Gay Marriage Debate Gets Civil Rights Feel

The Miami Herald ^ | 15 January 2003 | Jennifer Peter

[MegaSilver]

BOSTON - A 21st century battle for gay rights is being fought with rhetoric from the civil rights movement of the 1960s - ideals that have echoed through Massachusetts' gay marriage campaign from its outset.

Denunciations of "separate but equal" laws have energized a crowd of protesters fighting for new rights.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington, has weighed in with a brief to the state's highest court, as the legislative phase of the debate began and the courts prepared to revisit the landmark decision.

"Let freedom ring. Let freedom ring. My God Almighty, let freedom ring," the Rev. George Welles, an Episcopalian minister from Milton, proclaimed last week, paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous speech. He spoke at a rally celebrating the state Supreme Judicial Court's gay marriage decision.

In the November ruling, a split court decreed it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

In a fortuitous twist for gay rights advocates, the timeline established by the court could lead to the nation's first state-sanctioned gay weddings on May 17 - the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down school segregation.

"God has a very good sense of humor," said Gary Daffin, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "For those of us who are both black and gay, the parallel between the civil rights movement of 40 years ago and the gay rights movement of today is very apparent."

Other black Americans, however, have taken umbrage at comparisons to the fight for racial equality.

"As an African-American, I find it highly offensive to associate homosexuality with civil rights," said the Rev. Steven Craft, 60, a retired pastor living in New Brunswick, N.J. "People have been trying to run on that civil rights banner and to use this whole idea of homosexual marriage to say it's the next wave of the movement. But race and sexuality have nothing to do with each other."

In recent weeks, the focus of the Massachusetts debate has turned to the Legislature, which is contemplating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It is also considering a civil unions bill that would give gay couples the benefits - but not the title - of marriage.

The state Senate has asked the high court whether the civil unions bill would meet constitutional muster. Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, has said he will postpone a scheduled Feb. 11 vote on the constitutional amendment if the court has not given an answer by then. If approved by the Legislature, the amendment could appear on a ballot for voter consideration no sooner than November 2006.

References to the civil rights fight against the ban on interracial marriages were numerous in both the plaintiffs arguments to the Supreme Judicial Court and, subsequently, in the majority opinion issued Nov. 18.

The decision said that the past rulings on interracial marriage made clear that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."

As in those rulings, the court said, the gay marriage case revolves around a statute that "deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental, legal, personal and social significance."

[MegaSilver]

"Let freedom ring. Let freedom ring. My God Almighty, let freedom ring," the Rev. George Welles, an Episcopalian minister from Milton, proclaimed last week, paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous speech. He spoke at a rally celebrating the state Supreme Judicial Court's gay marriage decision.

Take Christianity out of the Church. Take Christianity out of the Church. My God Almighty, take Christianity out of the Church.

[Angelus Errare]

I rather doubt that Reverend Welles's opinion is shared by most African Americans. It'd be an interesting test for political correctness to see whether it is possible for a black preacher to condemn the invocation of civil rights rhetoric by the homosexual lobby as an insult to blacks. Does that make him homophobic or them racist?

[goldstategop]

The heterophobes don't want tolerance - they want to shove their personal choices in our face and have us lend them our approval.

[Inyokern]

Jennifer Peter

That's really her name, right?

[NutCrackerBoy]

People have been trying to run on that civil rights banner and to use this whole idea of homosexual marriage to say it's the next wave of the movement. But race and sexuality have nothing to do with each other. -Rev. Steven Craft, 60, a retired pastor living in New Brunswick, N.J.

First, men and women are utterly different from each other, unlike race. Secondly, the two main sexuality "preferences" are different, unlike race.

While the experience of coupling may not be all that different for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals, the two categories of sexuality are totally different from the point-of-view of human beings collectively. So totally and utterly that I guess it is too big for some to see, in their zeal for egalitarianism.

[Diogenesis]

This was SHOVED in the faces of the people of Massachusetts
by the New York Times. The head of the Mass Court, from Africa, is
none other than the wife of the New York Times's Anthony Lewis.
So the question remains: When did the New York Times and its staff
help the writer of the Massachusetts Decision obtain her Green Card?

[bulldogs]

The heterophobes don't want tolerance ....

Can you imagine what it is going to be like in ten years with these people?

[MegaSilver]

I rather doubt that Reverend Welles's opinion is shared by most African Americans.

You've got to remember, Welles is an Episcopalian. If memory serves me right, a plurality, if not a majority, of African-Americans are Baptist or Southern Baptist.

[MegaSilver]

That's really her name, right?

Yes. Why?

[ClearCase_guy]

Clearly not a civil rights issue. Any prejudice against homosexuals is based upon citizens saying "Ewwwwwwww!" when they encounter homosexuality. The civil rights movement was about police forces telling blacks: "You can't sit there. You can't vote. Use the other water fountain. You try that and I'll bust your head."

I dunno. I see a difference.

[MegaSilver]

Clearly not a civil rights issue. Any prejudice against homosexuals is based upon citizens saying "Ewwwwwwww!" when they encounter homosexuality. The civil rights movement was about police forces telling blacks: "You can't sit there. You can't vote. Use the other water fountain. You try that and I'll bust your head."

I dunno. I see a difference.

Gays would argue that there are forces telling them: "You can't get married." Don't buy it. They can get married; it just won't be sanctioned/licensed from the state.

[longtermmemmory]

Below is a handy form letter.

Below this are the two committees

The FMA is in the House AND the Senate

*** ** *** * ** * *** * * * * *

Dear {{Representative}},

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. I supprt the Federal marriage amendment. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote."

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will allso protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public instutiton which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the contitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the constititon is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attoryn and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are redily available for nominal cost or free on the internet. None of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consentual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marraige.

Sincerely,

{{your name}}

*** * ***** ***** ** **** *** *** ****** *** **

This is the House committee that has the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at www.house.gov
These members count the letters of support.

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

BELOW IS THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH HAS THE SENATE VERSION OF THE BILL SJ RES 26
FEDERA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

HOME >

MEMBERS

Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH	Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA	Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA	Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA	Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO	Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA	Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA	Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO	Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA	John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

 

[longtermmemmory]

The civil rights movement is about an imutable trait not a behavior.

It also requires invidious discrimination. A black man or woman can't hide their skin.

Homesexual CAN marry a willing member of the opposite sex. Love has never been a prerequisite to marriage. (even in history)

Additionally ABSOLUTLY NOTHING stops ANY two people from adopting a cohabitation agreement. It is a contract and it is enforcable in any civil court. (just not domestic relations court divisions) The forms are redily available online, some for free.

The forcing of homosexual behavior into the public marriage institution is all about imposing public acceptance about a private sexual behavior.

This is not about guess who is comming to diner, this is about who wants to put their male genitals into your son.

[Terridan]

Sorry, but I don't know how to post a site to cast your vote on gay marriage. Now, on AOL cast your votes.... needs pinging!!!

Would you support an amendment banning gay marriage?
Yes 54%
No 46%
How important is gay marriage to you as political issue?
Very 50%
Not at all 27%
Somewhat 23%
Total Votes: 373,476
Note on Poll Results

[MegaSilver]

Hey, I agree with you. Unfortuantely, homosexual activists get people on the touchy-feely "it's-not-a-choice" part. I hate that kind of exploitation.

[longtermmemmory]

cut and paste the site on a reply.

or start a new thread bare bones with a (FREEP ALERT!!!) in the title.

[longtermmemmory]

That should not stop you from writing to the reps on the committees so they know you support the FMA.

The Human Right Campaign a homosexual special interest group has a very well organized campain to stealth themselves into a conservative group that does not want to amend the constitution for social reasons.

The age of majority amendment was a social issue, Womens vote was a social issue,prohibition on and off was a social issue, all amentments from 1 on are social issues.

We can honestly say this is one amendment to get government OUT of marriage. It says simply marriage is one man and one woman. The rest is to the states INDIVIDUALLY without forcing any state to accept what any other state is doing.

So write and tell others to write.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The civil rights movement is about an immutable trait not a behavior.

Distinctions between traits and behavior are important. You've said nothing incorrect. But your wording skates too close, in my opinion, to "all homosexuals can stop being that tomorrow if they want to." Conservative arguments opposing gay marriage that maintain a "metropolitan" stance toward homosexuality will be far more effective in winning the day. In this case, the metropolitan stance says there may be genetic factors or something chemical that happens in the womb, who knows? But some people are gay, period. Conversion is just not going to happen for most gays.

[Civil rights arguments] require invidious discrimination. A black man or woman can't hide their skin.

True. Skin color is right there. Today's conservatives demand color-blind laws and urge color-blind attitudes. A person is a person. Jim Crow laws definitely ignominiously allowed a policeman to stand there and direct traffic to the separate "but equal" water fountains. However, the same applies to two men standing in line to get a marriage license. They cannot hide that they are a man and a man.

Homesexual CAN marry a willing member of the opposite sex. Love has never been a prerequisite to marriage. (even in history).

Technically true but ultimately beside the point.

ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING stops ANY two people from adopting a cohabitation agreement.

Strong agreement here.

The forcing of homosexual behavior into the public marriage institution is all about imposing public acceptance about a private sexual behavior.

Yes, but ... To me, it is OK that two men have a bond, and sexuality is a part of that bond. They want public acceptance of their partnership. I regretfully opine that a forced public acceptance is inappropriate. They want to be equal in every way to a married man and woman. To me, that just can never be because of the way people in general appropriately revere families. I mean, come on, a father and a mother and their biological children. That is just primordial and too essential a paradigm for civilization, to enact equal protection laws engaging the awesome power of state to forcefully blur it.

This is not about guess who is comming to diner, this is about who wants to put their male genitals into your son.

I think that is a scare thing that your average soccer mom is not going to buy. There is a certain truth to it on a couple of levels, but they do not want to believe these evil characterizations of gays they know, who are actually nice. I prefer to hone arguments in favor of maintaining the current man-woman definition of marriage that are really acceptable to, well, soccer moms.

Thanks for your post, longtermmemory.

[MegaSilver]

That should not stop you from writing to the reps on the committees so they know you support the FMA

It didn't. I was just babbling. It's late, and I'm still in my "off" mode for Christmas break.

[longtermmemmory]

You have to see what GLSEN (gay lesbian sex education network) has been putting in the schools in FL. They are activly encouraging teens to expriment with sex.

They go into the school system with the approval for the curriculum.

Part of the program is explicit descriptions on what to do on an "all OUT sex date" and "try bad-ism: try something you have been told is bad."

The soccer moms in one county rebelled and booted the a board memeber up for election who voted for letting these perverts into the school system and around their children.