LGBT
Related: About this forumHow few anti-homosexual viewpoints can a democrat hold or espouse and still be considered a bigot?
I would say, off the top of my head, the number is 2.
Obviously, merely being against marriage equality is insufficient for most DU'ers, so ONE can't be the minimum number.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)that number goes down to a big, fat ZERO.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Magoo48
(4,698 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)too many parents of gay kids cannot see that, and there are some so called relgious leaders, who cannot either. If your own flesh and blood cannot love you for who you are, how can other people? This is why we have the problems do have.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)seen to have brought the issue back to the forefront. It is somewhat ironic that the President could be considered a bigot as he is (at least publicly) against full marriage equality. I also find it ironic that he would be banned from DU for that stance.
I think he will come out in support of marriage equality as it is sure to be asked in the debates if it is not cleared up by then.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)He's triangulated himself too far into a corner.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)debates for sure. Imagine Andersen Cooper drilling him for an answer. He may not say he is for marriage equality, but I believe he will have to say something, one way or the other.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"I continue to struggle with it, i'm evolving, it's clear where the trend lines are going, we support strong civil unions, god's still in the mix, no discrimination though."
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Does your definition of bigotry have a personal element?
IOW ... If I do nothing to advance the marriage equality cause/right; but have done nothing to impede the cause/right (other than my remaining silent on it), am I a bigot?
What about if I actively promote 2 or 3 or 10 pro-gay policies; but am agnostic on the equal marriage cause/right, am I a bigot?
{I realize that these questions may seem insincere and/or have others call me a bigot; but I truly wish to know.}
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)If I do nothing to advance racial equality; but have done nothing to impede the cause (other than remaining silent on it), am I a bigot?
What about if I actively promote 2 or 3 or ten pro-racial equality policies; but am agnostic on whether corporations formed by people of color should be considered the legal equivalent of corporations formed by whites, am I a bigot?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)IMHO, neither scenario would lead me to think you a bigot ... Disengaged, yes; insensitive or misguided, absolutely; but bigoted, no ... because you have done nothing to hinder my cause. You just have not expressed support for my cause.
As an African-American, I have learned that my cause(s) are my cause(s) ... That I must fight for. If others agree with me or support me in my cause, great; but they remain silent on them ... Oh well, maybe we have other areas of agreement. If so, again, great; if not, Oh well, and move on.
But my approach is wholly different when I come across someone that is actively working against my cause.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama's taking a stand on this, or any other issue, is extremely relevant; but I don't see his NOT taking a stand as bigotry, as no his not shown any particular animus towards homosexuals. Being silent is not the same as opposition to gay rights issues.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I hope this disagreement doesn't preclude our finding common ground on other issues. AND, I hope this disagreement does not foreclose on continued discussion on this issue, as I strongly support marriage equality ... It just isn't my number one issue.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and i'm glad that I have Elie Wiesel in my corner.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And me too!
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
The only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. -Thomas Paine
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)You hear an Amen from me, brother. Silence = Death
Zorra
(27,670 posts)President Obama's taking a stand on this, or any other issue, is extremely relevant; but I don't see his NOT taking a stand as bigotry, as he's not shown any particular animus towards whites. Being silent is not the same as opposition to caucasian rights issues.
Whoops.
I meant gay marriage, rights etc.
Well, no, I really didn't, but you do get the point, I imagine?
If a white President said, "I am evolving on the issue of blacks being able to marry."
How would you feel?
Please, don't try to tell me it's not the same thing.
While President Truman had begun the process of desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948, actual implementation had been slow. Eisenhower made clear his stance in his first State of the Union message in February 1953, saying "I propose to use whatever authority exists in the office of the President to end segregation in the District of Columbia, including the Federal Government, and any segregation in the Armed Forces". [156] When he encountered opposition from the services, he used government control of military spending to force the change through, stating "Wherever Federal Funds are expended, I do not see now any American can justify a descrimination of those funds."[157] When Robert Anderson, Eisenhower's first Secretary of the Navy argued that the Navy must recognize the "customs and usages prevailing in certain geographic areas of our country which the Navy had no part in creating", Eisenhower overruled him: "We have not taken and we shall not take a single backward step. There must be no second class citizens in this country."[158]
The administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue, as Communists around the world used the racial discrimination and history of violence in the U.S. as a point of propaganda attack.[159] The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown, that segregated schools were unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children.[160][161] He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department and a Civil Rights Commission to hear testimony about abuses of voting rights. Although both acts were much weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since 1875.[162]
In 1957, the state of Arkansas refused to honor a federal court order to integrate their public school system stemming from the Brown decision. Eisenhower demanded that Arkansas governor Orval Faubus obey the court order. When Faubus balked, the president placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. They escorted and protected nine black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school, for the first time since the Reconstruction era.[163] Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote to Eisenhower to thank him for his actions, writing "The overwhelming majority of southerners, Negro and white, stand firmly behind your resolute action to restore law and order in Little Rock".[164]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Civil_rights
Civil rights
The turbulent end of state-sanctioned racial discrimination was one of the most pressing domestic issues of the 1960s. The Supreme Court of the United States had ruled in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Many schools, especially in southern states, did not obey the Supreme Court's decision. The Court also prohibited segregation at other public facilities (such as buses, restaurants, theaters, courtrooms, bathrooms, and beaches) but it continued nonetheless. Kennedy verbally supported racial integration and civil rights; during the 1960 campaign he telephoned Coretta Scott King, wife of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who had been jailed while trying to integrate a department store lunch counter. Robert Kennedy called Georgia governor Ernest Vandiver and obtained King's release from prison, which drew additional black support to his brother's candidacy.[173]
In early 1963, Kennedy related to Martin Luther King, Jr., about the prospects for civil rights legislation: "If we get into a long fight over this in Congress, it will bottleneck everything else, and we will still get no bill."[178] However, civil rights clashes were on the rise that year.[179] Brother Robert and Ted Sorenson pressed Kennedy to take more initiative on the legislative front.[180] On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy intervened when Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the doorway to the University of Alabama to stop two African American students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from attending. Wallace moved aside only after being confronted by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and the Alabama National Guard, which had just been federalized by order of the President, and which had hours earlier been under Wallace's command. That evening Kennedy gave his famous civil rights address on national television and radio, launching his initiative for civil rights legislation – to provide equal access to public schools and other facilities, and greater protection of voting rights.[181][182] His proposals became part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The day ended with the murder of a NAACP leader, Medgar Evers, in front of his home in Mississippi.[183] As the president had predicted, the day after his TV speech, and in reaction to it, House Majority leader Carl Albert called to advise him that his two year signature effort in Congress to combat poverty in Appalachia (Area Redevelopment Administration) had been defeated, primarily by the votes of Southern Democrats and Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Civil_rights
Civil rights
In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced the Democratic-Controlled Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. John F. Kennedy originally proposed the civil rights bill in June 1963.[44] In late October 1963, Kennedy officially called the House leaders to the White House to line up the necessary votes for passage.[45][46] After Kennedy's death, Johnson took the initiative in finishing what Kennedy started and broke a filibuster by Southern Democrats in March 1964; as a result, this pushed the bill for passage in the Senate.[47] Johnson signed the revised and stronger bill into law on July 2, 1964.[47] Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats.[48]
In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time. In accordance with the act, several states, "seven of the eleven southern states of the former confederacy" - Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia — were subjected to the procedure of preclearance in 1965, while Texas, home to the majority of the African American population at the time, followed in 1975.[49]
At the Howard University commencement address on June 4, 1965, he said that both the government and the nation needed to help achieve goals:
To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin.
To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong — great wrong — to the children of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights
xchrom
(108,903 posts)It keeps people from taking real stands because it might cost them personally.
In particular where we see this - what is it? - a racial divide? A religious divide? A wait til I evolve divide?
I'm thankful fir Rev Barber here in NC who seems to get it - the way our good Thurgood Marshal got it.
No equivocation - no fooling w/ peoples lives for the sake of soft bigotry & political survival.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Duncan Grant
(8,259 posts)-- Elie Wiesel
Not to put words in your mouth but your hypothetical feels like "indifference" to me.
You asked, "What about if I actively promote 2 or 3 or 10 pro-gay policies; but am agnostic on the equal marriage cause/right, am I a bigot?"
I think if one is "agnostic" on equal marriage but "pro-gay" in many other ways, one doesn't really understand the contemporary struggle of gay people in this hostile culture. And indifference to gay people at this moment in our history is a form of bigotry. It's passive bigotry, but no less destructive (imho).
DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can get with that.
But I would suggest that President Obama is far from indifferent; rather, I believe this is something that he struggles with (i.e., evolving).
Might I suggest that bigots don't struggle with issues.
Duncan Grant
(8,259 posts)I didn't realize we were discussing President Obama specifically. But if we are, then let me ask: what's to struggle with? The president is a very smart and cultured man -- he already knows the right side of history regarding this question.
Some of us are a little crestfallen to be asked to accept that we're a liability to him or his re-election. This is injurious; it gives legitimacy to all the lies about gay people and gay culture. He should be our president, too -- regarding these fundamental human rights.
As far as the bigotry goes, well -- I would ask people to empathize with LGBT people. See this through the eyes of people who have their rights revoked (Prop 8 in California, for example) -- or witness tonight's madness in North Carolina. See this through the eyes of those who are identified as "the other" by irrational and reactionary "good people".
We are -- all of us -- reaching the tipping point. The president's current passive equivocation on marriage equality isn't leadership. At this time, I don't think it's unreasonable for LGBT people to be asking for more from President Obama.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt