Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Gay is the New Black?

I've spoken already on the gay marriage movement's false equivalence between same-sex marriage and the historical struggle for black civil rights.

But I wanted to share Dennis Prager's new piece, "
Is Gay the New Black?":

"Gay is the new black" is one of the mottos of the movement to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex.

The likening of the movement for same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle is a primary argument of pro same-sex marriage groups. This comparison is a major part of the moral appeal of redefining marriage: Just as there were those who once believed that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married, the argument goes, there are today equally bigoted individuals who believe that men should not be allowed to marry men and women should not be allowed to marry women.

It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for California's Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

One reason given is that blacks tend to be socially conservative. But another, less verbalized, reason may well be that blacks find the comparison demeaning and insulting. As well they should.

One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe.

There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word "married."

A certain number of gay men will feel better if they can call their partner "husband" and some lesbians will enjoy calling their partner "wife," but society as a whole is not benefitted by such a redefinition of those words. Society as a whole does not benefit by removing, as California did, the words "bride" and "groom" from marriage licenses and substituting "Partner A" and "Partner B."

But hoping that the more radical gays and straights of the gay rights movement will ask "what benefits society?" before "what makes some gays feel better?" is useless.

And so, the movement appropriates the symbols and rhetoric of the black civil rights struggle when that struggle and the movement to redefine marriage have next to nothing in common. How can a seriously moral individual compare forcing a black bus rider to sit in the back of a bus or to give up his seat to a white who demands it, or prohibiting a black human being from drinking from the same water fountain or eating at the same lunch counter as a white human being, or being denied the right to vote, or being prohibited from attending a school with whites, let alone being periodically lynched, to either the general gay condition today or specifically to being given the "right" to redefine marriage for society?
There's more at the link.

I was thinking along the same lines as Prager this morning, when reading Anna Quindlen's touchy-feely (and vapid) essay on Loving v. Virginia and same-sex marriage
at Newsweek.

The left's spouts an anything-goes mentality and plays fast-and-loose with history and constitutional law (for example,

See also my earlier piece, "
Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."


AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks for the link, Philippe!

The Griper said...

another big difference is the laws themselves. the laws in regards to black specifically discriminated against them. the marriage law does not specifically discriminate against the homosexual. it applies to all.

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Findalis said...

I thought Green was the new Black. Now I have to find out what color is gay and get a whole new wardrobe.

This is getting confusing.

CKAinRedStateUSA said...

Gay is homosexual. It's a rainbow, don't you know.

But given we're in the post-racial period now, right, I guess that homosexuals believe it's their turn.

Maybe someday women will step up,or Christians and the First Amendment issues they face, or the elderly or...

Homosexuals have contrived this issue to force their agenda on America.

They're about to hit, if they already haven't, the wall, given their tantrum throwing and asininity.

And, respectfully, Griper, America will not become a homosexual nation.

Given, again, the antics of the homosexuals, they'll find people coming out of their own closet of silence who will oppose them.

repsac3 said...

As I said here at this post, Wingnuts & Moonbats: My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage, as well as the link Nero provided above, where I respond to his "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right." post (Wingnuts & Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?), I agree that the suffering of blacks under slavery & Jim Crow is far worse than the suffering of Gays in 2008 (or ever). This is a straw man, in that few if anyone is saying otherwise...

But that gays suffer less does not mean that gays do not suffer, and the same inalienable rights cover both groups.

I don't even know that many gays want to redefine marriage, if by "marriage" you mean the religious rite presided over by a celebrant of your chosen faith, and blessed by the God you worship. I have heard little of homosexuals demanding that a particular church marry them. So I don't really think it's about marriage, at all...

It's about rights & privileges under US law, which are currently bestowed on the basis of the word "marriage," but not necessarily the religious rite of marriage.

To the extent that domestic partners or folks civilly united receive the same rights & privileges as married people, I have no objection, & I don't really think many others on my side of the issue do, either. To the extent that they laws that oversee each are different, "marriage," the word, makes all the difference. Add "or domestic partnership" to every law that gives a legal right to marriage, and most--the vast majority, I'd guess--will stop pushing for gay marriage.

It isn't about redefining the religious rite of marriage, or what homosexual folks call their united bliss or significant other, but about treating citizens as equals under the law. Whether homosexuals get the rights by calling their unions marriages, or by changing the law, so that marriage remains marriage, but civil union or domestic partnership affords a couple all of the same rights & privileges as marriage, those citizens should be granted those rights.

As I've said before, I'd like to see the word "marriage"--a religious rite, performed by a religious celebrant--stricken from every local, state, & federal law, and replaced by the words "civil union"--a legal agreement between two people in love, officiated over by any individual recognized by the state, including clergy, judges, ship captains, etc.... Let marriage be marriage, but don't base US law on this or any other a religious rite. Doing so tarnishes both the religiosity of "marriage" and the freedom of religious belief, embodied in the separation of church & state as espoused by several of our founders, inherent in America.