AA and GLBTQ... there are similarities *and* differences.

[boppers]

Off the top of my head, some Similarities:
Being denied marriage.
Being denied housing.
Being publicly humiliated, beaten, tortured, and killed.
Being systematically persecuted, as a group, by governments.
Having children taken away for being who they are.
Being mocked as a form of "entertainment".
"Passing" was a strategy to try and avoid persecution.

And some Differences:
Automatic Death Sentences for the "crime" of being born gay have existed (and exist to this day) throughout much of human history, and until recently (2003), laws existed (now unenforceable) in the US declaring two gay people even having sex was illegal.
Nobody still gets pulled over and shot in US cities for "driving while gay".
Gay people weren't considered "property", humans that were bought and sold, in the US, for hundreds of years.
There weren't poll tests in the south to see if you were "straight enough" to vote.
Gay people didn't have their entire culture and heritage taken away from them by being shipped across the ocean and forced into enslavement under new cultures.
Children of gay people weren't considered lesser citizens if they had "one drop" of a gay parent's blood.
Laws have been enacted all over the US to attempt to protect against AA discrimination, much less so for GLBTQ discrimination.

My point? That in order to openly, and honestly, talk about struggles, those who struggle want to make sure their perspective is being heard, and that a given struggle isn't "just another civil rights issue", or "the same issue as <fill in the blank>".

It's not a contest to see if group X or group Y suffered more, or less, or how they suffered, but we need a real dialog... and real understanding, real communication, means knowing the subtle, and profound, commonalities and differences.

So, here's my challenge:
I want each poster to find one more thing in common between the two, and one more thing that's different, so we can understand how the two struggles share common ground, and how the two struggles are also different.

[firedupdem]

1. Boppers

Why not talk about ways to get the issue of Gay rights out of the ballot box. I don't think Gay rights or civil rights should be voted on. It's not right.

Talking about more differences and similarities isn't going to accomplish much in my opinion. I don't see how it's beneficial. Let's fix the problem and not rehash the atrocities both groups have faced...and still face.

[boppers]

3. I'm doing this to drive the civil discussion.

It's actually a tactic from the (very) early Abolitionist era.

But you do bring up two more points:
Similar: It's taken courts to drive the law forward.
Different: Black people are no longer forbidden to marry others whom they love, simply because of who they are.

[firedupdem]

4. If we were to find civil discussion it wouldn't accomplish anything

here. The post below spells it out.

Sounds like our leaders need to be talked to and this issue taken care of without the majority voting against a minority of people.

[boppers]

10. I'm not so sure that minor (or major) law changes will be enough.

Brown v. Board of Education....
Virginia v. Loving.....

Those changed the law, great, but they didn't exactly make racism go away.

Similarity: Both struggles have won battles in the courts, but also lost on the ground.

Difference: While "race" has been somewhat discredited as a meaningful genetic difference between different people, "sexuality" is still viewed by some as a "choice", with conflicting arguments about genetic basis, social basic, etc.

[Fearless]

11. To be fair...

Race as it is termed is genetic in nature. The PC version (that it isn't) is just illogical foolishness. There are some differences between people, like skin color for instance. Genes cause skin color the same as they cause how tall one is or how likely one is to suffer from heart disease. It's not a bad thing, race, it's just a classification, a way to group people. White people are no better or worse than Black people, American Indians, Africans, Asians. The same as while there are characteristic differences between East and West or North and South Europeans, there is no better or worse. Stigma should be defeated. Saying that genomic differences don't exist is just an oversimplification.

[boppers]

19. Well, it can be useful...

There's the BRCA "race", for example. (The race of people disposed to breast cancer?)

The problem with massive over-simplifications like "race", however, is taking a 50,000+ variable equation and trying to sort it into 5 (or so) groups. "Race", as a grouping, has historically used a small clump of genes, and then (unfortunately) tried to predict other genotypes and phenotypes that were likely, based on prior observations.

Sometimes it works quite well, but other times it is massively wrong.

Since you were mentioning "East and West or North and South Europeans", this might be a good time to point out that they're virtually identical, and share much more variance within their own "groups" that they have variance with each other.

[Fearless]

21. Of course...

Most groups, for instance African-decent Kenyan people and Scots, even though they appear vastly different share a greater diversity in gene makeup amongst themselves than on average between the two groups. Race as we know it, is just a classification based on clearly visible traits and bears no witness to the vastness of the human (or any special) genome. I was just commenting that race does exist based on the characteristics that are chosen to make a particular race up. Of course it isn't exact as people will of course intermarry. In the end, the reason race existed and the fact that it does today doesn't imbibe it today with the stigma that it carried yesterday. I believe that the two can be separate.

[boppers]

25. So, it's a friendly discussion of genotype v. phenotype?

What "race" is Obama, and what does that say about his "race", or him as a person?

(now we're getting close to taxonomy wars, but you seem game...)

[firedupdem]

12. I think changing the law is the biggest issue....I think some will

never change the way they think.

[merh]

6. The fact that Prop 8 was passed and is being challenged will

bring about that change - there will be a legal decision that states as clearly as Loving v. Virginia that "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The word "race" will be replaced by "gender".

Of course, the appointments to SCOTUS are vital for the efforts of those striving for civil rights for all. I trust Obama, as a con law scholar, to make wise appointments.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1

We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[merh]

2. You miss the historical difference.

The constitution provided for and protected slavery.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html

That is why the 13th and 14th amendments had to be adopted, to make the slaves free and to ensure that the states would afford them that freedom.

When Obama was asked about a marriage amendment he said he was not in favor of the same because marriage is not defined in the constitution. He is correct and that is a huge distinction, a very important consideration.

That is what folks do not understand, as a constitutional lawyer he knows the constitution and the importance of abiding by it.

He personally may be against same sex marriage because of his religious views but as a lawyer and as the leader of this nation, he knows what the constitution provides and that is equality under the law for all.

And if folks have some suspicion about whether distinctions can be made please keep in mind that there are catholic and mormon and other religious men serving as judges that grant divorces. Their religions may not approve of divorce but they took an oath to follow the law and their state laws do afford citizens the right to get divorced.

Good leaders do not let their religious views interfere with their role as guardians of the constitution. I believe Obama will be that type of good leader.

[firedupdem]

5. Thanks! Best explanation I've received on this issue. n/t

[merh]

9. I'm glad the explanation makes sense.

To me, the fact that he knows the constitution and understands it gives me the greatest hope.

[boppers]

13. I'm bullet pointing.

It's what I do. :(

Similar: Both groups have had Constitutional interpretations used against them.
Different: GLBTQ was never defined as inferior, superior, or even as an existing group or "class" in the Constitution.

[merh]

15. Your bullet points are correct.

Also, please remember that under the miscegenation statutes (prohibiting interracial marriages) those interracial couples that did marry faced criminal charges. I don't believe that there are any statutes which subject same sex couples who marry to criminal charges.

The anti-same sex marriage group like to argue that for over 2000 years the definition of marriage has been a sacred union between a man and a woman. What I find remarkable (from a legislative history/legal sense) is that those states that have adopted amendments to their constitutions and that have outlawed same sex marriages have had to actually define marriage to be "a union between a man and a woman" - before the revisions and amendments, there was no such definition in the state statutes or constitution.

[boppers]

22. "2000 years" is wrong.

Any beginner in anthropology could tell you this.

This is their "Jesus rode with dinosaurs" error, and should be mocked and ridiculed as such.

Legislatively, as well as in social discourse.

[merh]

23. Actually, it may well be 5000 years

depending on which religious leader has used the reference.

[boppers]

27. I see your 5,000 years...

and raise you (a poker term)....

17,000 years of worship by *women*, and men, of... women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Your call.

[dkf]

26. So is marriage the purview of the states because it isn't in the

constitution?

Is this more like a states rights issue?

And does the fact that the ERA didn't pass hurt the equal rights argument?

[merh]

29. The answer to your first and second questions is "no" - see the Loving v. Virginia

language cited in this thread.

Remember, segregation laws were supported by the majority of the citizens of many states. The US government had to step in and take action, either by lawsuits to enforce the laws and to protect the rights and/or by executive orders of the president (the guard sent in to states like Arkansas and Mississippi to allow children of race the access to the public schools).

Had the ERA passed it obviously would have bolstered the equal rights efforts. Many believe that the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides some of the needed protections. Sadly, what has occurred over the last 8 years is the bastardization of the DOJ - the agency that is, by statute, charged with protecting the rights of citizens.

"... to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, ... "

This admin skirted many of its responsibilities while it abused the power of its office. I'm not sure how long it will take to correct the wrongs.

[dkf]

31. If both those things are true then why isn't same sex marriage law?

I don't get how, if it is so obviously an equal rights issue, it isn't law. Is it simply that the Supreme will never allow it to be heard? Is it really as much of a slam dunk as that?

Secondly, is DOMA more to prevent one state from having to acknowledge another state's same sex marriage law? Or is it the entire basis for no same sex marriages nationwide?

[merh]

32. Because SCOTUS has not found the state laws forbiding same to

be unconstitutional. That is how interracial marriages were ruled legal and the laws opposing them illegal.

Consider how blacks felt when they knew that they had a Constitutional Amendment passed that made them full citizens yet states were passing laws that did not recognize them as such. Segregation laws were considered legal until SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional.

The passing of Prop 8 may well be the catalyst - it may well be the law that is challenged which will allow SCOTUS the opportunity to rule that no person can be denied the protection of the constitution and the rights as guaranteed under same, no matter their race, religion or gender.

[dkf]

35. But why does prop 8 make a difference when there are these types of laws

in a bunch of states?

I honestly don't get why prop 8 is the target over every other state's ban against same sex marriage.

And would one state's law be easier to attack than another state's?

[merh]

40. Someone has to challenge the laws.

If folks just accept them, then that is that.

You cannot expect SCOTUS to rule out of the blue, announce an opinion with no action having been filed before them.

For all of the anger and angst, there has to be folks willing to commit their time and money to the effort for as long as it takes. I'm not sure if such folks are out there now, I would presume so since the law in California before Prop 8 was challenged all the way and defeated. That is why the anti-same sex folks came up with prop 8 and pushed for it to be ratified (I guess they think amendments are harder to rule unconstitutional.)

I'm not sure prop 8 is the only law being challenged, I would bet it is not. The wheels of justice turn slowly, it takes time to get things heard.

[BeFree]

37. Good stuff, merh

Of course me saying so may make people deny your work here.

It is unbelievable that any court could ever find that the government has any reason to deny rights to people who want to live in any way that doesn't hurt others physically.

Let us hope no court ever does so again.

[merh]

41. At the risk of being ridiculed for being a fan

I will say again, Obama's knowledge and understanding of the constitution give me hope for the nation and the struggles for equality. Who better to have in office during the struggles, a white male that doesn't respect the constitution or a former con law professor that is also a minority?

[BeFree]

42. Risky behavior?

Yes, some would shame you for feeling that way.
What, we are all supposed to feel a certain way?
And if we don't feel a certain way we are wrong?

I say be free to feel any way you want.
Just don't expect me to feel the same.

Obama is just about the perfect person for the job, given the times and circumstances.
And with the realization that America is what it is. And that we need to change that.

[merh]

43. you can check my posts

I don't play things safe, I say what I want to say when I want to say it.

[BeFree]

46. Your posts

(deleted)

Sorry for going off tangent, I just wanted to say all that.

[merh]

47. LOL - why thank you

I'm honored that I am your love of the day :blush:

[Number23]

30. Fantastic post

I have to say, I think you should get today's...

[merh]

33. thank you

it has been a long time since I have been given a gold star. You made my day.

[Fearless]

7. So..

1. Being Black is external and being non-heterosexual is internal. There was never the idea that one could change Blackness, but there remains the foolish claim that one can change orientation one way or another. Educating America that it cannot be changed and therefore cannot be gotten rid of is of the utmost importance.

2. Even with the aforementioned statement, Americans DID try to civilize Black people as well as Christianize them. As with non-straight people there remains an underlying current in this nation's philosophy, supported historically, that if something is different we must change it to make it conform. Of course this is nonsense as it always has been.

3. The biggest turning point, imho, regarding equal rights for Black Americans is one that the non-straight community does not yet take advantage of (wholly). The fact is that Black people live among White (et. al.) people and to some extent we all will eventually coexist. Be it soon or in a couple of generations, coexistence leads to equality. For the non-straight community, stigma over this non-straightness for the Western World since time immemorial has been prolific. Non-straight people have been shamed into hiding and even into trying to force themselves into a straight society. In this way, status quo America can ignore non-straight people with little effort. We must break that cycle and we must become vocal advocates for the non-straight community that break both stigmas and preconceived notions (and we all can think of a few of those I'm sure).

And a note... I believe that the only way that we can progress as non-straight Americans and be accepted wholly into American society is to break the cycle of hate that has been established between us and orientationist Americans. We will have to break that cycle as no person who hates us has any desire to stop doing so of their own volition. We must make in roads into their lives and gain their respect. They will not treat us right unless they respect us. We have to use our numbers and our voices and our minds to forgive the person for their beliefs. If we continue the hate, they have reasons to continue to hate us. Dislike the belief and not the person. If you accuse someone or shun them then they may forever close their ears and eyes to us and our equality. Then we must gain their respect. Of course, it's easier said than done. Communication is the best inlet. Family and friends are the best recipients as they tend to already have some respect for us. If we can all convert four members of our own families or our friends then combined with 2 in 20, we have a majority and then we can affect the changes we need to to gain our equality. Laws are well and good, but as with Jim Crow, they can be ignored.

Sorry for the rant. :+ I guess I was on a roll.

NTF

:kick:

[boppers]

16. On your points:

#1 is about "passing", or "being white". I know dat no not gonna happen for native speakers of AAVE.

#2 I am repulsed by the phrase 'civilize', but yes, GLBTQ and AA were both supposed to change, and become "similar".

#3 People have been flying flags, wearing stickers on their cars... this has been slowly changing, but I admit that for those without "gaydar", there has been much blindness. I actually heard somebody say, less than 4 years ago, "What's with all the rainbows, is that a new religion?"

Good rant.

[Fearless]

8. BTW this is definitely not Presidential in nature!

[reflection]

39. Agreed. I'm not sure why GD-P is even named such. n/t

[salguine]

14. AAAAAAARRRGHHH! I'VE HAD IT WITH ACRONYMS! WHAT THE FUCK IS "AA"?!?!

[boppers]

17. African American

HAND

(Have A Nice Day)

[Sultana]

34. LOL

:rofl:

[Terran]

18. In these discussions, most people forget this:

There are a lot of African-Americans who are also gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgendered (or 'Q'). They shouldn't have to choose which aspect of their lives is more discriminated against. It's difficult, all around, and struggle for dignity is struggle for dignity, no matter who has to do it.

[boppers]

20. You are right.

Since I saw a purely binary schism on DU, I was attempting to address that portion.

A wheelchair-bound, PDD, deaf, blind, AA, boy, (at the ASDB in AZ) once told me (finger-sign rocks):
"I'll fuck who I want".

Heroes are often found in the hardest places.

[BeFree]

38. Eh?

That there's a potential problem. "I'll fuck who I want" ?!?!?!

That's a bad attitude. If taken at face value.

Now, had he signed "I'll fuck whoever will let me" no problem.

[Karenina]

36. That fact has been ignored

often in a most hurtful and uncivil manner recently. I hope this thread signals a new tone.

[xfundy]

24. Really

the issue is, do we have equality and equal treatment for all, or not?

[boppers]

28. That's part of the issue.

Justice is another part.

Rehabilitation and reparations may be another part.

Equality doesn't just "happen" after hundreds of years of inequality.

[Bad Thoughts]

44. The sexuality of both always shaped public perception of Africans and Gays

We've forgotten that African Americans have been stigmatized, as have Homosexuals, by the perception that they are permiscuous, either naturally or unnaturally. Indeed, this has tied them together: less 'civilized' humans engaging in a wider range of unacceptable behaviors, including sex with same gender; and homosexuals willingly crossing various socio-sexual divisions, even those of race. Moreover, the sexuality of both groups has been the subject of scientific inquiry into abnormality and degeneration.

On the flip side, African Americans have been more visibly "different" as a social group than homosexuals. This has been both beneficial and detrimental (I won't elaborate).

[Karenina]

48. The similarities you point to all have merit.

However, I find it crucial that we focus our attention on things other than the Tab A, Tab B morass. Amis are SO VERKLEMMPT about it we need a Hail Mary pass to the Judiciary on the basis of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Like what happened here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3661764

Because Smith's name wasn't on the document, his employer initially refused to enroll the child on his insurance, Smith wrote in a sworn statement. Smith, an accountant, is the family's breadwinner. The administrator eventually agreed to cover the boy, but "I am forced to go through this process each and every year" to keep him insured, Smith wrote. "As an adopted child myself, I understand the need a child has to feel like he or she belongs," Smith wrote. "I remember as a child wanting to see my own birth certificate and to see my parents listed because it gave me a sense of belonging, a sense of identity and a sense of dignity."

- snip -

Refusing to name both fathers on the birth certificate "singles out unmarried same-sex couples and their adoptive children for unequal treatment for the improper purpose of making them unequal to everyone else," said the lawsuit filed by Upton and Regina O. Matthews of New Orleans.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TWO_DADS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[BlackmanX]

45. bad idea to compare 2 groups of people

Black people don't like to have their struggles compared to other peoples. It's part of the reason for the disconnect that existed in CA. That's every group though because every group wants to believe that their struggle is unique. The idea should be to get gay people their rights without alienating other groups of people who could be sympathetic to the cause. It's not a matter of right or wrong comparisons it's about politics (which is about bringing groups together). I mean that the gay marriage issue shouldn't have been put to a vote because it's morally wrong to have people vote on a minority group's rights.

[Karenina]

49. Any more interest? PLEASE READ THE THREAD FIRST!

Thank you Bopperkins!

Tante K.