Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected News Feed Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts CollectedComments

Browse > Home / Activism, Christianity, Church, Civil Rights, Crime, Culture War, Current Affairs / Of Gay Activists, “Rights” and Common Ground?

Of Gay Activists, “Rights” and Common Ground?

November 7, 2008 by Randy  
Filed under Activism, Christianity, Church, Civil Rights, Crime, Culture War, Current Affairs

Comments

As always, any time I talk public policy here on my private blog, it is my own opinion and not those of Exodus International unless directly stated.

I left this comment on the post California Courts Continue to Be a Catalyst of Social Division …

Marriage isn’t a civil right. It is a socially and legally defined benefit. Start talking about marriage as a legal benefit and you have my attention. As long as you frame it wrongly as a civil right you diffuse what true civil rights are and infuse a level of vitriol that isn’t necessary.

GayPatriot, a popular conservative gay blogger ( I know it’s confusing but … hang in there ) backs up this point of view.

Those who read this blog carefully note that I repeatedly refer to state recognition of marriage as a benefit, not a right. If marriage is a right, we already have it. A right simply means the freedom to do something. Gay people remain free to marry same-sex partners even if the state does not recognize our unions as such.

Even after Tuesday’s vote, couples who got married when the state recognized their unions will not be incarcerated or forced to leave the state should they continue to call their partnerships marriages.

Hence, the distinction between Lawrence and the various marriage cases.

Under Texas law (and that of a number of other states), before the decision was handed down, you could be arrested for engaging in consensual sex (as were the plaintiffs in that case).

With marriage, however, the issue is state recognition of the unions. Voters of California did not strip gay people of a right, as some activists claim. They merely voted to deny us the privilege of having the state call our unions “marriages.” But, we remain free to call them whatever we want.

…

The issue now is to make our case to California citizens why the state should call our unions marriages. And angry protests demonizing various churches will do little to accomplish that goal.

I know it makes for striking visuals to lash out at the predominantly white, conservative money bags of the Mormon Church. I have no doubt that militant gay activists thought that would be more productive of a target for their anger. It’s an easy target but not really the whole truth. The truth is that for all the money that the Mormons poured into the Prop 8 campaign … it was the minority groups that sank any hopes of defeating Prop 8.

And yet, we don’t see any angry gay mobs protesting African American Churches or civic groups. Attacking white Mormons … easy. Attacking African Americans … not so easy … and in fact would quickly and easily turn on them.

I think gay activist leaders are shooting themselves in the foot by claiming their struggle is a “civil rights” issue because the African American community, as well as most of the rest of us, know that this is not true. In fact, La Shawn Barber is very upset about it. (emphasis hers.)

… to think some homosexuals compare themselves to civil rights-era blacks! It burns me up, man. To calm myself down, I came up with this idea. Let homosexuals experience an authentic “civil rights movement” moment, complete with billy clubs upside the head, firehoses in the face, and attack dogs at the rear. I don’t condone violence for the sake of violence, but if these people want to co-opt a legitimate movement, they ought to experience it in full.

Let’s spit on them and shout nasty things as they march by. Let’s throw things and push and shove. Let’s pour stuff on their heads (the wrath of God?) and pelt them with rocks. Let’s run them off the road, pull them out of cars and do mock-lynchings to scare the…out of them.

But that would be ridiculous, just as ridiculous as homosexuals comparing their so-called plight to what black Americans went through.

So, I have a feeling that La Shawn is putting into words what a lot of people feel about comparing the modern homosexual culture war vs. the civil rights movement. I would never want anyone to suffer violence for any reason (and knowing La Shawn … neither would she) but the larger point she is making is undeniable.

The gay centered culture war is not a continuation of the civil rights movement.

At the same time, I personally believe that there is a legitimate issue here for same sex couples to take a hold of and frame it in a way that actually makes more sense (to me at least.) American citizens who identify as gay are a taxpayers. Just like I as a single man am a taxpayer. *We* should have a say in how our benefits are stewarded but there is more than one way to achieve that goal. The common ground is that we are all citizen taxpayers.

Melissa Etheridge had a very different reason for saying the following, and frames it with angry sarcasm (not agreeing with her but understandable.) But, I think her angle of being a fellow taxpayer actually has more credibility than hearing this very same very wealthy lesbian carry on about her perception that others consider her a second class citizen (which no one I know does.)

“Okay, cool I don’t mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We’re gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that’s not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won’t have to pay their taxes either.” - Melissa Etheridge, writing on The Daily Beast.

Etheridge is not a second class citizen being forced to see her partner in secret, living apart, forbidden to say the L word or having cigarettes put out on her arm at the local soda fountain counter. She is not being burned alive at the stake. Etheridge is a very rich, affluent, artistic, educated, civically active and blessed woman who had a commitment ceremony, lives with a woman she calls wife and even arranged to have children. They live in a nice home and are adored around the world. The government did not come and throw her in jail for her commitment ceremony, lynch her family, try to take her kids away or exile her to Sweden.

Is it any wonder why 70% of African American’s, and other minorities, don’t quite see the similarity of the “gay” struggle to the civil rights movement?

Etheridge, just like most of my gay identified opponents and friends, are doing quite well, or reasonably well (not everyone is rich like Etheridge) in this country. This is a country whose citizens, for the most part, do tolerate what they might not personally or morally accept.

I was once staunchly against civil unions and am still not for any public policy that would legally bind a same sex couple together. However, going down that road (reciprocal benefits?) is no longer off the table (not that I am any big deal beyond my one vote … just sayin’). I think there is probably a way to honor marriage as it has always been as well as make sure people who choose same sex life partners have a say in how their hard earned and paid taxes are distributed as benefits.

These are just probably wrong and incomplete opinions, subject to change. I am just trying to work it all out in my head and am actually now … officially tired of talking about it :).

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I don't know if using people like Melissa Etheridge is a good example. Remember that there were very wealthy and popular black American entertainers and entrepreneurs before the Civil Rights movement. Their wealth and status offered them extra security that the poorer and more provincial people did not have.

    The same can be said for gay men and women. Not everyone is able to move to San Francisco or Malibu or Manhattan. Not everyone even really wants to. Some people actually want to stay in small-town Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming -- You know, the places where they were born, where they have family, where they have built their lives. Not everyone comes into the money that allows them to get away, and even if they do it seems rather wrong to tell them to move, doesn't it?

    We didn't tell the black Americans in the South to just move up North during the 1960s. We knew that they deserved to live free wherever they chose to be. The same goes for gay men and women. I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. It's just that when it comes to persecution and attitudes, well... A middle class gay schoolteacher in small-town Wyoming deserves to be just as loved, respected, and protected as a wealthy lesbian rock star in California. I'm not sure we're at that point yet.
    • ^
    • v
    The gay rights activists who keep claiming that their civil rights are being abused are not complaining about the fact that school teachers in Wyoming aren't being loved and respected, they're saying that the entire population of gays in America is being denied basic civil rights.

    While it is true that there were some African American performers that were successful before the civil rights movement, they never had anything even approaching somebody like Ellen. The discrimination against black performers before the '60s has been incredible, including black performers who had to perform in blackface, in order to pretend to be white pretending to be black, and black performers who performed in whiteface in order to get jobs. And, although there were a very few individuals who managed to become successful, the vast majority of African-Americans pre-civil rights were severely economically and socially disadvantaged (not just in the south, either, check out the Pulitzer prize winning photograph of 1976, which was taken in Boston).

    The Gay community in America, on the other hand, tends to be just as well off, or better, than the rest of their fellow Americans. Although none on us will, I'm sure, dispute that gay individuals have been discriminated against, there have never been laws in place denying education, voting rights, equal pay, use of public spaces/amenities, or allowing people to systematically forbid access to restaurants, laundromats, etc. And although wealthy gay celebrities are the easiest to point out because they're celebrities, and therefore well known, there also are many, many well off, well paid non-celebrity members of the gay community. Like the people who attend the White Party, Circuit Queens in general, and the guy who wrote "The Cost of Being Gay" a couple of months ago in the Advocate (apparently $55 Gap jeans are beneath him as a gay man). And the obligatory gay man or couple who is always featured in Elle Decor, along with their recently redecorated mansion or swanky New York apartment. These are of course extreme examples. But in 1960, I'm pretty sure you could not have found any black journalist declaring that equivalent-to-the-time-period clothing was beneath him as a black man because it just cost too little. You also wouldn't find the Black equivalent to the portion of the middle class that also happens to be gay, and that shops at the Gap and Eddie Bauer (I'm actually referring to a specific person there) quite happily and with no strain on their pocket books.
    • ^
    • v
    That's why I said this wasn't about rights, but about attitudes. Do you think that if sexuality was something one could see as easily as skin color or gender, that gays might also be denied education, voting rights, equal pay, etc. in some parts of the country? I think they could, which is why a lot of people in backwoods areas tend to stay in the closet for a long time. And some people never get the means to get out of those areas, so they stay in the closet forever. It's not freedom if someone feels they have to hide in order to get by.

    No one denies Christians in Middle Eastern countries the rights to education, voting rights, equal pay, etc. However, that's because no one admits to being a Christian. I'm not saying that the struggles are the same (Christians in the Middle East have it way worse, by far). But the concept is similar. You can say that gays have it easy because in large parts it is still taboo. People aren't out because they fear the consequences... And trust me, people do get fired, their property does get vandalized, they do get beaten and mocked. Except for the firing issue, these don't exactly fall under civil rights, but they do represent attitudes that need to change... Not in places like California or New York, but in all</> parts of the country.
    • ^
    • v
    In some Middle Eastern countries it's illegal to be a Christian or to convert to Christianity. Nobody admits to it because they would be executed if they did (and people have been thrown in jail and killed because of it). That is a clear legally based violation of human rights, as well as a clear incentive to stay inside the religious closet. On the other hand, there is no law that makes it illegal to be gay in this country. There is now no law preventing homosexual behavior, and those that did exist have been struck down by the supreme court, something I support.

    The fact that private individuals choose to discriminate against gays is also, as you admit, not a violation of human rights. It is something that should be able to be remedied by legal action, and that is increasingly the case. And you're right, the attitudes of those private citizens should change. But it's still not a civil or human rights issue.

    And therein lies the problem. We now have people standing on street corners in places like Hollywood, Westwood, and Long Beach (three of the most desirable neighborhoods/areas in LA) holding up signs that say things like "In California chickens have more rights than me." This is patently untrue and completely ridiculous (At least I've never seen a gay man trapped in a cage, awaiting slaughter to be served up as coq au vin). It's also ironic, because the guys holding up those signs probably voted for prop 2 (which was apparently the chicken rights amendment). Then you have people like Melissa Etheridge (and a lot of average people on the ten o'clock news) complaining about how this is exactly the same as taxation without representation. Again patently false and ridiculous. She got to go down to her polling place and vote on prop 8, just like everybody else. Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted, doesn't mean you didn't get to vote in the election, which is what that phrase means. And it also doesn't mean that you get to decide not to file income taxes, which is still considered tax evasion and is punishable by both fines and jail time.

    At the end of the day we have a group of people trying to expropriate the language and moral authority of civil rights, for an issue that is not a matter of civil rights. If the protesters in Long Beach want to go to Wyoming to change attitudes about the treatment of gays, more power to them. But right now that's not what they're doing.
    • ^
    • v
    I suppose this is why I am more-or-less politically apathetic (I mean, unless a pro-life Libertarian comes into power I'll never have a President or Senator who will represent even a majority of my views). I care little about legalities. I think people should be free to set up whatever sort of situation they wish in terms of benefits, etc. (Chaplian Chas and Randy are making interesting points about this in the comment thread below this one).

    I guess any battle really needs to be fought on the front of changing attitudes before anything else. That's primarily where my heart always is. I could care less about the law unless it is bringing people to the Kingdom (and the only laws I get passionate for are pro-life ones, because that protects unborn children who could eventually be a part of that Kingdom).

    Christians need to change their attitudes in how they relate to gays (this is a Biblical mandate for them), and many gays need to change their attitudes in how they relate to Christians (this is simply a good idea for them, since compromise is more feasible than total acceptance). I don't know how we can go about changing these attitudes, but on both sides, it's where the battle needs to be first. My biggest fear is that both sides will see a legal victory as the end of their endeavors.

    Oh, and I am glad you supported the Supreme Court's decision to make homosexual behavior legal. I didn't think you would have supported that. Guess that shows what they say about assumptions is true... :)
    • ^
    • v
    Anti-sodomy laws just seemed so much like Big Brother to me (and I don't mean Randy's iPhone). They're impossible to fairly enforce, short of putting surveillance equipment in people's bedrooms. It's illegal to have sex period in public already, and I don't t really see the need to penalize certain types of sexual behavior more than others. Not to mention there's been major disagreement, ever since anti-buggery laws in England, over whether they should apply to straights and gays, or just gays (and what about Lesbians, anyway?), and what types of sex sodomy actually means (ie, it's been interpreted to cover blow jobs and male on male hand jobs at times). At the end of the day they're just a legal way of being overly mean to gay men, and I'm not a big fan of that.

    Anyway, I actually pretty much agree with you on the concept of 'Let people make their own arrangements.' I think if the two of us were talking face to face, we'd be surprised on how similar our views on most things are.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you! I needed a good laugh. That line about the cage and being served up as coq au vin was just too funny. Thanks!
    • ^
    • v
    B.T. ... I think you are my hero today :).
    • ^
    • v
    Why am I your hero?
    • ^
    • v
    because you said everything I was going to say and more ... very well I might add.
    • ^
    • v
    I believe my best friend, a man I am not married to, should be able to visit me in intensive care, as well. This is a common-to-man issue.

    Interesting thoughts, Randy, on the tax-thing and all. I'll need to process that a bit...

    C.
    • ^
    • v
    Feel free to add your thoughts post processing. I would be interested to know what they are.

    If I don't marry, I would like my social security benefits, that I have paid for my entire life, to go toward my nieces, or their children's, college funds.
    • ^
    • v
    Homeschoolers have been making similar points for years. We're paying for our curriculum, pencils, paper, etc. We're equipping our children to be assets, not detriments to society, yet we're paying for public schools through our taxes. Rural folks who often live off dirt roads (like many of my relatives in North Dakota and south Texas) pay taxes for the maintenance of highways in big cities. The list goes on and on. Every tax we as citizens pay does not benefit us directly.
    • ^
    • v
    That is a *very* good point Jandesmom. Thank you for commenting.
    • ^
    • v
    I would like to point out, for the record, that some very high profile African Americans, many of who were instrumental in the civil rights movement, disagree with LaShawn Barber's take.

    And on that note, I think her call for violence, even with the caveat, deserves condemnation rather than exaltation. I don't see this as the same as the civil rights movement, but to call violence, even hypothetically, on those that do gets us nowhere.
    • ^
    • v
    More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.

    Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start viewing our families - OUR FAMILIES - as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are.....well.....we USED to be!

    Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally, whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children, working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.

    FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?

    We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?

    This is NOT a test.
    This is NOT a debate.
    This is NOT a vote.
    This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.

    This IS justice - GAY TAX PROTEST.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus