MLK did no such thing. He created a theatrical spectacle that used the appearance of civility with segregationists as a ploy. He allowed them to show their own worst side to the nation while his people presented themselves as martyrs. That’s essentially the whole point of passive resistance - it makes you look bad to beat me up when I’m just sitting here.
The thing is that the militaristic people here, who believe that killing the fuck out of Iraqis was the only way to deal with Saddam, think that you should be nice to the people who deny human rights here in America.
Originally Posted by Key Chung I think there’s something seriously wrong with the notion that this should not be a simple matter of civil rights (where applicable) for everyone, and religious freedoms (where applicable) for everyone, since marriage is one of those odd institutions that occupies both spaces.
Civil marriage has no connection religious marriage.
Originally Posted by Carl Cunningham I don’t know, I agree that Civil Unions/Marriage might be semantics, but I think they should have gone for the “Civil Union” thing FIRST… and then progressed methodically from there with an effort to legalize Gay Marriage. Instead, they went for the whole enchilada right off the bat and it ended up backfiring nationwide with these Constitutional amendments. Still, it’s troubling that these measures passed so authoritatively,
Just as an aside, I read a comment yesterday that seemed to feel this had all worked to the advantage of “The Homosexual Lobby.” Civil Unions are now seen by conservatives as a safe alternative to allowing full-on gay marriage, rather than a slippery slope that would lead to the end of society.
_Why We Can’t Wait_ argues, clearly and with conviction, for King’s viewpoint. It does not ridicule , hurl invective, or bully. It engages and, in so engaging, proves its essential correctness - no, rightness.
Frank, please note that King is murdered and that while blacks can sit at the front of the bus they still find themselves paid less, educated more poorly, getting worse health care than whites of the same socioeconomic status, and making up a skewed percentage of the prison population.
I respect King, but he has become a figure to be invoked by white authority to say, “Shut it you uppity nigger.”
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club You shouldn’t have to sell equality is the problem with that. The fact some people don’t like that they call themselves queer doesn’t mean shit. I suppose you’d sit idly by when your rights were trampled on and slowly explain to those who oppose you that dog-gonnit, you’re just looking for the same rights as everyone else. Then from the other side, why the hell would they change? If they’re not being challenged, it’s that much easier to just say no.
Well, yes and no.
I agree, you should not have to “sell” it. That was probably a very bad example. I was just pointing out that standing there groping your boy/girl friend on a street corner screaming “I’m gay and you MUST MUST accept me” just does not work with main stream society.
Whereas, if you sat down and had a discussion about it, it would probably go over very well.
This is TOTALLY different than slavery. Or even the previous equal rights movements. It’s a different era, a different society.
In the past you had no choice but to “make yourself heard” and demonstrate and protest and scream and get in peoples faces. That was just the way it was done.
I just don’t see that as working in today’s society. That’s all.
Ghandi & King both showed that engagement gets better, longer-lasting results because it changes minds. You can coerce people into compliance, but you can engage them into support.
What is it with this ridiculous “The gays moved too fast and turned people off by going for marriage instead of civil unions” bullshit?
Either we’re equal or we’re not equal. By legally discriminating against gays, you devalue them as human beings. You say that as far as the law is concerned you shouldn’t have the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy.
Why? Did I do something against the law? No.
So if I’m not a criminal, and I’m a legal American citizen like you, why don’t we have the same rights?
Arguing that civil marriage has no connection to religious marriage is one way of ensuring full rights for everyone and also eliminating the religious right’s main argument for claiming it for only themselves to protect.
Kerry seemed to define civil unions as full benefits, not making any distinction between marriage and civil unions in the eyes of the state, just not making the distinction for the church.
But if a church is willing to perform a gay marriage, who is the state to say they can’t continue?
I really don’t want to say it a third time, but there were un-civil discussions with segregationalists as well, that had just as strong an effect as MLK that you continue to ignore. Your single example is just that.
The focus on the book is doubly confusing since it mostly chronicles King’s very confrontational non-violent direct actions, which was rarely about civil discourse and more about sitting at a lunch counter until they sicced dogs on you.
I say, engage segregationists on all levels. Some times call for more tact and civility than others. Other times call for direct confrontation.
What if one of those segregationists is a hapless family member who could use some guidance and direction? If your “discussing” discrimination with a hateful authoritty figure who is actively acting unAmerican, well you know what to do…
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club I really don’t want to say it a third time, but there were un-civil discussions with segregationalists as well, that had just as strong an effect as MLK that you continue to ignore. Your single example is just that.
Most people I run into (family, friends, co-workers) think I’m completely off the wall in suggesting that gay marriage is no big deal. For the most part, they seem to be okay with civil unions, but they’re incomprehensibly hung up on the word “marriage”.
In my experience, the biggest concern people seem to have on this subject is the issue of children. The fact that a child can be raised by a same-sex couple to be a moral, well-adjusted adult is inconceivable to them. Even if just about everyone agrees that having a mom and dad is the ideal setup (all other things being equal), they don’t seem to understand that there are plenty of adoptable kids that would otherwise not have a permanent hetero home available to them.
Personally, I think “seperate but equal” is discriminatory and wrong, but if push comes to shove, I’d rather compromise on agreeing to use the term “civil union” than lose another election over it. It makes sense in one respect…can you imagine Brown vs Board of Education without Plessy vs Ferguson? Maybe “seperate but equal” isn’t the travesty it’s made out to be, but a painfully necessary evolution of a social issue by making it a more gradual shift than the bombshells detonating in Massachusetts and San Francisco.
Originally Posted by devincf The focus on the book is doubly confusing since it mostly chronicles King’s very confrontational non-violent direct actions, which was rarely about civil discourse and more about sitting at a lunch counter until they sicced dogs on you.
Sorry for the confusion. The book itself is a form of civil discourse.