Monday, December 01, 2008

Special rights? - updated

I had a visit from the blogger at Holy Hell (The News That Frustrates And, Or Scares The Batcrap Out Of Me) who responded to the sidebar item above with comments about Prop 8 and the subsequent protests that include the following:

You, the homosexual, are not any less restricted in marriage than I, the heterosexual am.

You have the same rights in marriage as I do, no more, no less.

You ARE demanding special rights.

I believe this is a major case of missing the point. Those who desire the legal status of marriage are not asking for fewer restrictions in marriage than straights. They are asking for exactly the same rights, no more, no less. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THEM. Which is why it is about equal rights and not special rights.

How can one conclude that gays have the same rights in marriage as others when they cannot marry? The middle sentence above flies in the face of the current situation, except in those very few states that allow same-sex couples to marry. In the vast majority of the United States it simply is not true.

Very few (percentage wise) homosexuals have been denied employment, housing or health care because they are homosexual.

Since the passage of proposition 8 church services have been interrupted invaded by condom throwing, cursing, spitting homosexuals.

White powder has been sent to a Mormon church and a Book of Mormon burnt on the stoop of another Mormon church.

Businesses and individuals have been targeted and harassed for their support in terms of monies for prop 8.

When black Americans were fighting for their Civil Rights it was because they actually were being denied rights afforded to every American.

You, the homosexual are not.

I don't know about percentages but I know that I was once denied housing (in West Hollywood, no less) in a "family" apartment building. I do not condone interrupting worship services and I'd like to know how many instances of this have occurred. This sort of thing quickly becomes the matter of urban legend and multiplies. I vehemently disapprove of white powder being sent in the mail, which is a crime.

There is a garbled distinction made between the struggle of African-Americans for civil rights and the LGBT struggle for civil rights. I don't believe in homogenizing oppression and playing the "who suffered the most" game because that sets us all against each other. Dr King said that no one is free until all are free and I am willing to go with that. He has been one of my heroes since I was in high school.

Intriguingly, the writer quotes Malcolm X ("by any means necessary") as a parallel to alleged (and some real) actions by gay protesters and then continues as though Malcolm X in his fiercest period (not to mention the Black Panthers) was not part of it:

You’ll kindly look back into our still fairly recent history and take notice as to how black Americans fought for their Civil Rights in comparison to how the homosexual movement demands their perceived Civil Rights by way of threats and intimidation.

The homosexual movement has conducted itself in a way far more similar to the Klu Klux Klan than to the black American who sought Civil Liberties.

My straight friend, the LGBT movement has not been lynching or shooting, so you might want to back off that analogy. One burning Book of Mormon is not quite a spate of cross burnings on lawns throughout many communities.

And I proudly boycott. I rather remember that being part of the civil rights struggle, the fight on behalf of migrant workers, and attempts to dismantle apartheid. Just saying.

Thanks for stopping by. I just think your understanding both of what has been and what is might be skewed.


There are some great comments by Rabbi Denise L. Eger at Susan Russell's blog.

--the BB


Earthbound Spirit said...

This person obviously isn't aware that during the 1960's several church services were "disrupted" in the south. How? Black people had the temerity to show up at white churches and quietly ask to be admitted to worship. They were not treated kindly, in most instances, and their actions were often reported as far more aggressive than they were. I had the privilege of meeting and speaking with a retired (white) minister who had encouraged such "pray-ins." That man still bears visible scars from his civil rights efforts. He is one of my many heroes.

Showing up where one isn't wanted is part of civil rights history. Boycotting is, too (Montgomery, busses...). Some day, we shall overcome the idea that some peoples' rights are "special."

In the struggle...

Doorman-Priest said...

Thank you.

Sometimes you have to wonder at some folk.

IT said...

I think the answer to his question is whether he wants a gay man marrying his daughter?

Indeed, nothing has to change in law to allow gay people to marry: all the laws work just fine.

No one condones violence. of course a very few events get played up by the media, but the vast majority of protests have been non-violent. It is worth noting that at the biggest protest in the country, in San Diego, 25,000 marched peacefully and the only arrest was a counter protester who tried to start a fight.

I would have hoped they also had arrested the woman who was angry that the road was blocked and tried to drive through the crowd, but apparently they didn't.

As for violence, do we really need to rattle off the names? Matthew Shepard, Lawrence King, Barry Winchell, and so many others.

Ii think it more interesting to ask why people like your correspondent are so filled with anger and hatred of gays. I don't get angry at straight people for being straight; I love them. My whole family is straight. Why does it matter?

susankay said...

This person is totally without clue. Nevermind the dreadful financial impact of denying marriage to anyone (specifically with referrence to income and estate taxes). Nevermind the implicit statement that some people are "less than" other people. Nevermind the pain caused by churches refusing a dearly wished good to devout couples.

The real proof that this twit is SO wrong would only be provided by a seance with my dear departed and seriously opinionated mother. (Altho other mothers might also serve). Just TRY telling your mother that you don't think much of marriage, thank you -- that you think you'll just live with your love. (I know -- I briefly tried it on with my Mom --- whew!! I was kidding but it rapidly became VERY clear that SHE didn't consider "partnership" the same thing AT ALL)

Jane R said...

Good answer, Paul.

In solidarity (and in agreement),


it's margaret said...

oh ---lordy.

I am sorry you had to endure such nonsense. Shake it off.

Hah! --dang, I always get great word verifications here. Tonight, my word is "lection."

So, ummm --Blessed are you who are persecuted.....

Paul said...

Thanks for so many great comments, folks. I didn't endure any nonsense in this. I just saw someone had been to my blog and clicked to see where he came from. He did not leave comments here, only stated his opinions. I thought they were questionable so I questioned them on my space without barging into his.