I agree with you. This is a well written article but there are many flaws in her arguments which you pointed out so I won't address them again. I don't think anyone is trying to fool themselves into thinking that if the LG are granted the right to marry that it would end discrimination. Did the Civil Rights movement eliminate racism? No! So it would be ignorant to assume that granting marriage to LG would eliminate inequality.

Cannick also claims there are bigger issues to face, that is a personal opinion. PETA probably thinks Prop. 2 was the most important bill on the ballot or the Veterans with Prop 12. In the end each minority group is going to think their issue is the most important issue to address. To say there are more important things to do is being narrow--all issues should be addressed simultaneously and they are by different organizations.

Ultimately, would it really have hurt her to discuss the opposition to Prop. 8 as she went door-to-door? And if she knows "...how to say what needs to be said." to convince the Black community to oppose Prop. 8, it is inconceivable to me that she didn't even try to bring up the issue. If anything I think she's a coward and a self-hating lesbian for not even trying.

Thanks for sharing.

 

first thought: she was paid to say that. The mormon church raised 30million dollars to approve prop 8. it just doesnt make sense why ayone would be like that. civil rights is civil rights: black, white, asian, south american. We're all AMERiCAN.


that woman needs to get laid and fall in love. then maybe if she even wanted to get married, she would change her tune.

 

This is a civil rights issue because of how it effects poor people. While the upperclass can choose to opt out of marriage, the poor often do not have that option. Poor people need to marry because they need access to health care, pensions, tax relief, and immigration benefits. Upperclass white gays are more likely to have the resources to hirer lawyers to draw up power of attorney documents and joint property agreements. Upperclass white lesbians are more likely to have both partners receiving health benefits. Upperclass couples are less likely to need the social security benefits of a partner who has passed. The upperclass are less likely to become homeless if their partner dies and leaves them with only one income and no pension payout. They can afford the legal battle to have their non-married partner immigrate to the US. The list goes on and on. The reason that Marriage equality is a Civil rights issue is because the denial of marriage is the denial of civil protections and benefits-not simply the denial of access to a word or social convention. And the denial of those rights disproportionately effects low income LGBT people of color.

 

That is a really interesting article.


Prop 8 issue actually is a false issue. The state should have NOTHING to do with marriage anyway!!! Get marriage out of the state, out of your bedroom, out of your religion and this will all swiftly disappear and everyone will be better off. But I digress...

This article is a great example of the failure of democracy and the bad side effects of the Democratic party. Why? Because it was the democratic party that really pushed over the years for people to vote "as a __" (vote as a woman, as a black, as a gay, etc). So instead of voting *in principle* protecting the rights of the individual we get politically active *groups* who act on their own self interest. Terrible. Just terrible. Our nation is swiftly devolving from a free republic to a mere democracy. The classic meaning of the term democracy is something bad. It amounts to majority rule or at least one group ruling another - it is the rule of men, not the rule of law. Aristotle lists democracy as a failed or vicious form of government. The Founding Fathers consistently warned against it. And here now we have a great example of total nonsense like this happening. Whoever wrote this article is voting not to make good laws that protect all in principle, but to benefit herself. Sadly, much of the civil rights movement is motivated by this same thing: group benefits, not individual liberty. But of course they had to do this to a certain extent to mobilize people to force changes. Its not like white men were so easily willing to give blacks and women equal rights in principle when they had all the political power! So failure all around.


Actually, these differences still somewhat exist today between Republicans and Democrats (though actually both have now devolved to being virtually the same party). Republicans traditionally would vote in principle - which is intrinsically correct - but they failed this by having bad principles (some of the time at least). And the Democrats traditionally would vote in groups - which is intrinsically wrong - but they gained by fighting for good things (some of the time at least). Do you see the HELL that this is? Its sickening, it really is. For the Ds the ends justify the means, which is an intrinsically immoral formula. For the Rs the ends happen to be wicked.


Now you can see why I am a libertarian/constitutionalist. I want BOTH good principles and good ends and liberty for all. But I will say this much - at least the republicans have the general formula correct and in place. Or they used to before the NeoCons took over -- NeoCons, btw are "neo" because they are former liberals -- and for the NeoCons the ends justify the means. Terrible.


Btw, the above is very general and intentionally so. Obviously not *all* Rs or Ds are this way. But in general it holds for the "culture" of the left and right wings and thus characterizes them.

 

I didn't read the article nor the lengthy comments. However, I am convinced that love is the same for everyone, so marriage should be allowed to everyone. The state is involved to protect the children that used to automatically arrive after marriage, and with adoptions probably should continue to be, but it IS a pain getting the state to recognize it. One wing of the Episcopal church is beginning to work on a same sex marriage rite so it'll be all religious wherever it is legal. You won't see it in Catholic or Orthodox churches, but it will become standard in most mainstream protestant denominations, except evangelicals.

 

never compare being Black in America to being gay.

thats disrespectful and ignorant.

Black men were raped by gay white slave masters in front of their families.

being gay in America has never stopped gay white people from amassing wealth or power.


Blackness and Chattel Slavery are unique.


as far as marriage goes; they should legalize polygamy and gay marriage the same day.


also, i would rather see legislation for reparations before gay marriage.


respect everyones right to choose.

even if they choose not to agree with your lifestyle.

 

I am not comparing being gay to the black slavery experience, but I don't think it's disrespectful or ignorant to say that if any human being is not receiving equal treatment and the rights they deserve, we are all left at a disadvantage.

Let's remember that there have been plenty of gays/lesbians raped and killed because of their sexual orientation. Now it may not be even close to the wrongness that slaves endured, and I'm not saying it is, but discrimination is ugly in any color.

I don't think that "Reparations" are EVER going to be on any ballot. Let's just be real here. Gay marriage was on the ballot and it was wrong of California to vote "yes" on Prop 8.
 

reparations were already approved.

we just never recieved them.

once again: you cant begin to compare.