Some members of the Black community are taking issue with the praise being heaped upon President Obama this week in what has been called a civil rights victory.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writer Eugene Kane offered an opinion piece about how members of his online community were outraged at what some believe to be a misappropriation of the term “civil rights.” Kane explains:
It’s being hailed – and denounced – as a major civil rights statement by Obama certain to be an issue in the upcoming presidential election.
Clearly, some African-Americans in Milwaukee and across the nation reject that comparison. For these black people, being gay isn’t like being black.
They insist gay people aren’t discriminated against in the workplace or in education like African-Americans. Although all minority populations – black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. – have gay people, many are white men and women.
For some black people, being a white male in this society represents the height of racial privilege, whether you’re gay or not.
Kane closes his article with an appeal to the community:
After all, when gay couples are featured in The New York Times’ marriage page each Sunday and national TV programs have openly gay news people and actors on camera, it’s clear more and more doors are opening.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeMaybe it’s time to get used to it.
In her new film The New Black, Filmmaker Yoruba Richen set out to investigate the histories of both the Black civil rights movement and the LGBTQ civil rights movement, and explains how the two movements run parallel in an article on BlackEnterprise.com, saying:
“The film specifically looks at homophobia in the Black church, and how the Christian right has exploited this phenomenon that exists in order to promote an anti-gay political agenda…”
So what do you think? Does calling marriage rights “civil rights” minimize the struggles that Black Americans experienced when fighting for their freedom, their right to vote, and many other civil and human rights?
Or is the technical term “civil rights” one that applies equally to all legal rights?
Finally, what do you think of Richen’s theory that the Christian right is exploiting homophobia in the Black church for their own political gain?
AP Photo/Jae C Hong
I can see how some African American civil rights activists could be hostile to the use of the term “civil rights” in this context, because “civil rights” has the clear connotation of meaning “the African American civil rights movement,” but that’s just an association. African American social activists took up the term as their own, and made it a household phrase, but African American civil rights is not the only form of civil rights. I don’t think of marriage-related civil rights in terms of a right to get married, but more in terms of a right of equality free of… Read more »
So what do you think? Does calling marriage rights “civil rights” minimize the struggles that Black Americans experienced when fighting for their freedom, their right to vote, and many other civil and human rights? No more so than it minimizes your marriage or my own. Do you have divorce papers ready to file in case gays are allowed to marry in California, so cheapened is your own marriage by the prospect? Or is the technical term “civil rights” one that applies equally to all legal rights? By calling it a civil right, Obama carefully crafted a position for the administration… Read more »
You are always so brilliant and on point.
But there is a long-standing “Public Policy Exception” to the Full Faith & Credit clause which allows states to not recognize polygamous marriages entered into in other states(meaning Utah).
Also, are you suggesting that gay individuals are being denied Equal Protection under marriage statutes which define marriage as heterosexual union just because they choose not to exercise their rights under those statutes?
I feel the need to again point out Loving v. Virginia. Theoretically, there was a definition of marriage, at the time, as between two people of the same race. So what was the problem then? African-Americans could still get married, so long as they married other African-Americans (same for white people). They just chose not to “exercise their rights under those statutes.”
You might consider that the Constitution as amended explicitly prohibits any state or political subdivision thereof from discriminating on the basis of race. However, every individual has the same, exact rights under heterosexual union marriage statutes, to marry a(one) person of the opposite sex who is over some minimum age, not a close blood relative, and not already married to some third party. No discrimination there. What gay marriage advocates are asserting is that couples(as distinct from individuals) have a ‘right’ to be joined in a legal union equal to that of any other couple. What they are actually advocating… Read more »
Don’t forget that there must be at minimum a rational basis for any law that discriminates against a class. In general a person who has reached majority age is not prohibited from associating and entering into a contract with another individual and the 5th and 14th amendments protect individuals from being discriminated against by the law – both state and federal. There is no rational basis test that can not apply equally to heterosexual couples as it does to homosexual couples. The only purpose the state has in restricting marriage — and the rights and protections it bestows — to… Read more »
Not a civil right. There is no “right to marry” as expressed by Federal legislation or charter. Therefore, there can be no federal regulation of this practice. Regulation of marriage is not a power granted to Congress, nor to the President.
I think that civil marriage should be abolished. Why should any State create such an institution? What is the State interest in marriage? No state has ever declared what its interest in marriage is. Why should the State be allowed to regulate something in which it has no interest?
“Not a civil right. There is no “right to marry” as expressed by Federal legislation or charter. Therefore, there can be no federal regulation of this practice. Regulation of marriage is not a power granted to Congress, nor to the President.”
Alright, but our government is far more than just The Constitution. It’s been expanded. Plus, even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant as a starting point, not as a limit.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself has that very handy “elastic clause” in it, which guarantees Congress the right to pass whatever law is “necessary and proper,” which is about as big a loophole as you can imagine. The Constitution itself suggests that future lawmakers and policymakers have some flexibility.
Whenever someone says, “that’s not in the Constitution!”, then it’s likely sitting comfortably in the giant pit created by the elastic clause.
I agree with you. The government should not be in the business of defining marriage. I think people should be able to enter domestic partnerships that are governed by the law if contracts, more or less like a business partnership. you are agreeing to share resources for the benefit of your household . Straight, gay, polyamorous, it doesn’t matter. I realize there would be complications for taxes, health insurance, and child custody/support, but that can be worked out by the legal system eventually. If you want to say you are married, or not, that’s up to you.
The legal system has worked it out, and we call the resultant contract “marriage.”
Exactly.
So, ‘the legal system’ is not part of ‘the government’?
If you believe ‘the government’ should not be in the business of defining marriage, how are the contractual rights and obligations within domestic partnerships going to be enforced? You seem to be saying that it’s alright for the courts to define marriage(through caselaw decisions), but not the legislature.
What I mean is that marriage should be treated as a contract, not as a special status. Marital rights/obligations should just be interpreted according to the law of contracts. Contracts are interpreted based on the intent of the parties. The role of the courts in contract law is to enforce the parties’ intent to the extent possible. It’s considered a private relationship with courts merely providing the means of resolving disputes that the parties cannot resolve themselves. Marriage is completely different. Marriage is a status relationship. Your rights and obligations are not defined by your intentions, but by what the… Read more »
There is no “right to marry” as expressed by Federal legislation or charter. Yes, there is. It’s called the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution and reads in its entirety: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” What this means is that just because the law does not spell out that something is ALLOWED does not mean that the federal government therefore can DISALLOW it. What the government is allowed to regulate is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. If marriage is not mentioned in… Read more »
So, should the federal courts have any authority to decide what does and does not constitute marriage?
Civil marriage is strictly a legislative creation, it does not originate either in constitutional law or common law(so-called common law marriage notwithstanding).
not a “civil rights” issue?!?! seriously?! forget about MARRIAGE rights… how about how the many LGB people (and those assumed to be, based on gender expression conformity) being bullied, beaten, harassed, and marginalized in every way?… let alone the rates of transgender and other gender variant folks who are brutally attacked and murdered in this country and elsewhere on a DAILY basis… CIVIL RIGHT (to breathe and BE who we are in the most basic way?) or not?!?! I don’t care about the right to marry, in the end… but if the RIGHT to marry helps the hetero/gender normative community… Read more »
I think that marriage is a civil right. The question in my mind is it an inalienable right granted us by virtue of being human.
I think all groups want to retain ownership of their most pertinent terms. Jewish groups will want to keep the term Holocaust to describe the atrocities committed against the Jews. To a large extent, I think feminists still want to gender rape as a crime against women. African Americans naturally want to keep “the struggle for civil rights” as their phrase. Kind of like a trademark for their movements.
“They insist gay people aren’t discriminated against in the workplace or in education like African-Americans.” Yeah, lgbt individuals aren’t ever fired for being lgbt. And their same-sex partners aren’t ever totally screwed over by medical insurance companies because same-sex marriage isn’t recognized. That doesn’t happen at all. Grr. What’s worse is that most states don’t even have any protections to keep this from happening, in part because they’re unwilling to admit it does happen. LGBT individuals and black individuals haven’t faced exactly the same restrictions on their civil rights…but just because it’s not exactly the same doesn’t mean that one… Read more »
In its unanimous 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision striking down marriage restrictions based on race across the entire country, and overturning its 1883 decision in Pace v. Alabama regarding criminalization of sex between individuals of different races, the United States Supreme Court held that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…” It either is or is not a civil right, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that is a civil right. It doesn’t magically become not a basic civil right if we’re talking about two individuals of the same… Read more »
SCOTUS was wrong. There is no such interest. “Existence and survival” is a nod to the procreation of the nuclear family and not to any other thing. So if that is the rickety kind of case law you want to pin the legitimacy of marriage on, its a really bad start.
Do better.
I should also add to my comment that a nuclear family doesn’t depend on procreation. There are many people whose families are built through adoption, including families lead by same sex couples. So not only is procreation an unnecessary tangent to the question of whether or not marriage is a civil right for the reason I mentioned in my other reply, but also for this reason as well.
“Supreme Court has already ruled that is a civil right” But why did the Supreme Court rule as such? Because “the very existence and survival” depends on one man and woman coming together to procreate. How else are we going to survive? We can’t depend on homosexual partners because together they are sterile, will never be able to have children. So it makes complete sense that the court ruled the way they did, because no matter what race or ethnicity a man or woman is, they are still able to procreate with one another to continue on with the existence… Read more »
That reasoning doesn’t work because there is no requirement of procreation for any marriage in the U.S. No couple is obligated to reproduce, and marriages are not denied on the basis of fertility.
Men and men (or women and women) have also been coming together since the beginning of time, also quite naturally, and those bonds have strengthened societies as well. The procreation argument is a red herring.
If marriage is one of the “basic civil rights”, is a single person entitled to a spouse? What exactly does a ‘right to marriage’ actually entail? Are you suggesting that a state legislature could not abolish civil marriage for everyone?
Is a gay person being deprived of a ‘civil right’ if he/she does not choose to exercise his/her rights under a marriage statute which defines marriage as between a man an a woman? Do legal rights accrue to couples? Or only to individuals?