Gay is the new black... my opinion

[I will be quoting older pieces I have written on gay rights within this piece as well, any piece quoted will say which piece it is from and the piece shall be linked in the Artist Comments

As with many of my pieces, I enjoy, expect and welcome differences of views, but if you are just coming to say the gay agenda is equal to legalizing pedophilia, bestiality, etc.  [which has happened on a few previous pieces by the same individual]   then please spare me that nonsense and write your own piece where you can spread that ignorance that homosexuals are all pedophiles, and wish to corrupt your children etc..

I am more than happy for comments from those who disagree, but please, and I truly ask you not to come here with the conspiratorial nonsense. If you disagree with gay marriage, GREAT!!! That is your right, if you do not think it should be legalized, GREAT… yet when you start then it is wrong because of the bible, as an atheist you must understand if I do not follow your train of reasoning. You may believe homosexuality is wrong, that is your choice, yet I tend to prefer a constitutional based argument for why you believe we should outlaw rights based on sexual orientation.]

On another site I was on, and on here several times friends asked me what do I think of the saying "Gay is the new black"… I do not know why I mean they know I am very long-winded; but hey, they wished for me to tell them of my views, okay…sure... here goes nothing.

As far as racially many people that I speak to on here know that I am a mutt, being Black, Native American [Cherokee], Irish, German, Russian and Jewish Ancestry. As far as sexual orientation, I am a heterosexual male, yet my two best friends are gay and I have many LGBTQ friends, and many straight friends, some agree and some do not agree with my views which will be touched on in this piece.

Yet I was asked my thoughts on this new saying, which anyone with a basic reading of civil rights leaders would know that this is nothing "new" about it.

"Every idea is old, only the target and specific aims are new"
Emanon.

The focus of this is civil rights and the term "gay is the new black".

I shall first touch on this with respect to religion. I understand that many religious people are against "redefining" marriage because of their religious views and fears that churches will be sued if they do not marry gay couples. In EVERY state that has passed gay marriage, there was Democratic and Republican mass support for a church exemption THAT I SUPPORT, saying that churches would not be forced to marry gay couples.

As I discussed in my "Gay Rights in America" piece where I discussed the arguments generally used by those opposed to gay marriage, the saying of states should not be allowed to force churches to marry gay couples, to which I said

"I agree, though allowing gays to marry is not forcing churches to marry gays. For even in church laws and rules they can marry whomever they choose and also choose not to marry who they do not want.

Legalizing gay marriage is allowing gays to go to their state offices and get marriage licenses and go to the courts to get married. IF they find a church [if they are religious that is] that will marry them, great, yet if they do not then they can still be legally married in the eyes of the law. You do not have to have a wedding to be married. You certainly do not have to be married in a church in order for it to be official in any sense of the word."

There is a difference between "forcing the churches to marry gays!!!" … and allowing state recognition of homosexual marriages.

I fully support gays being able to marry because what is the point to the oath of this country if we do not live up to it? What is the point of those words "with liberty and justice for all" if we then give less than equal justice and liberty based on sexual orientation?

A few days ago on Facebook a woman said this picture [picture 1 linked in Artist comments]
With respect to "gay is the new black" she said ""haha yeah that's a stupid slogan which is obviously racist and highlights quite a few problems in the system as it is""

I pressured her on this "racism" remark, to be racist is to believe that one race is superior/inferior based solely on race, the claim that "gay is the new black' did not meet the merits of racism… she used the straw man that it is not comparable because gays were not kept as slaves [though.. With over 400 years of slavery I am pretty certain there had to have been a few homosexual slaves… but that is not the crux of her argument. She went on claiming that my "defense" of the picture, aka not calling it racist made me a racist... her exact words were

"I AM CALLING THAT PICTURE RACIST
AND IF YOU DEFEND IT
THEN YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE RACISM
AND THEREFORE
YOU
ARE
RACIST"

Not being able to meet the merits of racism she then linked me to several pieces written by several black people who were against the idea to try and show it is wrong… I then linked her to several pieces written by blacks that supported it not to show her it being right or wrong but simply showing that merely because you can find people in the race being compared to it does not automatically makes it wrong any more than my finding people who support it automatically makes it right.


Living in New York City, Harlem most of my life I am sure there is a schism in religious circles, especially in the black community regarding homosexuality and the general views of some blacks of it being unmanly or a "white thing" which are some of the arguments I have heard that I found ludicrous that a sexual orientation can be a racial thing.

If we look at André Lorde, James Baldwin, Bayard Rustin [key figure to be touched on later in this piece], Wanda Sykes, etc. there are and will be many homosexual blacks who are known to many so the idea that it is a racial thing is rather entertaining to me when I hear some people speak of it…

Okay I am getting off topic here. Back on point… the issue many people who are opposed to the "gay is the new black" is that they believe gays are trying to say that the gay movement is the same as the struggle for civil rights for blacks and I do not believe that is what they intended at all. As I previously said,

"Every idea is old, only the target and specific aims are new"
Emanon


Yet simply because it is not the same does not mean that there are no similarities, I would advise you to look at picture 2 linked in Artist comments now:

The same arguments that were used as to why interracial marriage is wrong are being used as to why gay marriage is wrong. … The old, god argument, it is unnatural, leads to incest, spreads disease, bad for their children.

I would also like to point out that the American Psychological Association has stated that children raised by gay parents show no fundamental difference than children raised by heterosexual parents… as well as depending on your views this may be good or bad… as stated also in Gay rights in America I... linked in Artist comments [studies quoted in the APA study]

"…studies have shown a disadvantage to single parent versus two parent households. As in a child in general is better developed in a two parent household versus a one parent home, when studying homosexual couples as far back as the eighties they have shown that there is fundamentally no difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple raising children.

....children who are raised by homosexual couples are in general a lot more empathetic to different lifestyles than when raised by heterosexual couples. They also are a lot more accepting of not only different sexual lifestyles, but are in general more accepting of differences, it religious, societal, whatever.

Studies have shown.... that kids who are raised in homosexual households are not so much as slaves to what societies view on gender roles.

For the most part females raised by lesbian couples are not so set into the "this is the way a woman behaves"… in fact they generally take more interest in what would be deemed as masculine activities and in general strive more and are more career oriented. As well as quick to not want to fit into what societies tell them a female should act like or be; males raised by lesbian couples are shown to be less aggressive in life. As well as have what may be seem as more affectionate and caring ways as it pertains to humans and the treatment of people in general.

When it comes to homosexual males ironically the gender roles "switch" per se, for some reason when raised by homosexual males, females generally have the same "gender ideas" as they would being raised in a heterosexual couple, while males are no different than when being raised by a lesbian couple. This is to say that for the most part a female's idea and sexuality being brought up by a gay or straight couple shows the same for the female takes her relationship with her father to be that how she will find a future mate… who knew.

Though what the scientist can agree on is that contrary to popular belief, a child raised by a homosexual couple has about the equal chance of being gay as being raised by a heterosexual couple."

So the idea that being raised by a gay couple would increase the chances that a kid will become gay is of course not proven by any scientific study to date. I have seen no non-bias website which states that being raised by a gay couple would make you gay which … of course makes no sense since the vast majority of gays… come from heterosexual households so hm…


Touching back on race for a moment, there have been a few black deviant art members who have commented me in the past regarding gay rights and why I believe it is a civil right and am I trying to marginalize the civil rights movements to which I always respond... WHICH ONE?

There was not one civil rights movement and to think civil rights synonymous with only blacks marginalizes the woman's civil rights movements, the Native American civil rights movements,

As Thurgood Marshall famously said with respect to picking another black judge to replace him on the Supreme Court "there's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite...."

So it is not about white or black, black or gay, gay or straight... it is about right and wrong.

According to the dictionary, a civil right is "the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress "

Now, you may look at 13th and 14th amendment to only have to do with blacks, yet if you study the 14th amendment, the most important part of the amendment in my personal view which states

"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."

Most importantly for the subject of this piece being

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many people opposed to gay marriage say this only has to do with respect to blacks and race issues.... Perhaps.

Loving V. Virginia was a case where a white male, could not legally marry his black wife because the state outlawed interracial marriage to which the court stated that this violated their 14th amendment rights as guaranteed by the constitution... yet... I would also like to point out this case… which is not about race… but it does have to do with the 14th amendment equal protection clause and state constitutions which I will be leading into in my new few paragraphs.

Cecil Bothwell, who is an atheist, was elected to the North Carolina city Council in 2009… from the moment he was elected he was opposed as his election being UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! What is unconstitutional you might ask? Well according to the North Carolina State constitution, it states the following:

North Carolina State constitution - - - > Article VI - - - > Section VIII - - ->
"Sec. 8.  Disqualifications for office

the following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law."

So according to the state constitution if you deny the existence of god... or do not believe in god then that means you are disqualified for elected office. Yet the Federal constitution aka the US Constitutions trumps all state constitutions. So legal experts said having a clause in your state constitution claiming one must believe in god is against the Article VI of the US constitution which states

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The major Supreme Court Case, Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) was another case where an atheist had been appointed to a position... the Maryland Constitution, Article XXXVI, states

"duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;"

Article XXXVII states

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution. "

So stating you must believe in god to hold office... which of course also violated the Federal constitution AKA US constitution and thus if challenged the US constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps state constitutions.

Under this Mr. Bothwell was "safe" from being fired in that the US constitution is supreme law of the land …

Now touching back on gay marriage, … we can look at the ongoing battle in many "red states" to make marriage strictly between one man and one woman, while technically they have the right to make bills, vote on them etc., in general as with California when these bills are challenged they generally are defeated because it is against the equal protection clause to forbid citizens from marrying based solely on sexual orientation thus, the law is not being applied equally.

Someone commented on my page regarding the NC vote and what I thought of it, I told this individual that I believe it will be challenged and thrown out, to which this person countered stating the majority of people want something [banning of gay marriage] so  why force it on them…  

So I reminded this individual of the great burden of why we are NOT a pure democracy/direct democracy with the Thomas Jefferson quote of ""A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." To say a majority of people wanted it so it should be does not go in line with the US constitution UNLESS of course congress does away with the equal protection clause of the US constitution.

It should not have to be said, but the last time North Carolina banned marriage it was the banning of interracial marriage… what a horrid thing it would be to leave rights up to the whim of a majority, in which case any minority may have their rights taken away because they do not fit into some nice box… thus this connects back to what I believe "Gay is the new black" is saying, it is not saying they are the same but showing similarities that were done during the Black civil rights movements, as was done during the Native American civil rights movements, as was done during the woman's civil rights movement… and that is the voting of whether or not a minority group will be allowed the same rights as the majority… black civil rights being the last major civil rights movement, yet gay rights was never exclusive to the rights… as stated I would touch back on a great civil rights leader, who is also a black and a gay male, Bayard Rustin.

It is impossible to study Martin Luther King Jr. and never hear of Bayard Rustin, he is a man as being one of the key components to MLK's teachings, one of his main advisers and mentors who taught MLK the importance of pacifism and civil disobedience, before Rustin, King had armed security guards, had guns around his home etc… Rustin taught him that he had to be fully nonviolent that to preach nonviolence while having such weapons around the home was not in tune with pacifism teaching of non-violence in all or most cases… okay I am once again going off Key.

A friend asked me, why is this so important to you?
It is important to me because when any minority is being denied their civil rights based on something as silly as their sexual orientation then it should be the duty of every person to recognize that this is going about it as the wrong way.

A very simple question... Are they American? Yes? Okay then they should be guaranteed every right, civil liberty and justice afforded to every other American. I am not expecting this issue with be done in a few months since it has not been done away with in the decades of the civil rights struggle for gays, here is a very influential American, who was gay and what he said about civil rights that holds true today as it did when he said it before his murder in 1978.

"And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanians and the Richmond, Minnesotans who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant in television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right. Without hope, not only gays, but the blacks, the seniors, the handicapped, the us'es, the us'es will give up. And if you help elect to the central committee and other offices, more gay people, that gives a green light to all who feel disenfranchised, a green light to move forward. It means hope to a nation that has given up, because if a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone"

I wish to focus on a key part

"Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right. Without hope, not only gays, but the blacks, the seniors, the handicapped, the us'es, the us'es will give up. And if you help elect to the central committee and other offices, more gay people, that gives a green light to all who feel disenfranchised, a green light to move forward. It means hope to a nation that has given up, because if a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone"

It is a sad statement because it is true, while I am not gay, while I never plan on getting married, gays seem to be the last acceptable minority that it is okay to make fun of, that it is okay to do nothing as dozens of LGBTQ people are committing suicide …

As Mikhail Gorbachev said, THOUGH OF COURSE NOT ABOUT GAYS..."If not me, who? And if not now, when?"

We often hear political pundits speak of this, oh gay rights... with all of the issues in America we do not have time to focus on this, we have an economy, we have a recession etc... sorry my dear sirs and madams, civil rights should never be put on the back burner so that you may settle other issues... we had economic, war issues, etc. during the woman's suffrage movement, we had it during the civil rights movements and liberty moved on

As Catherine the great once said
"Liberty, the soul of everything, without you, all is dead."
-Catherine the Great


I tweaked it a bit for myself when I am writing to state "Liberty, the soul of everything, without you, I am nothing."
-Emanon Eranatos


Because I do not wish to live in a world where because it may conflict with your faith that it must be law... I do not wish to live in a world where everything that is different must be downed, and beat on because we do not understand.

The questions that provoke questions are the true paths of enlightenment. The questions that provoke single answers of simplicity, shall lead man to vast problems of complexity.

It is not a complex issue.
Your faith says homosexuality is wrong? Okay, yet should the country be beholden to the moral teachings of your faith? What you personally believe is one thing, shall everyone and everything be placed under the dominion of your faith and its moral, ethical and faith based reasoning for issues?


So, origins of gays are the new blacks
… well this whole "gay is the new black" actually is thanks to Mr. Rustin, who in 1986 gave a speech called
"The New Niggers Are Gays,"

In which he stated
"Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from racial discrimination. The new "niggers" are gays. . . . It is in this sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change. . . . The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people"


So it was not denying the struggles of blacks to say that "gay is the new black" … or "niggers" the way Mr. Rustin used it.

I understand that many may be against gay marriage because of religious reasons, and as stated, I support Church's rights not to marry someone whom they do not wish to… but pass that no, I support no legislation that would seek to take away rights, I say it once again, RIGHTS, of American citizens based solely on their sexual orientation.

As Representative John Lewis said, a civil rights activist and advocate for gay rights

"My position is very, very simple. That I fought too long and too hard against discrimination based on race and color, not to stand up and fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If you're going to provide civil rights and equality for everybody, you cannot draw a line, you cannot build a wall. We must respect the dignity and the worth of every human being whether they are gay or straight"
Representative John Lewis, Democrat-Georgia


And that what it is about, it is not complex at all, very simple, are we going to relive the battles of the past where a minority will have their rights trampled on because they are seen as different or other?

There is a simple idea that is America… it is not beholden to your faith yet it allows you to freely practice whatever faith you choose because of a simple understanding of liberty, you are not oppressed to the ideas of a faith that is not your own, nor should any other be oppressed by the ideas of your faith.

There is a simple idea that is liberty, that is not beholden to the perspective moralities, faiths, and ethical treatment of each individual and being governed by the whim of a majority, but this idea is simple, it is just… and it ruffled feathers because it offers no dominion of one idea over all. This idea is simple, Judicial Egalitarianism, everyone, black, white, gay, straight, Christian or atheist all being under the same rights, liberties, and Justice of a system.

I often hear the argument of they want special rights, sorry I see nothing "special" in homosexual person asking to share in the glorious liberties that I, a heterosexual man have no plan in partaking in [marriage]. There is nothing special about the denial of one's liberty nor is there anything bad about the fighting for one's liberty.


Okay, I do believe that is all I have to say on the issue…