I guess there was a “Utah Pride Parade today in Salt Lake City (sorry I missed out on that one). The Salt Lake Tribune has a very nice write up in an article titled Gay Rights Advocates Strut Political Clout in Salt Lake. From the looks of the Tribune photographer, Scott Sommerdorf’s excellent photos, that’s not all they strutted:
Not exactly on a par with the Days of ’47 parade –though interesting. A couple of money quotes:
Jones just a few minutes earlier had stirred up the festival’s crowd by thanking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its president, Thomas S. Monson, for helping bring the LGBT community together with its support for Proposition 8.
“We thank you for unifying us as never before. We thank you for teaching our young people that they must be prepared to fight for freedom,” Jones said, predicting that Proposition 8 will be a short-lived victory and recorded in history as a turning point in the battle for gay rights.
Yes, I’m certain that’s exactly what The First Presidency and Quorum of the Tweleve had in mind. And, if I were Mr. Jones, that’s probably how I’d spin it as well.
In an accompanying Tribune article, Mr. Jones called for a massive March on Washington this October:
An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk on Sunday announced plans for an Oct. 11 march on Washington to demand Congress act to establish equal rights for the lesbian, gay and transgender community.
Cleve Jones said the march will coincide with National Coming Out Day and kick off a grass-roots campaign for equality in each of the nation’s 435 congressional districts and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement.
Jones, 54, made the announcement Sunday during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.
The event’s grand marshal, Jones stirred up a crowd of thousands just blocks from the Salt Lake City headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was part of the coalition of conservative groups that worked to pass Proposition 8 in California last fall.
Such language, of course, is meant to conjure up images of the Civil Right’s movement of the 1960′s and the massive March on Washington in 1963. Even the reference to “slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk, is undoubtably a reference to Martin Luther King, Jr. who was slain in his quest for Civil Rights for Blacks in the 1960′s, and who led the original march on Washington.
And, who knows, perhaps this march of October 2009 will equal or exceed the original march of August 1963 where some 200,000 to 300,000 Americans converged on Washington D.C. to fight for basic civil liberties for Black Americans. We’ll see.
Unfortunately for the “new” civil rights movment, there are few if any factual similarites between these movments, despite the desperate attempts of some to invoke the language, images and causes of the 1960′s. Even in the post Proposition 8 dark ages, here in the most intolerant of states, California, no one is sitting at the back of the bus. No one is drinking from separate drinking fountains. No one is denied the right to vote. No one attends separate schools. All our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers out here in the back woods of California are afforded the exact same bundle of rights as are married spouses of opposite genders. But, of course, none of those facts are ever brought out in the splashy front page articles or blog posts.
So, with an eye towards this October, we will all anxiously await the new march and movement towards “equality” for all.
Update 06/08/09 5:33 p.m. Just for kicks, if you want to see how kindly our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are speaking about this post and those ideas expressed therein, feel free to jump on over to this link and check out their comments. It’s always enligtening to see how well received we are over there.
June 8, 2009 at 12:53 am
“Yes, I’m certain that’s exactly what The First Presidency and Quorum of the Tweleve had in mind. And, if I were Mr. Jones, that’s probably how I’d spin it as well. “
Oh, I don’t think it is spin. Prop 8 really did galvanize the gay community to a degree not seen since Stonewall or the AIDS crisis of the ’80s.
God moves in mysterious ways!
June 8, 2009 at 1:19 am
Seriously, gay activists are not entirely united on this proposed march on Washington. Many feel that efforts would be better spent fighting marriage equality battles in California and Maine. It is also feared that the current economic situation would contribute to a much smaller turn out than was witnessed at the October, 11 1987 March on Washington, where turnout was close to half a million.
There was, of course, a previous Lesbian and Gay rights March on Washington, in 1979. So Cleve Jones’ proposed third LGBT march is not entirely predicated upon the civil rights event of the Black community in the 60′s. Current LGBT civil rights concerns include relationship recognition, adoption rights, military service, immigration issues, violence against LGBT people, healthcare and workplace protections.
June 8, 2009 at 9:52 am
No one attends separate schools, but it’s certainly ok for people to have separate legal insititutions. Domestic partnerships may be separate to marriage, but they are equal. The law says they are, so it must be! Equal like those separate schools were equal, and even more so.
Seriously, I just don’t understand what those gays are going for. Why can’t they understand that in California, they have everything? Yeah, most states ban EVEN civil unions and domestic partnerships for them, and even in California, where civil unions are equal to marriage, they are apparently not so equal that people are willing to equate them and use only one word for them…but gays should be counting their blessings, and probably working on overcoming their SSA.
June 8, 2009 at 10:30 am
It’s somewhat insulting to Black Americans to compare the gay movement for marriage equality with the civil rights movement, but they’re depending on people not thinking too critically on that count. It “feels” comparable, so bam! It is.
June 8, 2009 at 10:38 am
I can think of one similarity between the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement–the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vigorously opposed both.
June 8, 2009 at 11:23 am
personally, Jana, it’s not insulting to me to compare the marriage equality movement with the civil rights movement.
But I can certainly see how it might be to a culture that has enshrined the civil rights movement with the black church (consider: the doctors in the Civil Rights Movement were doctors of theology or doctors of philosophy…and just as often reverends). And then it’s easy to make a distinction between civil rights and gay rights because some holy book says that gay is wrong.
But then, this distinction really tells us more about religion and the religiosity of people, not that gay rights are truly not equivalent to black civil rights.
Furthermore, the church should be ashamed of itself. It has set a precedent for supporting causes where a popular majority steamrolls over the minority…and I mean, if it wants to do that, then fine. As the church can say, it was not the only group opposed to gay marriage…most Californians were/are.
But this same reasoning of tyranny of the majority could EASILY come back to bite the church in the butt, because the same allies it had in the prop 8 fight STILL think Mormons are weird, cultish, and unChristian. I guess people are depending on Mormons not thinking too critically on that count. It “feels” like everyone’s allied together in a righteous struggle, so bam! It is.
June 8, 2009 at 11:41 am
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive he would be a vocal proponent of equal rights for the GLBT community. One of his earliest advisers, whose assistance King sought, was openly gay. King stood up for this man more than once to prejudiced people who didn’t want a queer around (eventually the adviser left because of his sexuality and political background). Coretta Scott King affirmed her belief (and her husband’s) civil rights are not only about the color of one’s skin. Unreasonable discrimination against any group, be it people of color, women, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, gays, Muslims, Christians, whatever, is wrong. Please note “unreasonable” since some, such as neo-Nazis, KKK, other hate groups and individuals, should be prevented from committing acts of violence or harming others.
Much of the civilized world has opened its eyes and accepted the reality of thousands of years of discrimination against GLBT people. The United States is shamefully behind in recognizing such prejudice. As a country that boasts of freedom and justice for all the USA has a long way to go.
June 8, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“All our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers out here in the back woods of California are afforded the exact same bundle of rights as are married spouses of opposite genders.”
Gays are legally permitted to wed the consenting adult whom they love? Whew! I was worried there for a second that some sort of proposition had been passed to take that right away. I stand corrected.
June 8, 2009 at 5:24 pm
#2 Steven B.
I must disagree. Whether it’s the current proposed march or a prior “March on Washington” it’s pretty clear from whence the idea springs. Lesbian and gay activists have been co-opting the 60′s civil rights movement for some time–many times successfully.
#3 Andrew
Please that dog won’t hunt. There isn’t anything separate out here. I’m using CA as a reference point since that is what the LGBT community is using. It’s Proposition 8 we’re talking about here. That’s out here in CA. The articles I reference and the big media splash was juxtaposed against the Proposition 8 backdrop. The Church has nothing for which it should be ashamed. The Church took, takes, and will continue to take a principled moral stand on the issue. It’s fundamental to their teaching of the eternal nature of the family, and the Restored Gospel of Christ. As a religious institution it has every right to take that stand. It would be a shame if it did not.
#4 Jana
Thanks for your comment.
#5 Equality
Yes, your comment still stands. And, as long as your remain civil and respectful (as you almost usually do while commenting here) your comments will remain.
The problem in your analogy is that the opposition to the Civil Rights movement of the 60′s was not a Church stand per se. I will grant you many high ranking leaders stood against the Civil Rights movement at the time–which is a shame. But, you and I disagree on whether you can equate the two movements. You do. I do not. The Church’s stand against genderless marriage is based on revelation, scripture, and fundamental core teachings of the Gospel. It is based on united and unanimous declarations of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. No such proclamations issues against the Civil Rights movement in the 60′s.
#6 Andrew
You now speak for the black community? November’s vote seems to suggest most in the Black community disagree with you on this issue, at least.
#7 Robert
Well since you don’t speak for Rev. King, and he’s long since passed–I just don’t accept your conclusory statement that he would have advoctated for genderless marriage. He may have advocated that all people regardless of color, sexual preference be treated with dignity and equally before the law–but I seriously doubt he would have ever advocated for genderless marriage.
#8 true
Very cute. I am pleased to see you have been corrected.
Just for kicks, if you want to see how kindly our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are speaking about this post and those ideas expressed therein, feel free to jump on over to this link and check out their comments. It’s always enligtening to see how well received we are over there.
June 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm
re 9:
tongue in cheek is an art form no longer appreciated…(with respect to your answer to my post number 3, which was tongue in cheek on my part).
You are perfectly free to take your position…but what you should be ashamed about is this is the same justification that has been historically used to keep the LDS church down. It is the same justification that a coalition of non-Mormon Christians could use to subjugate Mormonism…which they believe is a cult and incorrect. But if you want to use that justification, go ahead.
re your answer to my 6.
Did you not pay attention to a single thing I said? Why did the black community disagree? it isn’t because black is fundamentally different. It is because of religion. Again, what is overwhelmingly obvious is that conservatively religious groups voted against gay marriage. If blacks happen to be conservatively religious, that accounts for November’s vote, not a fundamental difference between civil rights and gay rights. And it shows my point — it says a lot about religion.
I just hope that when other churches decide to use the same argument you say the church has used to take a principled moral stance against what they see as the cult Mormon church, then I hope you will come to my side and realize that minority groups — whether they be gay, black, or Mormon — should have rights despite a majority group that disagrees with them and is willing to launch a campaign against them.
June 8, 2009 at 5:44 pm
The fact is that people in California voted very simply…despite all the pandering that domestic partnerships are equal to marriage in every way…gays aren’t missing out on anything, etc., people obviously had a seriously strong reaction to gays calling it marriage. So apparently, they find something materially different about marriage that they don’t want it for gays. And they don’t have that same valuation of domestic partnerships. This is why separate never ends up being equal.
If you want to use the argument of a religious majority fighting for what it feels is right, as I have said in my comments, go on ahead. This is a democracy, after all. But if and when things come to YOUR door and YOUR rights to worship as you please, and you’re on the side of the minority (because most Christian denominations don’t even trust Mormons enough to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate), I hope you will strongly reconsider the fact that this country’s constitution would’ve never gotten off the ground without a Bill of Rights. And what use was that Bill of Rights for? It was to establish minority rights in the face of a tyranny of the majority. And this Bill can be amended. and we have a government of checks and balances, a court system with judicial review specifically to check the masses on unconstitutional laws.
But California spoke clearly, by writing out minority rights from the California constitution, it establishes that it only cares about majority rule. And it seems you do too. Fine. But if it comes that you’re the minority, I wonder what you will say
June 8, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“Whether it’s the current proposed march or a prior “March on Washington” it’s pretty clear from whence the idea springs. Lesbian and gay activists have been co-opting the 60’s civil rights movement for some time–many times successfully.”
Perhaps I don’t understand your point. Do African Americans own an exclusive privilege to “civil rights?” Have all the civil rights been given to Blacks and there are no more to hand out? Have gays and lesbians not suffered to the same degree as African Americans and, therefore, don’t deserve equal treatment under the law?
“The articles I reference and the big media splash was juxtaposed against the Proposition 8 backdrop.”
That is true, and a media coverage of a March on Washington would focus on the marriage issue as well. But if the only issue gays and lesbians care about is Prop 8, then the proposed march would be in California. A March on Washington would be geared toward Federal issues, and is in part a response to the inaction of the current administration on such issues as DADT and ENDA in addition to DOMA. It is clear from your comments on this post that your real concern is SSM. I believe a March on Washington would be much broader than that. You are not against allowing gays to serve openly in the military are you?
June 9, 2009 at 11:57 am
I have HAD IT. I refuse to comply with our government in ANY way until my loved ones and I are EQUAL. Taxes? Jury Duty? F-that. Not until I am treated with the SAME respect and given the SAME civil law access that others have.
We need to STOP acting UN-equal. NOW.
Here’s my personal message for the White House:
http://gaytaxprotest.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/connect-the-dots-revised-for-obama/
June 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Bigots and bigotry will eventually die.
June 11, 2009 at 7:45 am
I see both sides of the issue.
Now, first-of COURSE any “Rights” group is going to take the Civil Rights model of the early ’60s. That’s just being smart-that’s no disrespect to MLKJr. per se. But saying A (CR Model) does not equal B and say that B want’s to be A (Gay Rights Model) to dismiss B logically? That’s a logical fallacy (It works better in my head.
Many groups march upon Washington. It’s nothing new, and the Gay lobby isn’t the only one that does this.
Gay couples can’t get Federal Health Benefits and some other Federal Benefits that heterosexual couples have at this time. How are the 2 groups equal if they don’t have the above right?
Once we stop believing there’s no common ground between us, there’s no common ground. However, our leaders (Church) keep telling us that there’s common ground, and I believe them.
Let’s just all get along. Seriously, we all have much more common than we realize.
June 12, 2009 at 11:52 am
Here’s a secular argument against gay marriage.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
The benefits provided to those married are for the propagation of society (aka producing children). Since gay marriages would produce no children, it is unfair to burden the taxpayer with extending the same benefits to a couple with a 0% chance of producing children. If you want to argue benefits for foster/adopted/artificial insemination children, then I think that’s something worth listening to. No matter the law you pass, however, you won’t change the fact that same sexes won’t produce offspring.
Looking at it from a religious standpoint, the problem comes when the gay community encroaches on the beliefs of others. I have the right to disagree with you and believe what you’re doing is wrong, just like I can believe, for example, drinking coffee is wrong and should not be liable for having that belief. I should be able to abstain from drinking coffee just as I should be able to turn down photographing gay weddings, etc. I think that is a major factor in why it is important to leave marriage as it has traditionally been.
June 12, 2009 at 12:56 pm
except I would counter that by pointing out the numerous benefits of marriage other than children, as well as the example of gays who *do* have children (whether adopted, from other relationships — remember too that homosexuals could conceivably have had relationships with the opposite sex and had kids, or that homosexuals could conceivably have children through donor sperm, etc.,) and of straights who do not have children.
So, by focusing on children, we miss the great majority of what marriage actually does. The vast majority of economic and legal benefits accorded to married couples are blind to whether they are or will be children in the married couple’s future. Hospital visitation rights, rights to share insurance, rights to fill taxes jointly, next-of-kin rights, etc., etc.,
That being said, I do recognize that there are such arguments (and also religious arguments). In the end, I simply think they miss the mark.
You are correct as well, in that we should be allowed to believe as we wish. But note…when a Mormon believes that coffee is wrong…this is a belief they only hold themselves or other Mormons too. If a Mormon tried to use their moral arguments that coffee is wrong/bad to try to bind the non-Mormon general public, this would be problematic. I mean, obviously, Mormons have the right to do this, but this sets a nasty precedent. What happens if another group decides (as others have decided) that Mormons are a cult who should be shut down?
So, AT BEST, this gives you a reason to support gay marriage, but with certain religious exceptions and exemptions (as have been put into other states’ gay marriage laws). However, we still have to weigh things…how far do religious exemptions go before they turn the scales over once again against gays in an unfair way?
June 12, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Whoa Andrew, you got it wrong. We choose not to drink coffee, but we don’t think it’s “wrong” per se. It’s not that black and white, and shouldn’t be compared to gay marriage. The two aren’t the same.
June 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm
re 18:
Sherpa, I’m just going by what Dee went and by what my experiences in the church have been. I don’t think retreating and backsliding the Word of Wisdom is a particularly good strategy, though. Then again, maybe I’d rather you did that. And also did that with the Proclamation on the family, and insisted (as you will for the Word of Wisdom) that it is not a pronouncement on what is “right” and “wrong” but rather what LDS believe and choose.
June 12, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[...] So, the Word of Wisdom isn’t a pronunciation on right and wrong… June 12, 2009 — Andrew So, I’ve been going back and forth on Messenger and Advocate’s latest post on gay marriage as it relates to gay marriage supporters calling for a new march on Washington. [...]
June 15, 2009 at 6:50 am
Andrew-I’m not retreating and backsliding the Word of Wisdom. Not at all. The thing is, it’s not black and white. To many members it is- but to say “coffee is wrong,”….That’s not the same as saying “killing in cold blood is wrong.”