No More Mr. Nice Gay

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson

As hard as I try to find another way to say it, yesterday's California Supreme Court decision makes this unattractive concept abundantly clear: gays and lesbians are now the only minority in America against whom discrimination is not only legal, but in many cases, encouraged. California has become the first state in U.S. history to amend its constitution to deprive a minority of a right that they had been legally granted. Now, with both the courts and the legislature unwilling to defend their rights, California's LGBT population must return to the people who consider them unequal citizens, and try to convince them that they're worthy of equal protections under the law. If the irony of this decision being handed down on the day Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court wasn't so pernicious, there might be room for levity. Alas there is not.

For years, and with the best of intentions, gay activists have been reluctant to call the struggle for full and equal rights under the law what is actually is: the defining civil rights battle of our era. Sensitive to the feelings of other minority civil rights activists and historians, and often accused of "appropriating the civil rights movement" (as though there were a limited number of civil rights battles to go around) gays and lesbians have hesitated to equate the struggle for gay rights with the struggle with African American civil rights in the 1960's in spite of the undeniable parallels.

"Loving vs. Virginia," the landmark case that ended the ban on interracial marriage, is the most obvious parallel, and the most germane to the discussion at hand. In 1967, 70% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, and the repeal of its ban was not put to the public for obvious reasons.

Last night on Larry King Live, radio talk show host Dennis Prager bumbled his way through an earnest defense of Proposition 8, positing the nightmare scenario (to him, at least) of little girls being asked by their friends if they'd rather marry a girl or a boy. When King pointed out that the same justification Prager was using to support Proposition 8 had been used in the past against interracial marriage, Prager puffed up like a male wild turkey in the forest bent on intimidation.

"Sex and race are not the same thing," he boomed. "A black man and a white man are the same human being, but a man and a woman are not the same human being." Huh? "That's why we have Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts," went on earnestly. "Not Black Scouts and White Scouts." He went on to explain that married women were leaving their husbands in droves for lesbian relationships because "sexuality is fluid." What this had to do with legalizing gay marriage remains a mystery (not to mention the suggestion that if the bonds of heterosexual marriage aren't strong enough to contain these sleeper cells of proto-lesbians, perhaps the problem is straight marriage, not gay marriage.)

While it seems amazing that Prager's comments couldn't have sounded as insipid to him as they did to anyone with a basic grasp of language (let alone history) he perfectly articulated the incoherence of reality-free, emotion-based arguments against equal marriage. King reminded Prager that it did in fact include segregated Scouts. It also included the pre-1948 segregation within the U.S. army, which Harry Truman ended by executive order, not a public vote. Again, the arguments against allowing black soldiers to live and serve alongside their white counterparts are disturbingly similar to those used to expel gay and lesbian soldiers. History has validated Truman's courage in the same way it's waiting to validate Obama's.

Today, of course, the thought of putting the civil rights of any racial, religious, or cultural minority up to a majority vote is abhorrent. Unless of course it's the LGBT population, at which point the "debate" suddenly becomes about "religious beliefs" and "lifestyle choices." At that moment, all the prevailing scientific facts about sexual orientation being neither a choice nor a malady goes out the window, and the data from countries where equal marriage is already a reality that has had no negative impact on traditional marriage, or society takes a backseat to religious superstition and cultural prejudices.

The argument that the struggle for equal marriage isn't equivalent to the struggle for interracial marriage in 1967 falls flat at the outset when opponents of equal marriage assert that because interracial marriage involved heterosexuals, banning it was "illogical." The argument neglects the very real fact that opposition to interracial marriage in 1967 wasn't based on "logic," it was based on the same reflexive revulsion the opponents of gay marriage feel. Like interracial marriage in its day, gay marriage today is perceived as equally "unnatural," and produces a similar "ick factor" that has nothing whatsoever to do with facts or legitimate arguments. The end result was, and is, the same: that the personal bigotry of a majority deleteriously shapes the reality of a minority, and for no reason other than that it can.

It's too obvious to point out that "God's word," the penultimate fallback position for those who cannot logically back up any of their arguments against allowing equal legal civil marriage for gays and lesbians, was used to similar effect in support of marital segregation prior to 1967 as well. Since God is presumably in His heaven (or else sitting on a cloud ten miles above Florida, controlling the weather and blessing America) and remarkably silent on the issue, American evangelicals have stepped up to the plate to speak in loco parentis on His behalf, just as they did in 1967 and before.

It may finally be time to admit that while the circumstances are significantly different, each generation brings its own civil rights battle to the field, and each defines its era. The good liberal guilt many people feel about stating this, clearly and unambiguously, is perhaps a luxury we can no longer afford.

It's time for right-thinking people across the ethnic and cultural divides, activists and non-activists alike, to see beyond their own religious and cultural prejudices and make common cause with the movement for marriage equality and the repeal of the ban on gays in the military in the name of doing the right thing by their fellow man.

If that means church members standing up to the purveyors of prejudice in every ethnic and cultural community, so be it. There is more than enough history of oppression to go around, and while each manifestation of that history is different, the motivation behind the oppression is startlingly consistent, as are the effects on its people, including its children. It's time for people to recognize that the same tools they are using to wound and hinder the progress of equal rights for LGBT Americans have been used, in many cases, to great effect, throughout U.S. history against other minorities, including African Americans.

The LGBT community isn't demanding the first gay president (or perhaps the second, the jury still being out on James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States whose twenty-year roommate was Senator William Rufus DeVane King, nicknamed "Aunt Nancy" and "Miss Fancy" by Andrew Jackson) or a lesbian Supreme Court Justice. Yet. What they want, and what they're fighting for is full membership in American society without the three historical pillars of social exclusion (especially for men): the ability to marry someone of their own choice, the ability to raise and protect a family, and the right to serve and defend their country in the military. If those aren't "family values," then "family values" don't exist. LGBT people are not any threat to "the family." They are the family: sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives. The joining of two families is one of the oldest rites in the history of the human race.

It's time that the full rights of every American be fully enshrined and protected, and that the battle for those rights be acknowledged as this generation's defining civil rights battle. In 1965, two years before Loving vs. Virginia, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol and paraphrased 19th century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker. "The arc of the moral universe is long," Dr. King said, "but it bends towards justice."

The circumstances and manifestation of justice may change, from decade to decade, but the principles of justice remain inviolable. Our children are watching, and history is a harsh judge.

Comments

[Randy Shepherd]

Michael is dead on. People who want to discriminate have always used religion. Slaves were permited, women did not have equal status, and gays were evil. Should rape victims still have to marry their attackers (Deuteronomy 22:28)? My point is not to use the bible to justify same sex marriage, as we can throw quotes back and forth all day long, in a country where church and state are to be seperate. My point is that we no longer stone people to death, or follow other dictates. It is only when religion can justify our fears that we use it as a shield, rather than come up with our own logic.
Now in CA, it is just pure hate. People get their marriage license from the state, not the church. The wedding cerimony might be executed in a church, but it is the state that issues the license. You can have a religious wedding without a license, and be married in the eyes of God, and not the state; but no one does it becasue they want the legal benefits that it provides. So why are gays denied a state licience others have access to? Let the church decide if the cerimony can be performed in their house of worship or not, since church and state are seperate.

[carsntrucks]

Michael Rowe, I suggest you handle this like all the other tolerant, wonderful people in the LGBT community and continue what you've done in this article: race-bait and make jabs at religious beliefs. I'm sure that will do wonders for gay marriage.

[4 Real]

I don't know what you read, but I saw neither race baiting or religious jabs. He stated facts and used historical analysis to make his point.
But then again, facts always do have a liberal bias.

[carsntrucks]

No, not really. He just gave the same "we deserve gay marriage because black people used to be oppressed and the only people opposing us are religious people, but as we all know their opinions shouldn't count anyway because SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" conjecture everyone seems to give, in some variation, these days.

[mrbline]

I always love the passive/aggressive garbage that follows when someone can't present a cogent position. Did you learn the tactic watching pro wrestling? Let's hit our opponent with a chair while the ref ain't watchin, then claim to be the victim when called on it by the crowd. Doesn't work there. What makes you think your feeble attempt to claim some sort of reverse discrimination here, calling a gay a racist or theophobe for no more than pointing out what anyone can see is wrong by ANY moral standard worth a damn.

Stuff like this is what gives religion and us "normal" people a bad name. I'm, white, male, straight, legally married for almost two thirds of my life, and am deeply committed in my Christian faith. I really would not like to get lumped in with people like you who use all of the above, especially God, as an excuse to willfully demonize your neighbor.

You think gay is a sin? Don't be gay, but don't think you can elect yourself God's enforcer without someone telling you how stupid and offensive that is. If God really has a problem, I'm sure he can handle it all on His own. Seeing as He hasn't done anything about it . . . my guess is that the only one with the problem is you.

[tony4sure]

mrBline I wish more Christians were like you. In fact, I wish all of them thought as you do. Alas...

[carsntrucks]

LOL, normally I wouldn't say this, but...you really have no idea who you're talking to. My comment to Mr. Rowe was blessedly short by comparison to many of my other posts.

[carsntrucks]

Oh, and btw, I didn't say anything about gay being a sin. You gave me all this background information on your marital status and alleged Christian faith...how good is your reading comprehension? Not good, I'm afraid.

[NWBrunette]

Very well done, Mr. Rowe. Thank you.

[mrbline]

Am I the only one here that sees the advantage to this?

You temporarily lose one state to gain all 50 states in a single shot here. The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, and EVERY state will HAVE to allow the issuance of a marriage license to gays and allow AT LEAST a Civil Union officiated by a judge. All 50 states, furthermore, will have to accept the signiature of any ordained minister who signs and witnesses the document, or have to remove the right from ALL ministers.

Recognition of gay marriage on a national level is now within reach, and any move to try to reverse the decision will undermine the very essence of our legal system, just like Roe v. Wade. Constitutional law is not, nor has it ever been a popularity contest, and the argument rests clearly in favor of gays here.

The question is: "How long before the opportunity is taken?"

[4 Real]

I believe it's the 2 steps forward, one step back approach. This is another major social change and we are being tested. It will not follow a linear progression, rather it will take many paths but ultimately it will move forward as the older generation is replaced by the younger, more accepting population.
We all expect instant change in today's world due to so much real-time information, but we need to be patient but remain diligent to keep the momentum going.

[tony4sure]

I don't want "at least a Civil Union". I want the full right to marry that other modern democracies already enjoy. I don't want to be a third class citizen of a third class country.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

With regards to the state, marriage is, first and last, a civil contract. The proof of this is that when one seeks to dissolve a marriage, they don't go to their priest, minister or rabbi to get a divorce; they go to court.

The fundamental problem with marriage in the United States is that clergy are allowed to administer the civil contract of marriage. Yes, people have to obtain a marriage licence through the public sector, but practically any ordained "minister" can perform a legal marriage once that licence is obtained.

By giving the power of the state to the clergy to administer civil contracts, the United States has blurred the line between the Separation of Church and State and allowed religious bigotry to "define" what a marriage is.

If every citizen were required to stand in front of a judge to get legally married, the incoherent rants of religious bigots would be relegated to their proper, marginal place and this whole initiative to deny gay people the franchise of marriage would be a non-starter.

To that end, there should be a counter-initiative to deny the clergy the power to perform civil contracts. I'm sure such an initiative would lose at the ballot box, but it would highlight what is a fundamental flaw and inequity in the system and might make the religious think twice before denying others their civil rights.

[NWBrunette]

I've always felt this approach to be a distraction. There are plenty of people in our society all ready who are married in non-religious ceremonies; while not common it is very available. At least in my State, there are many people unaffiliated with any religion who have license to perform marriages. Your idea is fine and nice and probably harmless, but it doesn't get gays and lesbians equal rights. And it certainly won't stop the religious right from bashing them; this would be nothing but a little speed bump to them. We must confront this head on and stay focused on getting equal rights for gays and lesbians.

[menmykoko]

Very good post. I especially like the point that gays "....aren't a threat to the family, we are the family..". I think about this all the time and wonder to myself how these ignorant bigots are so oblivious to the fact that some of their own children will (a statistical fact which can't be ignored) grow up to be gay. Thus they are wasting precious energy fighting to opress their own childrens futue rights, psychological and physical well being by perpetuating hatred. It truly boggles the sane and logical mind. If they could stop thinking about themselves and their own insecurities and fears ,whatever they may be, and think about someone else for a change and how they may feel (empathy)...well, then the world would be a better place. Instead they just vomit out everything and the only things that they have learned from religion.

[tony4sure]

Not only do they "grow up to be gay", they (we) also spend our entire childhood and formative years being gay. Yes, there is such a thing as homosexual children, just as there are heterosexual children.

[TorhamZed]

Mr Rowe, I remain your adoring fan. I beg you to consider that the Proposition 8 case is really much bigger than the Propostion 8 case. As much as it may disappoint us all, there is no remedy under law that the Court may grant the plaintiffs, or anyone else, come to that. That is why the decision was a resounding 6-1. The Justices correctly rule that, in fact, mob rule is enshrined in the California Constitution.

I am sorry to see the media treatment--and indeed the Huffington Post treatment--of this disastrous case framed in terms of the "gay community". It is a blow to ALL citizens, because it establishes that nothing and nobody are safe from the lynch mobs, so long as said lynch mob held an election, and a simple majority wins. I couldn't feel less safe.

[Matt Carter]

Can I just clear something up about the California Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision? The decision of the Court was NOT that "mob rules wins every time," or that any voter-approved initiative is irreversible by the Courts. Rather, the Court held that an initiative cannot take away a fundamental right. The catch, however, was that the majority of the Court believed that use of the term "marriage" was not a fundamental right, particularly considering that same-sex couples could have domestic partnerships with all the rights as marriages.

There's a couple of problems with this reasoning, as pointed out by Justice Moreno in his dissent. First, it cuts against what the Court said in In Re Marriage Cases a year ago -- that marriage, called marriage, was a fundamental right. Second, there seems to be some funny business going on about what is an is not fundamental for the purposes of overturning a voter initiative -- I don't really see a convincing test for this anywhere. Third, civil unions/domestic partnerships actually DON'T have all the rights of marriages, because the federal government won't recognize them. Finally, Justice George himself even wrote how the lack of the term "marriage" creates a second class of citizens that the Court found reprehensible in the In Re Marriage Cases opinion.

There's always room for disagreement where appellate opinions are concerned, so don't fool yourself into thinking that the Prop 8 majority opinion is ironclad. It's so not.

[Awake-and-Sing]

For everyone telling us to "wait", we don't have that luxury.

President Obama only has until June 29th to decide whether he will refuse to defend DOMA or not in court.

His campaign promise to us included repealing DOMA and DADT. So if he decides to defend DOMA in court, that won't just be stabbing us in the back. That would be stabbing us in the front.

Even if legislation isn't through Congress by then, he could signal his intention to keep his promises by stop lossing gays getting discharged under DADT, and by refusing to defend DOMA in court.

Anything less may be interpreted as being a major betrayal.

Since the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots is happening in just a few weeks, that is a wonderful time for him to publicly recommit to his promises to the gay community. It would be a great gesture if he appeared in New York at the stonewall to commemorate this historic occasion in America's civil rights history.

[NWBrunette]

It would be sweet indeed. Sadly, Obama has so far done squat to suggest he's up to the challenge.

[Ginnie20886]

"LGBT people are not any threat to "the family." They ARE the family: sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I predict a windfall for wedding caterers in New England and Iowa (don't lambast me for not knowing all the states where gay marriage is now legal), and it wouldn't surprise me if their real estate markets recovered sooner than others. Most people want to live where they have equal rights.

[mrbline]

--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 1st Amendment.

--The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 9th Amendment.

--Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment.

Open and shut case in the Supreme Court. Prop 8 will go down, and EVERY state will have to allow gay marriage! NOM'ers may have won a battle but it just cost them the war.

[Quislet]

Nothing is an open and shut case when you go before the Supreme Court.

[DoTheMath]

This is not about sex.
It's not about religion.
It's about legal rights and responsibilities
for people who exist now,
people who will continue to exist,
whether everyone approves of them or not.

[mrbline]

I agree with everything except that it IS about religion.

Marriage is a religious institution. It is one of very few areas in our society where government grants religion any real power. . . a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. granted the power to sign a legal document which is recognized by our civil courts. Allowing this, the government cannot play favorites among different denominations or reliogions. Once one religious ideology (such as "marriage is only between one man and one woman") is favored over another by government, the move is unconstitutional. Government is left with 4 options:

1) Grant power of signiature and licenses to those churches that deem marriage as a "union of two consenting adults".

2) Remove the power of signiature from all religious institutions, thus permitting only Civil Unions officiated by a judge as the contract that carries any real legal weight.

3) Repeal the First Amendment, thus opening the door for any other of our rights to be lost.

The safest and most plausible answer is #1, but the religious right may force #2 if it pushes its agenda too hard. If #3 happens, we may as well chuck the Constitution itself.

This is ALL about religion and persecution based on religious conviction . . . the very same thing that brought so many of our founders here to begin with.

[Awake-and-Sing]

My religion marries gays and lesbians. Why is my church being discriminated against?

[Awake-and-Sing]

My church marries gays and lesbians.

I wonder if my church should sue for equal recognition before the law. Why should fundamentalists and other anti-gay churches be the ones co-opting the "religious" point of view?

Maybe my church should sue because the government is preferring one religion over another and that government is denying my church the right to fully practice it's faith, which including marrying not only straight couples, but gay couples and lesbian couples too.

[DoTheMath]

If it's about religion, the government shouldn't be involved. Even though a church official may have a legal role in marriage (the signing of a document), my understanding is that the legal authority comes from a government licensing process, not from the religious official's status as a priest, pastor, etc. In fact, people who do not necessarily have any religious affiliations at all can and do perform marriage ceremonies and sign marriage documents all the time - ship captains, judges, and justices of the peace are a few examples.

Although various religions have various beliefs and practices regarding marriage, those are separate from the legal contract of marriage and the legal rights and obligations that go along with the legal contract.

[mrbline]

Mr. Rowe,

Once I heard the news, I was outraged. Like you I agree this is an issue of basic civil rights which should stand for all, not just for those the majority deems fit. Then I considered the ramifications . . .

This is an issue that needs to come before the United States Supreme Court. It is a classic 1st Amendment case. Until the ruling in California, the issue has been bouncing around the states like a pinball, never once getting shot down in a State Supreme Court. Now the door is open, and gays have Roe v. Wade.

The U.S. Supreme Court HAS to overturn it. It can either do it under the guise of Civil Union, or in a worst case scenerio be forced to ban marriage as we know it altogether. With the well circulated Phoenix Declaration, churches calling for an end of LGBT marital discrimination, it has to grant legal sanction to gay marriage . . . period.

All it takes now is a new Norma McCorvey.

[AGarcia]

If you really want to join the fight against discrimination, help us free Troy Davis. Then we can talk about shared discrimination and civil rights.

[SD Indy]

Thank you for drawing attention to this. I personally hadn't heard about this case, but I just read quite a bit about it, and WOW! I cannot believe this injustice is allowed to stand. I went to the Whitehouse.gov website and sent the following:

I am writing to request the President to either grant clemency or a pardon to Mr. Troy Davis. According to Harvard law professor, Charles Ogletree, "Mr. Davis can make an extraordinary showing through new, never reviewed evidence that strongly points to his innocence, and thus his execution would violate the Constitution.”

If his innocence can be proven and since the Georgia courts nor the Federal Courts will not prevent an injustice such as this, it is the responsibility of the President to step in and correct this injustice.

I would personally like to see the discontinued use of the death penalty in the United States; however, since it is still utilized it should be reserved for those who that are 100 percent proven to have committed the crime they are charged.

Mr. Davis' conviction was based only on eye-witness testimony for which the majority of those witnesses have recanted their previous statements. In addition, the main witness is one who was also a suspect in the case which in and of itself is a complete conflict of interest.

I urge President Obama to please see to it that this injustice is no longer allowed to continue.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

[Lemeritus]

Off topic, but both the Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org) and Amnesty International USA (specifically, http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/troy-davis-finality-over-fairness/page.do?id=1011343) have resources available regarding Troy Davis. As I said, off topic, but urgent.

[SD Indy]

If you know how else I can get involved in this, please let me know. I know that he is in Georgia, but I'm in California. So please, if you know of anything else that I can do (ie who to contact) from my end, I'm in.

[SD Indy]

By the way, what was Prop 215? From my understanding it had to deal with medicinal marijuana. How was that discriminatory?

[SaltMarshWildflower]

The people have spoken. Their votes counted. Surprise, surprise... they were tired of having agenda crammed down their throats. They spoke LOUDER than you had ever imagined. Kudos to the Supreme Court for upholding the CONSTITUTION and the voters' response.

[SFLefty]

Bigot

[AGarcia]

Oh yeah? How did you vote on Prop 215? Oh, that's right... that wasn't a gay issue. Discrimination against a minority wasn't as big a deal then to the gay community I guess.

[Morcat]

The people had no right to speak in a fashion that enshrined discrimination and created second class citizenship for others. That's one of the reasons why we have a U.S. Constitution, and that has yet to be consulted.

While gay marriage in no way affects heterosexual marriage; heterosexual marriage without an equal right for gay people crams the agenda of bigotry down their throats.

Bigotry does not enhance us as a people, it only shores up the shaky framework of defective characters and small minds.

[JohnBisceglia]

Great - you own California now. Pay our taxes, since we have no civil rights there.

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

Why did it cost $20 million+ dollars from out of state for "the people" to "speak" on this topic? And if the constitution allegedly validated a ban on gay marriage, then why did it need to be amended?

[Lemeritus]

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

As far as I know, the U.S. Constitution still trumps state constitutions. As for the rest of your comment, the bigots have spoken, that's for sure.

[jcwtts1]

I have to tell you, I don't see the dogs and the fire hoses, I don't see that majority of gays bellow the poverty line, denied an ability to get into colleges, or to pay for it? I don't see massive job discrimination, the inability to practice the law, practice medicine, or their inability to attend public schools that are more than one room shacks. I don't see cops all over the country lynching you guys, I don't see the self defense argument when 10 white guys kill one black guy and say we were afraid. I don't see it. What I see are a group of people who are denied a right, that the majority of them are better educated, better housed, more upwardly mobile than the minority communities they attach themselves too. I see people fighting over a term, recognizing that terms are important, but wondering if they realize how insulting it is to compare this fight over a term to the fight to not have a cross burned in your front yard or you daughters raped and beaten by cops, or your entire family wiped out if you speak out about it. I wonder if you guys get that bad as you think you have it, you speak from a position of privileged. My new question to LGBT posters is this, where do you stand on Affirmative Action?

[coloredqueer]

Speaking of affirmative action with in gay rights movement, please, they actually discriminate even against their own LGBT folks of color and that is why you do not see any LGBT people of color in senior positions even with the gay groups. Gay community hushed racism for a long time until prop 8 blew off the lid in their faces. So, dont look for any support for affirmative action from gay community. And I fully agree with you that even many other queers of color and I find this imposition of upper class white gays offensive that struggle for marriage equality is "civil rights" that blks and other minorities had to endure.

[Lemeritus]

I'm sorry this has been your experience. Perhaps we should spare a moment to discuss the exploitation of gay women (of all races) who fought so hard in the face of AIDS bigotry in an effort to help their gay brothers (of all races)... certain most of these were not at the top of the "gay" power ladder, and, in fact, were the least likely to be affected by AIDS. But they fought for a common cause, as many gays fought for other civil rights in the 60s and 70s.

But I digress, perhaps, and -- as I said -- I'm sorry this has been your experience.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"My new question to LGBT posters is this, where do you stand on Affirmative Action?"

I'm all for it. I'm betting that black gay people are, too. In fact, gay people overwhelmingly vote (D) and that is the party of AffirmativeAction. It is the GOP that wants to destroy it.
BTW - Isn't Ward Connerly black?

[jcwtts1]

Connerly is black and so is Thomas, but they are.. I don't even know what they are. My point in the question is that this is how you lobby a group. You don't talk about how idiotic they are to vote against you, you talk about what you have in common, what you have as equal battles. It builds unity in minority communities and it allows for a discussion without blame, and with unity of purpose.

J