Speaking before an audience at Holy Cross College in Boston last week, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. marginalized the importance of gay rights as an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.
While not openly condemning gay marriage, Jackson stated, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship." Yet he was careful to point out that "gays deserve the right of choice to choose their own partner."
While civil rights for gays have been front page news in Boston and San Francisco for days, Jackson predicts the economy and foreign affairs will take center stage as the key issues in upcoming debates. He dismissed gay marriage as a wedge issue and a "Republican tactical strategy."
Most disturbing to supporters of equal rights was Jackson's dismissal of any similarity between civil rights and gay rights. "The comparison with slavery is a stretch," he said, because "Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."
However, it is not the issue of voting at stake in Massachusetts and California courts; it is the issue of marriage. No one is denying African-Americans the right to marry.
What Jackson's comments reveal is a stunning hypocrisy. When the civil rights of African-Americans are at stake, Jackson and his supporters are on the front lines of battle, and admirably so. However, when it is another group whose rights are being trampled, their silence speaks volumes.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - P6
This is problematic.
Black people weren't defined as 3/5th of a person, they were counted as 3/5th of a person for purposes of defining congressional districts.
Black people were defined as less than human. Gays have also been so defined.
2 - Natalie Davis
Yep. Boo on Jackson.
3 - David Flanagan
He dismissed gay marriage as a wedge issue and a "Republican tactical strategy."
Its true that this whole issue is problematic. One thing this issue is NOT is a Republican wedge issue. Really, its homosexual activists and the media who have made this issue front and center in our lives lately.
Repbulicans are just asserting what they have traditionally believed, that marriage is the union of one man and one women, not two men, or two women, or three women and one man, or any such other thing. And the truth is, you can't open the door of marriage to same sex couples without allowing everyone else to go through the door as well.
I'm all for civil unions that give homosexual couples legal rights. I'll never support this concept of "gay marriage."
Ultimately, this is not about "banning" gay marriages, its about upholding one uniform standard for marriage. Everyone in this country already has the right to marry, just not someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or someone who is under a certain age.
I think we can work things out in a way that will protect marriage AND give homosexual couples the legal rights they are seeking without having to destroy the institution that marriage has always been, one in which two people come together to produce the next generation. Yes, marriage CAN be about two people just living together and not having children, but for thousands of years, most marriages have been about family.
Thanks.
David
4 - Al Barger
Me and my goat went down to the courthouse for a marriage license, and the fascist clerk wouldn't give us one. This is a gross violation of our civil liberties. It's slavery all over again. Damn that Bush- We've got rights!
5 - Natalie Davis
GLBT people -- expatriate. It is the only way.
6 - P6
David, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage in your view?
7 - HW Saxton Jr.
I'm not trying to facetious here but
with all the talk of gay marriage.....
If these unions are upheld in a court of
law what about D-I-V-O-R-C-E ? How are
child custody laws going to figure here?
Alimony? Property Settlements? Curious.
I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit here
and all but shouldn't this be of just as
much consideration in the larger picture
here?
8 - Scott Pepper
Me and my goat went down to the courthouse for a marriage license, and the fascist clerk wouldn't give us one. This is a gross violation of our civil liberties. It's slavery all over again. Damn that Bush- We've got rights!
I've never bought the "slippery slope" argument that legalizing gay marriage opens the door for polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.
In what way does defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults somehow invite all of this?
9 - David Flanagan
David, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage in your view?
Allowing homosexual couples to have legal rights in their relationship is something that civil unions can give, though, most of that is available right now through legal means without even civil unions. However, marriage is more than just a civil union in that it is the recognized vehicle for the creation of families and its a recognized commitment for most faiths to God.
The other advantage of allowing civil unions but not allowing "gay marriage" is that state governments will have the power to place limitations on the kind of civil unions they allow. This way you avoid the slippery slope issue where people begin demanding the right to marry more than one person, etc.
The day may come when civil unions will allow for contracts for periods of time, not just on a perpetual basis until they are dissolved. "Honey, how about a five year contract with an option to renew?"
I won't be surprised if that ever happens some day. As for the millenia-old institution of marriage, that should not be rewritten to fit our current PC view of the world.
Thanks.
David
10 - Craig Lyndall
"However, marriage is more than just a civil union in that it is the recognized vehicle for the creation of families and its a recognized commitment for most faiths to God."
If you want marriage to be a religious term then you must take it out as a legal status in this country.
Second of all, how is this a slippery slope for more than one partner? I feel like this argument that I have a lot recently is a way to label the gay population as some sort of abnormal sick society just as we would people who want to marry more than one partner. They aren't the same thing and it isn't a slippery slope.
11 - David Flanagan
In what way does defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults somehow invite all of this?
Wait a minute Scott. You are saying that its okay to change the definition of marriage from "one man/one woman" to "two consenting adults," but that is a very selfish attitude on your part.
You want one group to be allowed in and then you want to shut the door on everyone else? "Oh, we want to change this rule, just a little bit to accomodate us, then you can stop making changes after that because we don't care about anyone else."
Not that I'm saying this is something you would say, but this is exactly what some -- not all -- homosexuals are saying. They want to rules changed for their group, but no one else. But, if you think about it, Mormon men were legally marrying multiple women in Utah hundreds of years before this issue ever arose. Why should THEY be left out? And if they are allowed in too, then we HAVE to allow a woman to marry multiple men. And if we allow that, I guess we should also allow someone already married to marry someone else who is already in another marriage as long as all parties "consent."
I think trying to claim there is no slippery slope on this issue is the most transparent sham I've ever seen. This situation is the DEFINITION of slippery slope.
Thanks.
David
12 - David Flanagan
If you want marriage to be a religious term then you must take it out as a legal status in this country.
Well, as I said, marriage goes beyond being a civil union and its more than just a "religious" issue. And, just so you know, state federal governments have the power to uphold one view of marriage over another without stepping on the toes of the First Amendment.
If the will of the majority is to uphold the view of marriage as one man/one woman, then that is what it will be, as opposed to the minority desire to see it changed to "two consenting adults."
And as I said before, this issue is the definition of slippery slope. If anything, Mormons have a stronger case to change the definition of marriage than homosexuals do, just on the basis of precedent.
Thanks.
David
13 - Craig Lyndall
The definition now states that 1 man and 1 woman are involved. This is what the rules of marriage are based on in this country including taxes, benefits and inheritance. That isn't going to change. Nobody is pushing for a change in the number of people involved in the relationship. NOBODY. Only people who are against the gay community are bringing this up so that they think they can have an effective argument.
14 - Scott Pepper
You want one group to be allowed in and then you want to shut the door on everyone else? "Oh, we want to change this rule, just a little bit to accomodate [sic] us, then you can stop making changes after that because we don't care about anyone else."
Polygamy is clearly a drain on society in the way it was and is practiced by Mormons by creating segments of the population that abuse the welfare system and take government funds from truly needy families. See Krakauer's excellent Under the Banner of Heaven for a thorough examination of this phenomenon.
I've yet to see an argument about how the legalization of gay marriage would directly harm society. Who benefits if it is enacted? Potentially tens of thousands of committed couples. Who is injured? No one.
15 - Al Barger
Well why aren't people pushing for a change in the number of people involved in a marriage? Polygamy makes more sense as a basis for a marriage contract, as it more obviously is establishing a basis for child rearing.
If we're just going to start to declaring everything we want to be a "right," then why don't two brothers have a RIGHT to get married- if they love each other, of course?
Plus, my goat has rights too. Ask PETA.
16 - Scott Pepper
This thread seems to have veered from the original intent of my post.
To restate: How is denying the fundamental right of marriage to gays any different than denying the fundamental right of voting to blacks?
17 - David Flanagan
Nobody is pushing for a change in the number of people involved in the relationship. NOBODY.
Except, of course, those who want to see a change in the number of people involved in marriage. There are such people, you just don't care enough to look for them.
Again, this is just a selfish view that says, "we want in but you can keep everyone else out." Argue all you want, but the vast majority in the country have no interest in changing the current definition of marriage. The problem has been activist courts which suddenly are trying to force changes because of the SILENCE that exists on this issue in the US and state constitutions.
Activists and activist courts are trying to exploit that silence and because of that, it becomes necessary to create some kind of legal definition where, before, none was necessary.
This issue has nothing to do with banning anything since everyone is already eligible to be married in this country, just not to the same sex. Rather, this is about preventing a minority from exploiting the courts to create rights that don't exist and never have.
Thanks.
David
18 - Craig Lyndall
Al, do you think being gay is a choice or something? Just curious as to where you are coming from on this one.
19 - Joe
Just to clarify a point:
Mormon men were legally marrying multiple women in Utah hundreds of years before this issue ever arose. Why should THEY be left out?
Actually, due to the relative newness of Mormonism, they only embraced polygamy about 120 years ago. Joe Smith was closeted about the issue because he realized that society wouldn't look to kindly upon it. The church as a whole embraced the idea for a short period of time until the US government intervened and outlawed the practice. In response, several polygamous communities emigrated to Canada and Mexico where their descendants still follow the fundamentalist teachings and practices. In Colorado City, here in Arizona, there are many practicing polygamists. They worship under the auspices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and are disavowed by the mainstream LDS church. They get around the polygamy laws by only legally marrying one and marrying the rest "in spirit." By doing so, Colorado City has the highest concentration of unwed, unemployed mothers in the country and is rewarded richly by the federal government, something to the tune of $8 in federal funds to every $1 in taxes paid. Anyway, google "Colorado City" for more info on it. It's quite fascinating and has made quite a bit of news lately with several upheavals within the Colorado City community.
20 - Mark Saleski
This issue has nothing to do with banning anything since everyone is already eligible to be married in this country, just not to the same sex. Rather, this is about preventing a minority from exploiting the courts to create rights that don't exist and never have.
so the equal protection clause is meaningless?
21 - David Flanagan
To restate: How is denying the fundamental right of marriage to gays any different than denying the fundamental right of voting to blacks?
No one in this country is denied a fundamental right to marriage. A man and a woman are free to marry each other if they wish, UNLESS they are too closely related to each other by bloodline and UNLESS they are a same-sex couple and UNLESS it is a situation where a person is already married and seeking to marry another and UNLESS one of the persons is under the age of consent, etc., etc., etc.
You can't manufacture a "right" to gay marriage out of the blue and call it legitimate without then legitimizing all of the others. I think the onus is on you to show how the exclusion of gay marriage from this society equates with the FORCED exclusion of blacks from the voting process that the Constitution clearly states is their right. The Black Community is not with you on this issue.
Thanks.
David
22 - Al Barger
I'm right ON topic, Scott. I reject your unquestioned, unreasoned and unargued premise of a fundamental right of marriage for gays, let alone comparing it to blacks and slavery/Jim Crow issues.
Why is denying the "right" of polygamists to a 10-way group marriage any different than denying the "right" of two men to marry?
All you've done is pick something that seems nice to you, and arbitrarily slap the word "right" on it. After that, if anyone disagrees with the policy, then they're just bigots wanting to deny your "rights."
23 - Craig Lyndall
Marriage gives rights to couples who choose to make a commitment to each other forever. The relationships that gay people have is one of love and commitment just like straight people. They aren't involving 10 or more people. They are based on love and commitment. But they aren't given the same benefits financially. This only seems fair if you refuse to recognize the love and commitment of gay couples. Why? Because they can't pro-create?
24 - Scott Pepper
There are social, biologic, and economic arguments against polygamy and incest.
I've yet to hear a secular or legal argument as to how allowing gay couples the same right to marry as straight couples will harm our society.
25 - Scott Pepper
All you've done is pick something that seems nice to you, and arbitrarily slap the word "right" on it. After that, if anyone disagrees with the policy, then they're just bigots wanting to deny your "rights."
You assume far too much, Al. Gay marriage does not seem "nice" to me. It has nothing to do with my rights and, in fact, on a moral level, I have issues with it.
However, as an issue of basic fairness, I find it hard to argue against. Why should my gay and lesbian co-workers and friends not enjoy the same rights and protections as my wife and I?