Is the push for legalizing gay marriage a real civil rights movement?
Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
2012/05/21 18:25:13
|
|
|||||
|
52 votes
|
|
56% | |||
|
41 votes
|
|
44% | |||
I happened upon an article that was explaining that it is NOT a civil rights movement.
Homosexual marriage is not a
civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex
marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights
movement — and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the
moral equal of segregationists.
The marriage radicals, on the
other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the
law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right
to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their
demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better
than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the
same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on
entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never
before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by
judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else
that may be, it isn't civil rights.
That was an excerpt from Jewish world review: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
Obviously some disagree with this idea.
For example:
"An act as unremarkable as
getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing
it," Rich wrote, "much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica
lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a
Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the
Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding
veils — and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in. ~ Frank Rich, New York Times
So I wondered: What do you think, Is the Gay Marriage movement actually a Civil Rights movement?
Homosexual marriage is not a
civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex
marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights
movement — and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the
moral equal of segregationists.
The marriage radicals, on the
other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the
law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right
to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their
demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better
than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the
same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on
entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never
before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by
judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else
that may be, it isn't civil rights.
That was an excerpt from Jewish world review: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
Obviously some disagree with this idea.
For example:
"An act as unremarkable as
getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing
it," Rich wrote, "much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica
lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a
Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the
Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding
veils — and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in. ~ Frank Rich, New York Times
So I wondered: What do you think, Is the Gay Marriage movement actually a Civil Rights movement?
Top Opinion
-
ProudProgressive 2012/05/21 18:38:22Yes
+16It depends on how you define "civil rights". I've always thought of "civil rights" as being the right to be treated fairly and equally in the exercise of personal liberties and/or the right not to be discriminated against based on extraneous considerations like race, religion, country of origin, gender, etc. I would, therefore, consider the right to be treated equally by the civil marriage laws to be a civil right.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
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.
One must always consider themselves as a part of the entire human race lest they allow their natural predigious's to get the best of them and society!
>that includes the right to legally marry any consenting adult that you choose to.
Please we don't worry about genetics. Its bull.
That retard Hank Aaron was from Alabama as well
Joe Edwards the idiot astronaut was from Alabama
Joe Forehand the CEO of First Data is from Alabama
Layfayette Guild too. He was a pioneer in research of Yellow fever.
John Hendricks founder of Discovery network.
The list goes on and on.
You know... NOTHING good comes out of Alabama.
Congrats on having some great people from your state. :)
In terms of the law, marriage is a legal union between two people that affords them certain rights, responsibilities, and protections, such as:
Next-of-kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions.
Joint insurance policies.
Divorce protections.
Inheritance and right of survivorship.
Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner.
Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner.
Domestic violence protection.
Joint lease, ownership, and responsibility.
In all there are about 300 state and 1,100 federal rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections given to married couples that same sex partners are excluded from for no other reason than their gender.
This makes it a civil rights issue. There's really nothing to debate.
or should they wait until the government sees the light and bows out completely? suppose the government was involved in denying YOU a right the rest of the population enjoyed. would YOU wait until the government voluntarily let go of an issue it had been involved in for over 230 years [not to mention the 1,800 prior to the founding of this country]? seriously?
this morning I was watching a program about Charlemagne. he had 5 wives and 16 [I think] concubines. and the commentators made the point that, during his lifetime, the Church hadn't yet gotten involved in marriages.
so, I take it back. it hasn't been 1800+ years that religions and governments have been involved. it's been somewhat less than 1,000.
still, waiting for the church and state to let go, at this point, would be a losing proposition.
people deserve to enjoy the same rights as their peers. period.
or would you prefer to return to the 1950's when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry? today, that stance brands one as a bigot - - just as, in 10 years, the argument you made will do. wait and see.
Yeah, this is a civil rights issue.
Telling them they can't marry the person they love is absolutely a civil rights issue.
Ultimately it's a human rights issue.