Mike in MO didn't write that comment, Dan.

Whoever wrote the comment; the fact is that gay rights are a civil rights issue.

And, it wasn't so long ago that vice cops across the country were rounding up gays, in bars and other private establishments, and carting them off to jail. Further back, there was this dude named Oscar Wilde, who served hard time in jail for "crimes against nature," right? Or am I misremembering?

The victory in Loving v. Virginia (which is a great case name) was a plank in the black civil rights movement, just like gay marriage is a plank in the gay civil rights movement.

We have overcome police raids on our bars, we have overcome the need to remain closeted to our workmates and families, we have overcome automatic associations with communism, which led to some rough times for gays during McCarthy's scourge of terror, and we have overcome the horrible, homophobic response to the AIDS crisis by the Regan administration.

Marriage is one of our final battlegrounds. Just because the stakes aren't mortal anymore doesn't mean that this isn't a civil rights issue.

Nope. It was "gross indecency" that Wilde served for. Same same.

I think the charge against Wilde was "acts of gross indecency with persons of the male sex", i.e. consorting with male prostitutes. That was part of a set of statutes that actually emphasized protecting young girls from adult male pedophiles, if I recall correctly...

It was me, not Mike, that wrote that comment. And I agree with you that the gay and lesbian civil rights movement is a civil rights movement, one that I hope is fully successful. That being said, I believe supporters of gay rights do their own movement a disservice by comparing today with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Regardless of what you mean by that comparison, it comes of as sounding like you think gays today suffer like blacks did before the civil rights successes of the 1960s. We all know this is not the case. To reiterate, I support gay marriage, and I support gay civil rights, but I find it repulsive when people think the moral wrongdoing to gays today matches what blacks lived through in the 60s and earlier.

So...when are we going to take to the streets to protest this terrible Supreme Court Decision? I'm really surprised at the tepid response we've given, and I'm merely a straight ally.

This is a town wherein the left was livid when the WTO came here; but, deny our brothers and sisters fundamental rights? Ho hum...a forum here, a forum there.

I'm pissed, and I still want to vent my anger in a visible way.

Barry, you do yourself a disservice to trivialize the hardships of the gay rights struggle, today and in the years before.

We have, in fact, been brutalized, imprisoned and murdered. That one hardship does not rise to the level of another hardship cannot negate the validity of the comparison. How much more institutionalized discrimination would we have to face before we meet your criteria for "worthy victimhood?"

Your repulsion at the mere comparison smacks of Hutcherson-style hypocrisy. I frankly don't give a shit whether you approve of the comparisons or not.

I think what they mean is it's pretty much the only major civil rights issue still actively discriminated against in most states and by most people.

Said statement, of course, will probably be flame bait for both LGBT and anti-gay people, IMHO.

I never hear—or rarely hear—gay people comparing our movement to the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, Ed Murray goes out of his way to emphasize the that the gay civil rights movement does not, in many ways, compare to the Civil Rights Movement.

But the urge to deny us the use of the lower-case phrase is often motivated by homophobia—not in your case, Barry, but definately in cases like, oh, Rev. Hutcherson's.

Mr. Summerlin,

I urge you to read what I have written more carefully. I am well aware of the struggles gay suffer and in no way aim to trivialize them. Of course there are similarities between these two civil rights movements. Both blacks and gays have been heavily marginalized, and in both cases the wrongdoings are unequivocally immoral. But you MUST acknowledge that gays not being able to marry is NOT the same as blacks being killed, beaten, and denied the right to vote. Yes, I realize gays suffer from violence as well, but I brought this up because someone specifically related MARRIAGE to the civil rights movement. They are different.

As someone who knows a few conservatives, I can assure you that your comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1960s alienate people who would otherwise support gay civil rights. Good luck trying to convince a random person in Iowa that gays not being able to marry is morally equivalent to being violently beaten because you were black and tried to vote.

For the nth time, I support gay marriage and gay civil rights. The fact that gays are unable to marry upsets me. But I also appreciate that gay marriage is a different battle.

I look forward to hearing from you, hopefully next time in a more reasoned and less self-righteous tone.

Barry

Some African-Americans aren't black, either.

Some LGBTs are killed. Many, in fact. Many of my sisters and brothers are killed EVERY YEAR.

http://www.gender.org/remember/day/what.html

How is that different from murdering blacks in the 50s and 60s? It may not be lynching but it is just as insidious.

Okay I am going to let you all know where I stand on "gay" rights before I eat on whether or not it is a civil rights issue.

I oppose all violence on any grounds other than self defence or protection...thus I will be among the first to condemn an attack (be it physical or an unredeemable emotional attack).

I do; however, oppose gay marriage and support gay adoption only when there is not a more beneficial situation for the kids. email me at neallawyer@yahoo.com if you wish to know why I take these stands.

I do not view the gay fight as a civil rights issue...for one thing the progay forces go well beyond "equal" treatment with such as the lavendar graduations that some universities do these days and with the California legislature's attempts to indoctrinate children into the gay lifestyle. Add this to the fact that there are thousands who the living God have delivered from this lifestyle.

I encourage my gay friends to return to the way they were created to be for the same reason I encourage my smoking and drinking friends to stop...primarily because of the extreme health risks that the addiction brings with it.

This was the last time Dan?

Seems you were mentioned on America Blog...

Huzzah Dan!

Those who object to the struggle for civil rights by any community based on the notion that it is somehow not equal to, or as noble as, the struggle of another community completely misunderstand the comparison being made. It is not about the different historical or circumstantial realities of the different struggles; it is a comparison of the rhetoric employed by those who would impose their petty hatreds on a group of people they wish to dehumanize.

In 2004, an African-American preacher in Virginia wrote an article excoriating gay people for the comparisons being made. I wrote a response:
http://letao.djsaab.info/?p=360

He didn't just say that AND give us his email....this has to be a viscious joke...well, just in case it isn't i'll forward him my spam for the next month or two, anyone else wanna find out more about his bigotry?

But you MUST acknowledge that gays not being able to marry is NOT the same as blacks being killed, beaten, and denied the right to vote.

Sure, I acknowledge that. I'd be curious to know if you've ever heard of someone suggesting otherwise in a situation where the person was not clearly insane.

Comparisons to Loving v. Virginia, however, are entirely appropriate. Insofar as that ruling was a part of "The Civil Rights Movement," note the caps, your objection seems specious.

That other comparisons are appropriate regarding being beaten, killed, or denied the right to vote, would seem to weaken your position even further.

I don't doubt that you know some people who feel alienated by the comparisons. I know some, too. What I strongly doubt is that such comparisons are what prevent these people from supporting civil rights for gay people. Sorry, I just don't buy it. That explanation makes no sense from any psychological standpoint.

I object to any position that says, in essence: "the problem with the gay civil rights movement is..."

Can you see why? Who really has the problem? Is it so hard to understand why I equate those positions to those who claim rape victims might have "had it coming" if they were dressed too seductively? How is it even different from the "Archie Bunker" position in the 1970s that Black people wouldn't have it so bad if they'd just stop talking that jive dialect, or wearing those scary picks in their afros? Or even the 1990s conservative backlash against "ebonics?"

Truly I appreciate your voiced support for GLBT equality, and I no longer doubt your sincerity. For the last several days I have been extraordinarly angry, for reasons I hope are obvious, and if that anger translated into a sense of self righteousness, I apologize.

But I still don't accept your complaint.

Johnny - no, I don't. I get plenty of clueless bigotry from my own family. I don't need the dubious pleasure of hearing it all over again from strangers.

As his spokesman, I can tell you that Ron Sims, who cut his political teeth marching alongside his parents in the 1960s as they fought for African-American civil rights, sees nothing inappropriate about the comparison. When I spoke to him a few minutes after the court's decision to uphold DOMA came down the first words out of his mouth were that this ruling was the equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson. That was the infamous US Supreme Court decision that gave legal sanction to discrimination against blacks until it was overturned more than 50 years later in Brown v. Board of Education.
For that matter, Coretta Scott King spoke often and passionately that the struggle for gay equality is a fundamental issue of civil rights. And I believe that John Lewis, the MLK aide who was one of the most heroic leaders of the African-American civil rights struggle of the 1960s, has made similar statements.

As his spokesman, I can tell you that Ron Sims, who cut his political teeth marching alongside his parents in the 1960s as they fought for African-American civil rights, sees nothing inappropriate about the comparison. When I spoke to him a few minutes after the court's decision to uphold DOMA came down the first words out of his mouth were that this ruling was the equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson. That was the infamous US Supreme Court decision that gave legal sanction to discrimination against blacks until it was overturned more than 50 years later in Brown v. Board of Education.
For that matter, Coretta Scott King spoke often and passionately that the struggle for gay equality is a fundamental issue of civil rights. And I believe that John Lewis, the MLK aide who was one of the most heroic leaders of the African-American civil rights struggle of the 1960s, has made similar statements.

First of all, thanks to David Summerlin for clearing my good name...

Secondly, Neal MC wrote: "I do not view the gay fight as a civil rights issue...for one thing the progay forces go well beyond "equal" treatment with such as the lavendar graduations that some universities do these days and with the California legislature's attempts to indoctrinate children into the gay lifestyle. Add this to the fact that there are thousands who the living God have delivered from this lifestyle." (emphasis mine)

That pretty much says it all. You probably believe in the tooth fairy too.

You're welcome, Mike in MO. I know I would be enraged -- enraged I tell you -- to have Dan Savage claim I wrote that. Enraged.

Just received a comment (blog.reys.be/index.php?url=archives/416-Booh-to-gay-people!.html&serendipity[csuccess]=true#c2326) from that neallawyer at yahoo.com on a little article I put on my blog. In fact, I copied the thing, just because I thought it was funny.

Now I believe the guy is a bit @n@l. @n@l, as in: the unfortunate shortened version of "analytic.". The word has become very popular as a word not related to what you might think... and refers to overly analytic people who think that their small-minded arguments matter.
His opinions are his, and perhaps he will have a different one in the near future, who knows? So don't spam him. But if you have a website, googlebombing him on the word @n@l might be a good idea. Let's have @n@l refer to his petition on numerous blogs and websites: www.petitionthem.com/?sect=detail&pet=984
Any other suggestions for a googlebomb are more than welcome.
Sorry for the weird spelling, the comment gets trapped in some silly spam detector