in order to ensure the future stability of society. In affirming traditional marriage, churches are doing just that, seeing natural law as being in accord with God's will and plan for the world.

Twice now at the polls, the people of California have not changed the law concerning marriage, but reaffirmed the original definition of the institution. Threatening boycott and violence against those who voted their conscience and beliefs is deeply un-American, especially when so many of those who voted are African-Americans whose antecedents struggled mightily for the simple right to vote at all, a right that has never been denied on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Michael]

I don't think it's a stretch. Are the two equal? No. Are the two similar? Yes. I believe that all types of discrimination run parallel, however, because of the suffering and fighting by blacks before, during, and after the Civil Rights Movement makes it so that such tragic discrimination will never be accepted in the United States.

That said, there is a mentality that exists that gives people the belief they have the right to take away civil rights from a minority group simply because that's what they believe in, rather than really thinking if it actually affects them. This is the mentality that was used against blacks and it continues to be used against gays. To deny this is to ignore a big reason as to why the Civil Rights Movement and Prop 8 existed in the first place.

[Janet]

Marriage is a civil institution; nobody can get married legally without a marriage license from the state. The issue of gay marriage is about equal civil and legal rights.

It is unconstitutional to discriminate against a category of people in the United States of America. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional guarantee in our country. The issue of same-sex marriage for gay Americans should not be subjected to a vote; the majority should not have be able to vote away the rights of any minority.

Gay Americans were disenfranchised and deprived of a legal and human right by being denied their constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender. Equal protection should not be afforded based on the vote of the majority.

The decision by California's Supreme Court earlier this year didn't GIVE gay people the right to marry someone of the same gender. Rather, it affirmed that not allowing them to marry each other is unconstitutional. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7. (a), Declaration of Rights, says "A person may not be denied equal protection of the laws."

[Mike Tidmus]

Nobody, black or white, who goes out and bashes queers on Saturday night should be immune from criticism just because, on Sunday morning, they’re sitting in church singing Amazing Grace.

[Thomas Alex]

Lets let "Interracial Marriage" go the the voters to ban such an act. Then let us see who is fight for their so called rights!

[Donovan]

Clarence Page sounds very level-headed. Parallelling gay rights with racial discrimination is a slippery slope, particularly considering that you can't choose your race, but you can choose with whom you sleep, regardless of whatever you feel your "personal feelings" are. Since when should one's sexual preference get any kind of preferential treatment, one way or the other?

[Timothy]

MIkeNYC,

You make a good point. And further, the argument against gay equality is often put in terms of discrimination: "Every society has treated gays poorly so we are justified in our discrimination".

[neil]

Imagine the following scenario: left handed people are prohibitted from going to school and universities across the USA. They may not enter into contracts or own property. Religious leaders proclaim that it is "immmoral" to use your left hand instead of your right hand. They are dismayed that lefties are openly and blatantly using their left hand to write in public, sign documents in public, and some radical groups are even creating desks to accomodate this abhorrent behavior. Equal rights for lefties? Not needed, they say, because writing with their left hand is a preference. Lefties can have access to education if they simply use their right hand at schools and colleges. They are allowed rights to enter into contracts if they sign with their right hand. Its their "choice" to use their left hand.

Unthinkable and absurd scenario isn't it? Why does a person use their left hand to write? It's not a visible characteristic like race so lefties should not be able to make any demands for equality under that scenario? What possible arguments against letting lefties use the hand that their bodies naturally, instinctively, and mechanically decide is the correct one? The ONLY arguments against it would be thosed based on religious preconceptions and intolerance. Such intolerance and discrimination can't be excused under the guise of "faith" and society should not be governed by the religious beliefs of any group.

[Chris]

Since civil unions are already almost interchangeable legally with marriage, wouldn't it be possible for state to stop making a difference?

Then, the state would simply recognize unions between two people. Whoever wishes to call it marriage finds a willing priest. Why is it necessary for law to define the meaning of the word marriage?

[Donovan]

Consider this: let’s say that I choose to not enlist in the military. As a non-veteran, I would not be eligible for veteran benefits, such as locking my mortgage interest rate at 6% while on active dute or certain tax breaks. Is that fair? Of course, it is. I chose to not enlist, so I don’t get veteran benefits. However, homosexual couples want to get married. Up until now, every world culture defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and certain tax and governmental benefits (at least in Western countries) are afforded to those couples. Is that fair? Of course, it is. Those homosexual couples chose not to pair up with opposite-sex partners, so they do not satisfy the widely-defined requirement of marriage.

[Jim]

Chris, I'm with you! Let the heterosexuals accept domestic partnerships instead of civil marriages for their legal benefits, and we've achieved equality.

[Neil]

chris, homosexuals don't CHOOSE to partner up with somoeone of the same sex anymore than left handed people CHOOSE to write with their left hand. Both actions (writing with one hand and partnering up with the same sex) result from innate and involuntary physical predesposition determined by your generic composition.

What makes an individual instinctively grab a pencil with their left hand instead of the right hand as do the majority of the population? Is it right to force an individual to write with his right hand even though it goes against his body's natural instinct just because the majority writes with the other? Would it be right to provide access to public education ONLY if the lefties use their right hand and conform to the majority's right-handed writing?

What makes an individual instinctively be attracted to and physically respond to a person of the same sex? Is it right to force a homosexual to partner up with a person of the opposite sex even though it goes against his body's natural instincts just because the majority is attracted to the opposite sex? Would it be right to provide access to civil marriage ONLY if the homosexuals marry a member of the opposite sex and conform to the majority's heterosexuality?

This is not a matter of choosing an apple or a pear at the grocery store. It is an innate characteristic that can't be dismissed merely because it isn't apparently visible as race or height. Therefore, unequal treatment IS discriminatory and unfair.

[MAC]

Marriage is a CIVIL right. So this is a civil rights issue. All Americans should have the right to enter into a civil marriage. Period.

[informed1*]

Donovan: If you have loved ones, I would hope you want them to marry someone who truly loves them and vice-versa. After all, life is often difficult and true love provides sustenance needed to weather through rough patches. I doubt that you would want, knowing 50% of marriages fail, for them to marry someone they do not truly love or that they are obviously incompatible with. Divorce, after all, hurts.

This said: Thousands of children, from failed heterosexual marriages, now live in same-sex households. Societal acceptance was important enough that one or maybe both parents married the opposite sex. An explanation frequently heard after a divorce is: "I lost my identity to my marriage". Could this assertion apply more aptly than to gay persons attempting heterosexual marriages?

Point/Question: When you make comments suggesting that gays have equal rights so long as they choose to marry the opposite gender, what you advocate are more broken families. May I know how this fits in with the argument that Prop 8 is meant to protects families and children?

[informed1*]

Did any of you know the suicide rate is so high there is a website dedicated to gay teens? Many, many young persons commit suicide after realizing they are gay. The site, which is named in remembrance of just such a teen, is meant to encourage others to bravely choose life.

Only the ignorant would argue that being gay is a choice. Please stop making claims about things you have no first-hand knowledge about. As C Naomi so often says, "Educate yourself before posting".

[Paul Caubet]

I'd like to know how those who define homosexuality as a lifestyle choice come to their conclusion. Does this mean that, all along, heterosexuality has been a decision? Is there some rite of passage in which young people get to direct their attraction to one gender or the other? If so, then we queers are not responsible for our condition, as we've been overlooked or purposely excluded from this pivotal ritual of assigning one's own orientation. By what mechanism does the mind command the chemistry of the body to arouse an erotic response to the opposite sex? Is it a permanent fixation? Does it eliminate the option of one's own gender? Or is that something you subdue on a continual basis? I wish I'd have known about this when I was young. I tried to suppress my emerging attraction to boys with more effort than any other cause in my life. With every fiber of my being I wished and I prayed incessently that it would go away. For years I cried. I petitioned divine intervention from God and Jesus. I pretended it wasn't there, thinking I'd obstruct it from conscious awareness through sheer intention and the discipline of denial. I even forced myself to engage in intercourse with girls when I was able, hoping my hormones could be trained through experience or entrenched into habit and cease the horrific betrayal of my homophobic will. As I was not a Catholic, I couldn't enter the preisthood to hide behind a vow of celebacy. I loved and adored the opposite sex too much to thwart one into a permanent relationship of deceit and pretended romance. So as a last resort I contemplated suicide. After serious consideration I decided that taking my own life would be too cruel to my family. Ultimately homosexuality claimed its throne in my heart, mind, and body as sovereign of my passions, in spite of all the opposition. I seemed to have no more say in this development than in what color my skin or hair or eyes turned out to be. The harder I had tried to suppress it, the stronger it fought back. Whether I acted on or struggled against the impulse, it was the mere thought of intimacy with another boy that triggered a change in my breathing, sent my heart racing, and blood rushing to my loins, leaving me with the impression that sexuality was a biological predisposition or instinctual determination, an irrevocable fate beyong control. I'd have chosen heterosexuality myself, as so many straight people apparently have done, if I'd only known it was that simple. And would have avoided a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain and suffering.

[BeenYelledAtByBothSides]

I think the unspoken motivation behind Prop 8 is the desire to hold onto a part of their lives that has so far remained intact. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuries. The push to allow gays to marry threatens to tear away something they feel they own.

Through the courts, many "rights" have been granted to people on the fringes of society. Gays can be school teachers, peace officers, clergy, and countless more occupations that were once prohibited. The stand on marriage could be the final bulwark for these people.

Personally (in case other posters feel the need to throw virtual stones), my decision came down to one question: are gays people? Of course they are, so there is no question that they should be able to do what everyone else can do - with the same restrictions and responsibilities everyone else has.

I expect the US Supreme Court will have to overturn Prop 8 on Equal Protection Under the Law grounds.

[lc]

Marriage was defined a right as of may 2008 by the left leaning supreme court of california. Prior to may 2008 marriage WAS NOT a right for homosexuals. The passage of prop 22 in 2000 defined marriage as between a man and a women. Why dont people remember prop 22?? Timeline: In 2000 prop 22 passed defining marriage between a man and a women. May 2008, the california supreme court decides to strip the voters OF THEIR RIGHTS and declare prop 22 invalid. November 2008 california voters yet again vote to define marriage between a man and a women. The point is marriage was instituted by religion not government and is a privilage granted by the church. Church and state are seperate right?

[lc]

INFORMED1:

Easy on the ignorance mr. ironically named. Study after study have shown a child being raised by one mother and one father to be the best case senario. So in fact prop 8 would be better for our children

[Jay]

lc, the California Supreme Court nullifed Prop. 22, just as they will nully Prop. 8. Thank God the Constitution allows the judiciary to safeguard the rights of minorities against the hate-inspired actions of the majority.

[lc]

Jay:

If the california supreme court overturns prop 8 they will be contradicting their may 2008 findings. It isnt in the interest of judges to contradict themselves because they will be recalled. It has happened in california in the past and it will happen in the future. Also, no one was calling prop 8 unconstitutional when it was first put on the ballot. Then when it passed it's suddenly unconstitutional. You'll find this interesting: you tube "obama prop 8". Obama said on national tv that he believes marriage should be defined as between a man and a women. We are a nation of the people not the courts. When conservatives want to get something done they go to the voters. When liberals want to get something done they go to left leaning courts.

[J. Johnson]

What this issue boils down to is morality. Like it or not throughout history people around the world, including California, have considered homosexuality to be immoral. That is why people don't want homosexuality taught to their children in school.
///
It's not an issue of "gay" marriage, but rather homosexual marriage. The homosexual community has taken a word, "gay", with a positive meaning and applied it to their lifestyle. They might as well call it a "happy" lifestyle or "happy" marriage. It's not "gay" marriage and it's not "happy" marriage; it's homosexual marriage.
///
And it doesn't matter whether the homosexual lifestyle is inherited or innate versus learned or adopted. It's still considered by the overwhelming marjority of people in the world to be immoral. Suppose hypothetically that science proves that the urge to molest children is an inherited or innate behavior; would we then say that child molestation is acceptable behavior? Absolutely not. We still conside it to be repulsive, immoral, and unacceptable.
///
Much of the law that regulates human personal behavior is based on our notions of morality; we prohibit gambling, selling or using narcotics, and prostitution to name a few. And the U. S. Constitution gives to the states, through what is called the "police power" the right to regulate morals.
///
Those who make the argument that homosexuality is O. K. because it's activity between consenting adults open the door to virtually no regulation of human behavior by the government. If we adopt that reasoning, then we'd have to say that the transactions between the heroine or cocaine seller and the heroine or cocaine user is between consenting adults and should therefore be legal. Similarly, the transactions between a prostitute or her customer or a group of people who want to shoot dice on payday.
///
Marriage is one of the most regulated activities in human existence. You need a license to enter it and you have to go to court to get out of it. Suppose a grown man and a grown woman from different parts of the country meet, fall in love, and want to marry, only to discover that they are brother and sister who were separated at birth; can they get married? No. Simiarly, can a mother marry a son or a father a daughter (assuming that all are adults)? No. Are they consenting adults? Yes,. Are they being discriminated against? Yes. Suppose a man wants to marry more than one woman at the same time or a woman wants to have more than one husband at a time? Can they do that? No. Are they being discriminated against? Yes. Polygamy was an accepted practice in Utah and the Mormon church. When Utah wanted to join the United States, a requirement or condition of their admission to statehood was that polygamy be outlawed. That was an expression of the morals of the majority. Were the believers in polygamy in Utah being discriminated against? Yes.
///
Any time a law prohibits a behavior, then it discriminates against those who want to engage in that behavior. So if you argue that all discrimination is bad, then you have to argue that virtually all law is bad, and you argue for a lawless world.
///
You can also view this as society defending itself. If homosexuality were the norm, then ultimately society would die off as there would be no procreation.
///
Again, the issue comes down to morality. The great majority of people consider homosexuality to be immoral. Through the wave of politcal correctness that has swept this country, most people have come to tolerate homosexuality, but on the issue of marriage they have spoken; we've drawn the line.
///
The opponents of Prop 8 claim that the supporters of the Proposition are intolerant. But after the election it's the opponents of Prop 8 who have been engaging in activity to punish the supporters of the inititative. Thereby, they have disclosed that they, the opponents of Prop 8, are the real intolerant ones; disagree with them and they will punish you. Does that remind you of Saddam Hussein and other dictators?
///
Again, the issue is one of morality; homosexuality is considered to be immoral. Is the situation of homosexuals the same as that of black people in the Civil Rights struggle? Only if you consider it immoral to be black.
///
The moralist

[informed1*]

Did you know suicide rates are so high there is an organization/website for youths? If not, you should know that a high number of gay teens kill themselves every year. Hence, the organization/website, named in remembrance of just such a youth, encourages OUR young -- after all, these are our brothers, sisters, children, friends -- to choose life.

If you believe that being gay is a choice, I must ask: Who logically would choose a lifestyle so reviled and frought with hardship? If it were a choice, would gay youths need to commit suicide? Why wouldn't they instead, as so many suggest, "just be heterosexual" or "marry [or fall in love with] someone of the opposite sex"?

Opponents of same-sex marriage comment Prop 8 is so much more than about marriage. They say that it is about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage and enforcing non-acceptance of a lifestyle they consider "deviant". My issue with this argument is that there is compelling evidence being gay is not a "lifestyle", but rather an individual's identity.

Who has more at stake is arguable: Those claiming to "defend" traditional marriage -- personal opinion, religious conviction, etc. -- as opposed to those who compelled to defend themselves. Who is under seige is debatable: Those whose personal and/or religious convictions were deemed unconstitutional or those whose constitutional rights were revoked.

[informed1*]

Ic: Aha! So that explains why the following organizations are endorsing same-sex marriage and represented same-sex couples, as Friends of the Court, during the Supreme Court trial that overturned Prop 8: American Pediatric Association, Teachers Associations, American Psychiatric Association, etc. Explains why they advocate same-sex marriage as strengthening families and protecting children.

I refer to your comment that "Study after study have shown a child being raised by one mother and one father to be the best case senario". Either all the aforementioned experts missed the multitude of studies you refer to, which is highly unlikely, or the studies you mention are based upon very outdated and highly biased data, prior to any long-term case studies being done.

Don't know where you're getting your facts from. Contrary to what you claim, currently "study after study" shows there is absolutely no difference to a child's well-being whether he/she is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents. It is more important that the child is nurtured, loved and accepted. Hence, if anything, your objections harm children in same-sex households.

This being said, you missed my point: Which addressed comments by those saying gay persons have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Isn't it ironic that you don't consider those statements "ignorant"? Then again, considering your stance is largely based upon unsubstantiated and/or vastly out-dated information, it's not really surprising.