A Choice We Don't Want (Dems bailing on gay rights?)

The Dartmouth | 8-23-05 | Casey Ley

[Hadean]

There is a long-standing debate as to whether the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are related. While there are unquestionable differences, one undisputed parallel has yet to be highlighted; there is a current discussion within the Democratic Party as to whether supporting gay rights is politically viable, just as there was a similar discussion about supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (not to mention, acceptance of interracial marriage). The argument can be made (and heavily defended) that the Democratic stronghold in the South began to crumble due to the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights. This erosion of support for Democrats, with the South now a major base of the Republican Party, can be looked at as a political disaster for the Democrats. Yet no one questions whether the promotion of civil rights was the right thing to do.

Now there is a new prominent civil rights issue, gay rights, which the African-American community is playing an indirect, yet integral part in. Many Democratic policy makers worry about losing black voters over the gay rights issue. A very religious bloc (albeit a historically socially progressive, religious bloc), the black community is increasingly split over the acceptance of gay rights by the Democratic Party. And there are many Democratic leaders who fear the alienation of their ever-faithful black voting contingent if gay rights become a major part of the party platform (which, regardless of how the issue is exploited by either side, it is not already).

A recent uproar over an especially harsh and anti-gay pulpit speech by the prominent black D.C. Baptist Rev. Willie Wilson has brought this issue to light. After much pressure, Wilson has since apologized for his remarks, but his initial hard-line stance has illuminated a growing gap within the African-American community. There are those who see equality for gays and lesbians as an important part of the civil rights debate and those who maintain that homosexuality is a sin and should be treated as such. There are many studies on homophobia in black communities in the United States, and it seems that this homophobic sentiment is just as much a social stigma as it is a religious attitude. Yet if gay rights can be framed a religious issue before LGBT activists can frame it an equal rights issue, there may never be a chance to form a true alliance between the LGBT community and the black community. If this becomes a reality the Democratic Party will be forced to make a choice: fully embrace homosexual equality or continue a vague promotion of tolerance. The first is the right thing to do but the second may be the more politically viable option. Let us then avoid this choice. Let us open a dialogue now and show each other how much we can help one another. It is certainly true that the civil rights struggle of the mid-20th century was much different than the struggle for equality at the beginning of the 21st century. Yet a fuller discussion of why these movements are different will lead to a deeper understanding of how similar the ultimate goal is for both, equal rights and justice for all.

[PeteB570]

Isn't the first paragraph a bit off on who was who during the start of the civil rights era?

Has the writer revised it just a touch?

[atomicpossum]

The argument can be made (and heavily defended) that the Democratic stronghold in the South began to crumble due to the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights.

Except that the Republican party was even more behind it than the Democrats were.

[MortMan]

No, he's not revised it "just a touch". He's given wholesale support to fiction and fantasy.

[PeteB570]

It's early and I'm only on my third cup of coffee. I just tried to give the wacko-nut job a bit of slack.

[agere_contra]

The argument can be made (and heavily defended) that the Democratic stronghold in the South began to crumble due to the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights

Is there any truth whatever in that?

[trebb]

This erosion of support for Democrats, with the South now a major base of the Republican Party, can be looked at as a political disaster for the Democrats. Yet no one questions whether the promotion of civil rights was the right thing to do.

Couple problems there. The Dims didn't embrace civil rights, they fought it. They were the ones who didn't think it was right to do. What they finally embraced was a bastardization of civil rights, where instead of treating everyone the same, they demanded that special groups be treated a lot differently. That is where the erosion of the Dim party began.

[dsc]

Notice how he just *assumes* that the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices is a "civil rights issue?"

Can't ever let them get away with that crap. If it's a "civil rights issue," then there can be no righteous grounds for witholding endorsement of any deviant sexual practice whatever.

And if it's not a "civil rights issue," then everything he said is just so much idiocy.

[MortMan]

Sorry - I guess my vat of sarcasm is a little bitter this morning!

Have a great day!

[Vaquero]

how does the left do it....turn a simple revulsion...a disgust at something so outlandish as to provoke a sickening reaction...and turn it around and call it a fear...but not their own fear....claim that someone else has that fear....

I have swam it what could have been conceivable shark infested waters...and I was afraid....but not revulsed...actually I have a lot of respect for sharks, Tigers, Kodiak Brown Bears, Semi's bearing down on me. ..etc.

I was revulsed by the sight of a dog freshly hit by a car...but I was not afraid. I had no respect for it. it was just disgusting. No other emotional state existed.

You have to love the left...and its newspeak.

[digger48]

This will be their absolute death.

The fags control the newsrooms.

[GOP_Proud]

< Except that the Republican party was even more behind it than the Democrats were. >

I'm constantly amazed at the number of blacks who don't even know this. They just toe the party line.

[evad]

Notice how he just *assumes* that the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices is a "civil rights issue?"

It's an old ploy..
establish a false premise as fact and then proceed from there.

Of course everything from that point is also false or highly suspect but the writer hopes you're not smart enough to pick up on that little point.

[diverteach]

"Democratic Party as to whether supporting gay rights is politically viable,"

This is the core problem with politics. Things aren't viewed as being either right or wrong, all it has to be is "politically viable".

[dsc]

"What they finally embraced was a bastardization of civil rights, where instead of treating everyone the same, they demanded that special groups be treated a lot differently. That is where the erosion of the Dim party began."

A couple of days ago I was remembering the 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago.

At that time, the Dims were still American enough that the left would attack them.

Who, today, is so much to the left of the DemonRats that they would riot in protest of their convention?

The Dims have been on the way down since the 30s, but what killed them was infiltration by the same people who were getting gassed and thumped on the streets of Chicago in 1968.

There is more than enough difference between the left and right wings of the Republican Party that it could split into two parties.

[RightDemocrat]

While many Southern Democrats did support racial segregation, it was a Democratic President Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. As the bill was being signed, Johnson commented "There goes the South." Democrats were harmed politically in the South as a result of taking a stand against racial discrimination, however, it was a position worth taking based upon sound moral principles.

While homosexuals should not be persecuted in a free society, the gay rights agenda which includes same sex marriage or civil unions with tax benefits and adoptions of children by gay couples is not similar to the struggle of African Americans for equality nor does it occupy the same moral high ground.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

I have a question about something...years ago I was playing a trivia board game with my mother and the answer to the question was an expression--"Always south, always Democrat" (or something to that effect that meant that the south always votes Democrat). I was stunned and she (a Democrat) said, "The parties used to be reversed. Democrats were Republicans and Republicans were Democrats." I didn't know what she was talking about and didn't want to get into an argument, but I let it go.

Has anyone ever heard this before? I'm wondering now if it's a way for Democrats to make themselves think that they were the original civil rights party.

I'd love some insight on this odd thing my mother said.

[PeteB570]

We are thinking the same way.

I also like the bit about "homophobic". If a person disagrees with them then they are "homophobic". The D-rats/Libs claim its the Repubs who lable and name call. Not the way I see it.

Have a nice NC Dixie Day.

[NetValue]

"If this becomes a reality the Democratic Party will be forced to make a choice: fully embrace homosexual equality or continue a vague promotion of tolerance. The first is the right thing to do...."

Huh? That is called a bare assertion. A statement without any basis whatsoever.

Needle sharing and man-to-man sex gave us the worldwide AIDS pandemic. That is reason enough for the public and minorities to NEVER embrace homosexuality even if the Democrats do.

There is a choice the article omits entirely. The Democrats could return to moral values and family values and stop this artificial "tolerance" that is destroying them.

[the invisib1e hand]

get back into the closet.