Black, Gay Rights Linked In History [Yeah... MLK Didn't Want Queers Around]

The Boston Globe ^ | 2/13/2004 | Derrick Z. Jackson

[johnny7]

THOSE African-American ministers in Massachusetts who deny any link between the black civil rights movement and the movement toward same-sex marriage are running back into a dank closet of yesteryear. These ministers who want to stuff today's gay and lesbian couples into separate and unequal compartments of commitment have forgotten how the civil rights movement forced Bayard Rustin, one of the movement's greatest theorists, to make himself invisible because he was gay.

[johnny7]

Derrick Jackson would say Hitler helped the civil rights movement if his white, democrat masters told him to. This guy is a piece of work!

[anniegetyourgun]

unbelievable....yet not....

[foreverfree]

bump

[IronJack]

This is a connection that won't fly. There's a world of difference between the moral authority of racial equality and the normalization of homosexuality. At its root, it can be summed up by the statement "It's no sin to be black."

[Evil Inc]

It is an argument that reaches absurdity very fast, You must support everything and anything because you asked to be free of racial prejudiced. Therefore you must oppose gay oppression, polygamy suppression.
Of course one must eventually draw a line and be INTOLERANT.

[Warrior Nurse]

I want someone to help me with this. I am pissed when the sodomites say that being homosexualy is like being black facing discrimination. Since when is perversion acceptable behavior? How is homosexual "marriage" a civil right? Someone please tell me. Since time and memorial marriage has been defined as a legal covenant between a man and a woman. It is the fabric of civilized society. If the sodmites want to have a union like marriage they would have to find a spouse of the opposite sex. Since that is how marriage has been defined. To my understanding can't a sodomite couple use the legal system to will possessions and a general power of attorney for other legal decisions? Please help me out </No Sarcasm>

[Tailgunner Joe]

Bayard Rustin was a communist.

[TheGeezer]

This fight was lost long ago.

When contraception divorced sex from conception, then recreational sex became acceptable - in a word, socially normal. That was the first step onto the steep and slippery slope of sexual permissiveness.

I think it was the Lambeth Council of the Episcopal Church that voted in the 1920s to sanction artificial conception as morally acceptable. Few people know that Christian orthodoxy had taught for its entire existence that contraception was immoral. This was a change of doctrine: liberals theologians won over a majority of Episcopal bishops, however, and the change was adopted to accommodate modern sensibilities. And, I might add, the change was supposed to help keep the pews full.

Western nations ridiculed attempts to prevent denigration of sexuality into mere entertainment. When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, it was widely and loudly criticized as impractical and old fashioned. Yet in that very document, the pope predicted precisely what is happening today: the normalization of all sorts of immoral sexuality and the destruction of the family.

The easy acceptance of artificial contraception, and then its child, abortion, has led Western culture to this point. Now, homosexuality is not accepted as a seriously disordered sexuality, and arguments supporting marriage as the union between different genders is assailed as bigoted.

The problem is that once sexuality is divorced from reproduction, how can one say there is a moral reason not to have sex with anyone or anything one desires? That is the point to which we have come because of Western culture's embrace of artificial contraception.

One might sigh with relief that at least we've reached the bottom, except for the fact that the National Man-Boy Love Association is now waiting in the wings for its moment in the sun. ACLU is defending its principles. A minority in academia is beginning to suggest that children are not harmed by early sexual experiences, and that they may even be helpful.

And yet, when someone says that artifical contraception is immoral, they are dismissed as crazy Roman Catholics, or people who are out of touch with reality. Well, welcome to this reality. Who's out of touch?

[StonyBurk]

"To equate homosexuality to race is to give a death sentence to civil rights." Alveda King,before the Sacramento
Alliance for Civil Rights,a black organization.Aug.1997
"Skin color is a benign non-behavioral charectaristic.
Sexual Orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral charectaristics.Comparisson of the two is
a convienent but invalid arguement." Gen Colin Powell in
response to Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder ,Retired Officer July,1992.
Methinks this Globalist doth err knowing neither the Scriptures nor the Power of God.

[expatguy]

One's sexual conduct or behavior is the product of free will and not an immutable, morally neutral characteristic like one's ethnicity or gender. Even if you could somehow prove that one's sexual orientation is genetically predetermined the capacity for free choice in terms of behavior still remains.

This is not a RIGHTS issue!!!!

[foreverfree]

bump

[Alouette]

A true disciple of Gandhian nonviolence and Quaker pacifism, Rustin reacted to a man who threatened to beat him with a stick by handing the man an additional stick. Rustin invited the man to commence the beating.

More like a "true disciple" of gay S&M.

[johniegrad]

Here comes this argument again.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[jimt]

There is nothing immoral or disgusting or disease producing about darker skin.

There is everything immoral and disgusting and disease producing about anal-penile intercourse, to name but one of the homosexuals' perverted practices.

[Warrior Nurse]

There is nothing immoral or disgusting or disease producing about darker skin. There is everything immoral and disgusting and disease producing about anal-penile intercourse, to name but one of the homosexuals' perverted practices

Not to mention the high incidence of pedophilia in the homosexual male community. It is PERVERSION pure and simple.

[an amused spectator]

Senator Strom Thurmond did try to start trouble by taking a J. Edgar Hoover wiretap and blasting Rustin for sexual perversion on the Senate floor.

What's really, really great about the Internet is this:

I can revise Derrick "I'm a black racist" Jackson's Strom Thurmond line to include the REAL facts, on the spot:

Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond did try to start trouble by taking a J. Edgar Hoover wiretap and blasting Rustin for sexual perversion on the Senate floor.

"Strom Thurmond took to the floor of the United States Senate in July of 1963, and denounced the upcoming March on Washington by calling attention to Bayard Rustin's homosexuality. Thurmond's plan to ruin the event failed miserably when Martin Luther King, Jr. stood in defense of Rustin."

"[Strom Thurmond's]career in the Senate remained uninterrupted until his retirement forty-six years later, despite his switch, in 1964, to the Republican Party."

;-)

[King Prout]

cripes.

This reminds me of a bit of CNN I caught last week. A GBM was moaning about intolerance, about how he and his "partner" had labored so long to create a "family" and how the Mass. Assembly's "civil-union" compromise measure made him FEEL "like they're trying to tear all that away from us."

Cry me a river.

Civil Unions as proposed are the absolute LEGAL equivalent of heterosexual marriages. The only place where the line is held is in granting use of the term "marriage" itself, in deference to the 80+% of us who absolutely do not and will not ever equate gay partnerships with marriage. The homosexual agitators refuse to accept such a workable compromise (and who can claim surprise at this?) and claim that it is a form of legal discrimination or bigotry, a recreation of the "seperate but equal" clause of evil fame.
This is hogwash.

The State has neither the responsibility nor the authority to do more than establish one-to-one legal parity (meaning tax status, insurance status, inheritance law, oh... and fees, duties, restrictions, liabilities - though the homolobby never seems to mention these). This can be argued to be just, though I would tend to believe that those special states reserved to marriage which revolve around the natural consequence of heterosexual union -natural offspring- should remain so reserved and never be extended to homosexual couples for any reason.

On the other hand, the State has neither an interest in, a mandate and authority for, nor responsibility to try to "perfect" the views and attitudes of the public in their private lives. The general public can be legally required to treat homosexuals with the bare minimum of civic decency - no fag-bashing, no infringing on their constitutional rights, etc... ie: the public MUST "tolerate" homosexuals. But the public neither loves homosexuals, nor do they have to, nor does the State have any just authority to either try to force a change in this cultural norm nor to make laws in a pretense of so doing.
No legislation can force love, affection, or welcome.

The gay lobby sure seems to act as if they either believe otherwise, or wish to make it otherwise.

And THAT is where I draw the line.

[thegreatbeast]

Bernard Rustin was radioactive because he was a flaming Red! There was no mistaking that and King was more sensitive to that charge than anything else.