Posted on 03/06/2004 11:19:47 AM PST by Kaslin
When small-town Mayor Jason West started presiding over gay weddings, he saw it as nothing short of "the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation."
"The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus," said the Green Party mayor of New Paltz, N.Y.
West's words have a strong resonance for gays and lesbians who feel their rights are being denied, but for blacks who worked to end racial discrimination in the 1950s and '60s, the reaction is decidedly mixed. Some civil rights leaders find the comparison apt, but other blacks call it downright disgraceful.
"The gay community is pimping the civil rights movement and the history," said the Rev. Gene Rivers, a black Boston minister and president of the National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation. "In the view of many, it's racist at worst, cynical at best."
With gay marriage emerging as the nation's hot-button social issue, American blacks find themselves being courted as a special ally by both camps. Many are conflicted over attempts to equate the civil disobedience of homosexual unions with still-vivid memories of voting-rights protesters mauled by snarling police dogs and knocked down by firehoses.
Some conservative groups are appealing directly to black congregations to block attempts to co-opt the language of the civil rights movement.
"We oppose attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or compare it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin," says a Web site from the conservative Family Research Council.
Meanwhile, civil rights luminaries such as NAACP board chairman Julian Bond and Rep. John Lewis, one of the organizers of the 1963 march on Washington, have spoken on the side of gay marriage. Bond said he supports "gay civil or religious marriage."
"Discrimination is discrimination - no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong," he told The Associated Press. "There are no 'special rights' in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary 'special rights' at the expense of blacks."
Lewis filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Massachusetts case that led to the first unequivocal state ruling recognizing same-sex marriage.
In its November decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cited the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education. The first licenses are scheduled to be issued there May 17 - the 50th anniversary of Brown.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery agrees that American blacks should clearly sympathize with the gay community's fight for rights.
But Lowery, who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., said the sheer weight of U.S. history precludes too close a comparison.
"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he argued. "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, while supporting "equal protection under the law" for gays, agreed that comparisons to the struggles of the civil rights movement are "a stretch."
"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he said during a recent appearance at Harvard Law School.
Another issue is that of choice, said D'Army Bailey, a marcher with the armed Deacons for Defense and Justice and a founder of the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.
"I don't have a choice to be black and, therefore, had to be faced with the human rights battle from birth," said Bailey, a judge in Memphis.
Keith Boykin, a gay, black man, scoffs at the notion that sexual orientation is a choice. But even if it were true, he said, that's not the point.
"At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which group is most oppressed or whether they are identically oppressed," said Boykin, president of the New York-based National Black Justice Coalition. "What matters is that no group be oppressed."
Among the state legislatures taking action on the gay marriage issue was the Mississippi House, which passed a resolution Monday that called for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
All 17 of those voting against the measure were black, but the remaining 19 black House members either voted for the resolution or didn't vote at all.
State Rep. David Myers, a Democrat, remembers having to go to the back door of restaurants with his grandfather to be served. But he voted for the resolution, and says people who would compare that experience with gays not being able to wed are "way off base."
"There's no one blocking the courthouse saying you can't go vote," he said. "That's what civil rights was about."
As a minister, Lowery of the SCLC said he is "in the valley of prayer on the issue of gay marriage." But, as a black man who was deeply involved in the struggle for equal rights, he is willing to "err on the side of inclusiveness, and not exclusion."
"I'm going to follow Jesus and say, 'Whosoever will, let them come,'" he said. "And I'm going to extend rights to all of God's children. And if I'm wrong, God will have to judge me."
---
EDITOR'S NOTE: Allen G. Breed is the AP's Southeast regional writer, based in Raleigh. AP writer Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this report
Says it all in my opinion
Homosexuality is a MORAL issue, just as promiscuity and adultery are.
Religions have the right and responsibility to condemn immorality.
For the government to all of a sudden approve of immoral behavior...to make a MORAL judgment and actually legalize immorality, this act would take way our freedom of Religion. It is the government stepping in where they don't belong.
To legalize homosexual unions, would establish a religious opinion by the government and would PROHIBIT THE FREE EXORCISE of religion...our first guarantee of freedom!
To pass a homosexual marriage law, is tantamount to taking away our freedoms of speech and religion.
It is the national RAPE of our consciences. Homosexuality is being FORCED on a society that does not want it.
You have hit the nail on the head..so to speak...ahem...
How can we give marriage rights to this group of sexual deviants, and not give them to interspecies groups? That would be very intolerant.
Why should homosexuals be the only ones to be "offended" when their deviant sex is put on the same level as another deviant sexual practice.
I make the case that many Americans are very lonely and their only friend, is their Dog. It is so much more than a sexual relationship....it is a true, unconditional love!
Vet care is so expensive, and these, often times our senior-bestialsexual citizens, can not afford health care for their partners! And they are constantly discriminated against getting their lovers on their health insurance. This places them at a clear disadvatage, since the animal partner often can not find employment of their own. This is such an unfair hardship! Why should they be kept from living as other couples do? Why do homosexuals care what they do? What business is it of theirs?
What right do homosexuals have to say that beastialsexual people are "disgusting"...that is such a hate filled, intolerant, insensative thing to say!
Beastialsexual couples should have the same rights as all americans! They should have the right of survivor benefits on the insurance plans....and everything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.