NAACP National Chairman Julian Bond tells Gay America to Demand a Front Seat on the Bus (VIDEO)

Here is National NAACP Chairman Julian Bond's powerful speech from the Human Rights Campaign's Los Angeles Dinner on Saturday, March 14.

Here are a few choice statements from his speech:

"When someone asks me, "are gay rights civil rights?" my answer is always, "Of course, they are." Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't "special" to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship."

"People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others. That, it has been, that our movement has been so widely imitated. That our tactics, our methods, our heroes, our heroines, and even our songs, have been appropriated or served as models for others."

"Now, no parallel between movements is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries and people of color carried the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination; sadly, so do many others. And those others deserve the law's protection and civil rights too...."

"Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference. It is immutable; it is unchangeable. And the constitution protects us against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences."

In particular, Bond's response to many of the biblical passages used by Christian conservatives to condemn homosexuality (including those favorite scriptures in Leviticus) is must-see TV. His humorous refutation of "cafeteria Christians" begins about 15:25 in the video above.

(Thank you to Chris Johnson from www.HRCBackstory.org for the above highlights)

Comments

[S1m0n]

It's a noble sentiment, but it's not in the least correct. There is no general constitutional prohibition on 'discrimination'; there is only a very limited number of specifiied grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited. Discrimination upon any other ground is perfectly legal.

One may discriminate freely against golfers, surgeons, people with bad credit, or journalists, for instance.

[deaniac83]

Alright, if you are going to point out a factual error in someone's statement, it is imperative upon you to get that statement actually right. Chairman Bond did NOT say there is a general Constitutional prohibition against 'discrimination'; he said that the Constitution protects us against discrimination **based on *immutable* differences**. So long as we're getting the facts right.

[barrycourage]

Sexual orientation is immutable.

[Lance734]

Co-signing on deaniac83's comment, when we're talking about the two federal constitutional provisions that have historically been used by the Courts to protect individuals and minority groups against the prejudices and discrimination of the majority (the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 5th & 14th Amendments), those provisions don't have any specific grounds for who is protected or what "type" of discrimination is prohibited. Like other constitutional provisions (i.e. the 4th Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches & seizures) the only category protected is "person". I think you're referring more specifically to anti-discrimination laws like Title VII and the like. These kinds of federal and state/local anti-discrimination laws & ordinances mention specific grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited. But the U.S. constitution (most would agree by design) speaks in open-ended and inclusive terms about which fundamental rights are protected against arbitrary infirngement or elimination by political majorities.

And as a side note, while there is "no general constitutional prohibition on 'discrimination'" as you say, I think one could certainly say that a constitutional guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws" establishes a negative right to be free from arbitrary and invidious discrimination. If not prohibiting such discrimination, then what does an equal protection clause mean? (Rhetorical question)