Civil rights have always been in the forefront in my thinking. I was first drawn to the world of concern of Rosa Parks, and others like her, while in high school. I never have forgotten the need to help insure all people are treated fairly in our society.
Today however, the culture warriors are hell-bent on undermining the basic code of equality and what living in America represents. With large amounts of funding they are determined to add hatred into state constitutions through constitutional amendments, and work to place federal judges with “constructionist’ views in power.
In November 2005 two states dealt with the issue of gay rights. Maine and Texas came to different conclusions in their respective balloting on constitutional amendments. Texas favored denying rights to gay men and women to marry. Maine rejected arguments to undo civil rights for gay people that had already passed the State Legislature.
But the general consensus across the nation from many Americans is that civil rights for gay people should be voted on by the masses. That did not happen for Rosa Parks, Catholics, the handicapped, or any other group in our history. Gay people, it appears, are to be judged for civil rights eligibility by an electorate that too often can’t name their local State Representative, or the basic concepts of democracy in America. The lowest common denominators are making civil rights for many millions of Americans!
So let me see if I have this correct.
Gay teenagers can help decorate and promote the local high school prom, listen as their friends announce who their date will be, but are unable to take the person of their choice to the same dance.
Later gay people can invest time and money in weddings for those same friends, then await the announcement of children and show added support by buying presents for the youngsters.
As taxpaying gay adults they get the pleasure of insuring tax deductions go for the families of those who get to marry.
But then something strange happens. Many Americans find that loving relationships need to fit their model and decline to reciprocate with laws that afford equal rights to gay people. Cultural warriors would like to convince us that gay relationships are bringing down the institution of marriage. One can read almost daily that gay Americans are somehow responsible for the decline in the moral underpinnings of America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Victor Lana
Allen,
I think that "civil rights" encompasses all people. That said, there needs to be an equitable rule of law for partners, male and female, who dedicate their lives to a significant other and may not be legally bound. In general, I think civil rights are meant to be civil, meant for all citizens no matter what their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. This doesn't just make sense legally, because there is a moral obligation to treat all human beings the same way.
Anything less is reprehensible and certainly (in my way of thinking) completely un-American.
2 - Scott Butki
Good piece, Allen. I reached some similar conclusions for a piece I just hadpublished here.
3 - Scott Butki
Oops, cut myself off.
I was going to suggest you also read what i wrote
published here at BC.
4 - allendrury
Thanks to each of you for your kind thoughts.
I agree Victor 100%!
Scott, I read and enjoyed your piece. Good writing.
I too had a piece on my blog about Rosa Parks at the time of her passing and paste the link here.
http://opedwriter.blogspot.com/2005/10/rosa-parks-quiet-dignity-amplified.html
Thanks again to each of you for your thoughts.
5 - RedTard
Marriage is a priviledge not a right. The government should get out of it altogether.
Should I be punished because I choose not to have a lifelong partner of any sex?
Equal treatment for all regardless of relationship status.
6 - Aaman
The government, as far as i know, does not penalize you for remaining single, RT
7 - Steve S
Well written article.
As a gay man, who's been in a monogamous relationship for half of my life, and also raising a child, yet often condemned and labeled as promiscuous and destructive to society, I'm working on an article with several other gay parents about the growing migration of our families. Many gay families are packing up their livelihoods, their homes, their kids and fleeing red states. Personally, I am in a blue state, yet still trying to move my own family out of this country, the country I have loved all my life, and thought I would die for. Instead, I find the country has turned on me for being a family man.
In America, in 2006, you have a noticable and trackable flight of gay families, who are leaving 'red' states they have lived in their whole lives, because of the religious oppression that is being written into law there.
Who would have thought that in, what is supposed to be a democracy where all can be free from tyranny, you have a noticeable (trackable) migration of men, women and children, who are fleeing religious oppression for the safety and sanctity of their own families. I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about America.
8 - Aaman
Steve, that would be a valuable piece for Blogcritics.
A sad tale indeed
9 - allendrury
Steve,
A powerful reply and one that touches us here in our home deeply. You have said it better than I could have ever hoped for. My partner has a cousin who moved with his family to a blue state for this very reason.
Like you, I too have been in a long-term monogamous relationship and am often made to feel that I (we) are bringing down society. Today I wrote two pieces for this site on civil rights and thought it was my way to honor MLK and his fight for civil rights. Your post here tonight has let me know that my effort hit home. I hope, one by one, we come together as a country to see what we are doing to our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, family, and friends by allowing bigotry to stand.
Again, Thanks Steve.
10 - Bing
Marriage is the unique union between one man and one woman. This is how American society has defined it for over two hundred years and how many other socities have defined it for even longer. This is how most Americans view it and how it must stay.
That said I see nothing wrong or ammoral with two consenting adults of the seame sex living together as romantic partners and all that that entails. I don't believe that homesexuals are evil, perverted or ammoral. I don't think homosexuals should be discriminated against. I think that civil unions are the way to go.
You guys can call me all the names you want because I believe marriage is between one woman and one man but I don't really give a damn. You obviously have no respect for tradition and most Americans feel the way that I do. We will not allow a small minority to bend sociaety to thier will based on thier desires.
11 - Steve S
You obviously have no respect for tradition
If you identify as Christian, you have trampled on the tradition of the winter solstice holiday and made it your own. You have trampled on the traditions of Indians and basically eradicated them. Marriage was about the transfer of property, you co-opted that tradition.
Slavery was tradition once. Perhaps not all traditions are justified. I certainly have no respect for a 'tradition' that equates me with a child predator.
12 - allendrury
Take the 'Bings' of the country and just use their own language to make our case. Consider the issue that resembles this one from a few decades ago.
Look at the CA State Supreme Court case on allowing blacks and whites to marry and review the language that was used then by those who wished to deny this right to couples. Look at the reasons they advocated such a position. Conider the religious rationale that was used then. Conider the fact the Supreme Court did not make a ruling for mnay years after certain state courts acted first.
The language and arguments the 'Bings' make now we all heard before. Time and justice prevail and the bigots turn out to be the minority and placed in the trash bin of history.
I think too that we need to understand that those who insist they are not gay and work over-time to deny rights often feel the tingle for a member of the same sex but deny thier feelings through acting out in hateful ways.
13 - RedTard
allendury,
We could just as easily point out he arguments and positions taken the last time liberals got involved with marriage, no-fault divorce. Since then the divorce rate has skyrocketed even though the claim was that it would not.
I think no-fault divorce was the right thing to do, but you have to consider all the consequences of your actions. I voted against the gay marriage amendment in Texas and would do so again, but I understand why people don't want to F with the traditional institution.
I have said before that I wish government would get out of the whole marriage bit, it is way too religious in nature. Then the Baptists could turn up their nose and say no gay marraige here, and gays could go down the street to the Episcopals and get their license. Everybody would be happy and free to do as they choose.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Aaman writes,
"The government, as far as i know, does not penalize you for remaining single..."
Aaman look at the tax code. Married couples pay a different tax rate than single individuals. Thre are laws of agency that automaticlaly come into force if you are married and all sorts of other little things. Actually, Silas Cain has made a rather exhaustive list of the ways that singles lose benefits against married people, because gay people lose out for the same reason.
15 - Steve S
There is only one solution to the problem that will satisify the majority of both sides and will be equitable. It is for the government to not recognize relationships and get out of the marriage business altogether. You will hear many (but not all) people on the Right advocate this. You will hear many (but not all) people on the Left advocate this, such as myself.
Couples can go to the city hall and register relationships as unions, if you want some sort of tax breaks for families of all types, or not at all.
And the word 'marriage' can reside in the church, and the church can recognize whatever relationships it wants, nobody cares.
But as the current direction is going, should you wish to amend your constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, then we simply go to court to point out that couple A getting a tax break is discriminatory to couple B. We leave the marriage equation out of it, and we dissassemble each and every facet of marriage one by one, to the tune of trillions of dollars in court costs.
That seems to be the direction the Right is making us go.
16 - Andy Marsh
Steve - I think your solution will work fine...works well for me! Is this the first time we've agreed on something?
17 - Steve S
Not the first time, but the only topic.
18 - zingzing
first, let me say that i believe that the legal benefits of marriage should not be denied to anyone. the christians and the right wingers and the "tradition!alists" want to say that "marriage is the union between one man and one woman as has been defined for an incredible 200 years by our bible and our separated church and state..."
so let them have it. they can have the word 'marriage.' let there be "civil union" written at the top of the forms, and let whoever marries you say "civil union" while you're getting civil unioned. who gives a fuck?
when you get in your car to drive off, it can still say "just married" on it. you know what just happened. they know what just happened. you can have your rights and they can keep their sinful, sinful pride.
let them argue about the definition of marriage. it's just a strange sounding word.
19 - RedTard
"union between one man and one woman as has been defined for an incredible 200 years by our bible"
I didn't know that the bible was only written 200 years ago. I suppose you learn something new everyday.
20 - Steve S
I believe he meant 2000. And the bible endorses polygamy, harems, and concubines, as well as treating women like property.
As for the 'no fault divorce' concept, used earlier to slam liberals (while the very same comment from the right endorses no fault divorce), it might have made it easier to get divorces, but the solution is to not make it tougher to get out of an unhappy marriage, the solution is to teach your own flock to not get into marriage so readily. To respect it, and what it represents, not make it more confining.
When you have Britney Spears getting married for 'a few hours' in Vegas, when you have reality shows making mockeries of the institution (who wants to marry my fat obnoxious dad, posing as a bachelor in paris, etc.) then don't blame an easy divorce on slapping the institution of marriage in the face.
You all need easy divorces, since you get into marriage without considering it's implications or what it TRULY represents apparently.
21 - Andy Marsh
You all??? Pretty broad brush there Stevie!
I knew my wife for 2 weeks when I married her at The Little Chapel of the Flowers on Las Vegas Blvd! This August will be 23 years! So take your "easy" divorce and shove it!
22 - Steve S
Point taken, Andy. It was meant as 'those of you who can get married'. It was too broad, I concede.
Given the fact that the divorce rate hovers between 40-50%, I cover a lot with my brush, but I should have worded it differently, for the other 50%.
23 - Andy Marsh
fair enough Steve! I do count my wife and I in the group that could be called rare these days! It may have actually been a place where the "broad brush" needed to be used...but I had to make my point!
24 - Steve S
And here I thought it was just because there hasn't been a discussion between you and I yet, where you haven't told me to shove it. I figured you were trying to meet a quota.
Congrats to your longevity. I'm only three years behind you.
25 - Andy Marsh
My father gave me one piece of advice when we got married...Only one thing will make it work. You both have to want it to. I'd say he's right.
And you should know..I'm not a quota kinda guy...hehe
It has been a while...I'll see if I can fit a few more shove it's in there for you...I know you miss them!