NOM BLOG

NC Black Ministers to Dems: "You are Disrespecting the Foot Soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement."

 

The minority leader of the North Carolina House called the marriage amendment "hate speech."  The Democrat caucus also announced that somehow codifying current law into the constitution would be bad for business (we're hoping the Democrats in NC have a better business plan than gay marriage!).

Meanwhile a group of black ministers called out those who equate support for gay marriage with the civil rights movement:

Supporters of the amendment counter that states that already have prohibitions of same-sex marriage in their constitutions aren't seeing businesses leave for other states because of that issue.

Several black ministers who spoke at a later news conference said it's contrary to the Christian faith and the Bible for same-sex couples to marry. They called on the Legislature to let the public vote on adding the prohibition to the constitution to protect the institution of marriage. The Rev .Johnny Hunter of Cliffdale Community Church in Fayetteville said gay rights activists have offended black people by equating the efforts to support gay marriage with civil rights activities in the 1960s to remove racism from the law books.

"Blacks know what real discrimination is all about," said Hunter, referring to slavery and Jim Crow-era laws that preventing blacks from voting. "They're disrespecting ... the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement." --Associated Press

46 Comments

  1. kellyanna
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    gay rights arent civil rights. And its insluting that gays keep trying to compare themselves to women, black and disabled sufferage. Even the disabled people said the didnt want to be compared to gays..Its about time black folk start speaking up as well..

  2. Faye
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Kudos to those ministers who spoke out against equating the civil rights movement with support for SSM ! Such "equality" is an offense to every non-Caucasian who has ever been enslaved or discriminated against, due to skin color.

    The Bible does NOT say, "Thou shalt be Caucasian; and if thou art not, thou shalt be enslaved or discriminated against, as a 2nd-class citizen."

    The Bible DOES say, "Love thy neighbor (referring to the person living next door, NOT to one's sexual partner) as thyself."

    The Bible DOES say, "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and he shall cling unto his wife, and they shall be as one flesh. . . A man shall not sleep with a man as he does with a woman."

  3. Mykelb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin's dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people" ~Coretta Scott King

  4. Mykelb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    ‎"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be. I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free ...society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy. The civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion."
    ~Coretta Scott King

  5. Mykelb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Faye, how many slaves do you know? I have never met one in my life, except those that are slaves to dogmatic religion. If Constitutional equality under the law is an offense to every non-caucausion, I must assume that you hate America. America stands for equality under the law. Your religious nutbag bigotry is an offense to those of us who revere the law and our Constitution.

  6. Louis E.
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    It is regrettable that Mrs. King was seduced by claims that just discouragement of gratifying impulses toward foolish behavior is "injustice",and that "brotherhood and sisterhood" for those prone to such impulses should not be measured by the persistence of one's efforts to correct rather than abandon them to their foolishness.

  7. Louis E.
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    The constitution was never written to require that wrongdoing be treated as equally wise as proper behavior.Same-sex sexual activity is wrong for all persons and its treatment as if it were not wrong is harmful to all persons.

  8. Mykelb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    The constitution was written to limit the rights of government over the people. It had nothing to do with right or wrong. That's where your nutbag bigotry gets you ignorant religious slaves into trouble. Governmen tis not for making moral decisions for the people. Government is there to ensure that the rights of the people, even those that ARE NOT ENUMERATED (see the 9th Amendment), are not violated by majority tyranny.

  9. SC Guy
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Well said to those ministers. The point is that black Democrats who are generally strongly opposed to homosexuality need to either wake up and stop voting for Democrats who ignore their views or force them to actually represent their social values!!
    Just look at so many of the African-American members of Congress who are rank liberals on this and so many other issues because they completely take the vote of their constituents for granted.

  10. Ash
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    When comparisons are made between the gay lobby and the struggle of Blacks, I believe that most realize they are used to silence opponents of ssm. Not many people are buying into that crap, i.e. to oppose ssm, one is the moral equivalent of a racist. To even claim that the situations are remotely similar is ridiculous, and just serves to anger and alienate Blacks all the more.

    I hope that Blacks move away from the Democrats in the near future.

  11. Mykelb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Ash,

    I hope that your moral relativism serves you well. When people talk of SSM we are not talking about morality but equality under the law. That's where you guys get screwed up. Your ideas about morality have absolutely nothing to do with our Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

  12. Responsibility
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Mykeb,

    Why is the gay rights lobby only interested in tolerance as long as one is tolerant towards the ever increasing intolerance of the gay rights agenda.

    The gay rights agenda isn't preaching tolerance - you're preaching conformity to your narrowly defined agenda. You're preaching the normalization of LGBT "rights" when all of these behaviors are abnormal.

    You preach congratulations when someone comes out of the closet, but never congratulate someone when they decide not to be gay anymore (yes - it's true - there are people who once were gay but are no longer; funny I don't think that's possible to change your skin color).

    Btw- your reading of the role of the US Government and morality is extremely narrow and selective. Protecting rights is ONE of the jobs of government; not the ONLY job of government. Gays are not the only ones with rights in the US - what about religious ministers who don't want to perform a gay wedding??

    And as for your argument that law isn't based on morality, puuhlease. Go back and study the history of law. ALL law is based on morality and the definition of right and wrong.

  13. John Noe
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see that these blacks get it and have not been suduced by the lies of the homosexuals unlike Correta Scott King who continues to disrespect her late husband.
    Martin Luther King believed in equality of people not human conduct and behavior. He also stressed that blacks did not want special rights just equality. They were discriminated against due to skin color and when they tried to obey the laws equally like everybody else.
    Homosexuallity is human conduct/behavior and thus not people. Also homosexuals already have equal rights when they obey the laws equally like everybody else. Marriage is a perfect example. When blacks tried to obey the marriage laws equally and wanted interracial marriage they suffered discrimination. It was not necessary to disobey the marriage law and then claim equallity. Compare this to homosexuals who lie about marriage equallity. They want special rights not available to anyone else.

    Finally go back to the "I Have a Dream Speech". MLK said it was okay to judge other people by their moral character. Homosexuality is immoral and is a form of human conduct so it is okay to judge it as such. Any comparison to civil rights is a farce.

  14. Tyler
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Blacks and gay people did not have the same exact struggle... but to say there aren't similarities is simply ignorant. Blacks had Jim Crow laws, gays had sodomy laws. Blacks had to march, and fight for their right to vote... gays had/have to march and fight for their right to marriage (and before anyone tells me there is no right to marriage... the court has stated in decisions that there is a fundamental right to marriage.) True, the exact experiences and struggles aren't completely the same, but is simply not true to say that gay people are not currently fighting for their civil rights.

  15. Denver
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    @mykelb. great comments. Keep up the efforts for equality. Thanks

  16. Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Folks keep forgetting about black gays and lesbians. unfortunately NOM plays the divide and conquer game with both gays and blacks. the organization really doesn't care about either group.

  17. Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    no one group has a patent on civil rights. And folks forget that it was an openly gay black man, bayard rustin, who played a HUGE role in the African-American civil rights movement.

  18. Barb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Ash is correct. Many, if not most, black people are justifiably insulted by the comparison between the gay "marriage" oxymoron and the real civil rights movement.

    Following the logic of pseudo marriage advocates I should have the "right" to marry my sister. That would be true marriage "equality."

    You folks are just silly.

  19. Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    One more thing. You all forgot that the NAACP issued their disapproval of the amendment in the SAME article.

  20. Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Dear Barb,

    as a gay black man, I think I can speak for myself in terms of what I approve of or disapprove of. And I feel comfortable with saying that I speak for the entire black community on that point. Regardless of our individuals feelings on the matter, we are not puppets. And black folks would feel less used by NOM if the organization actually cared about what goes on in our community.

  21. Mary Ann
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Where oh where is that elusive gay gene?
    When attraction is proven to be as obvious and immutable as race, let's talk.
    Until then, the civil rights comparison is invalid to most people, including most minorities.

  22. Louis E.
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    I am not religious.There is NO "equality of people" issue here...only a matter of STANDARDS OF CONDUCT that apply EQUALLY to EVERYONE.

    There is a public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships,and the sole justification for the institution of civil marriage is as a means of furthering that interest.There is NO public interest in accommodating same-sex sexual relationships in any way,and co-opting marriage into doing so destroys its entire purpose.

  23. Louis E.
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Tyler,the "fundamental right to marriage" has ALWAYS been understood to mean "marriage" between persons of OPPOSITE SEXES!

  24. Marty
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    The only thing stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying just like everyone else is themselves.

    Separate is hardly going to be "equal".

  25. Badger
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    No one black minister can claim to speak for the whole black community, which consists of people who are very supportive of gay rights and see it exactly analagous to civil right. It is intersting that people such as Archibishop Desmond Tutu who know a thing or two about discrimination support marriage equality.

  26. Badger
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    And here is Congressman John Lewis another person who knows about discrimination, having particpated in the civil rights struggles of the sixties and a close associate of Martin Luther King: "You cannot separate the issue of civil rights. It is one of those absolute, immutable principles. You’ve got to have not just civil rights for some, but civil rights for all of us."

  27. Badger
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Mary Ann, there is no single gene that is responsible for skin clour or left handedness either. But skin colour, sexual orientation and "handedness" are all inherent characteristics of EVERY human being.

  28. Tyler
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    While scientist have yet to conclude what causes one to be gay (or straight for that matter) all their findings point to a biological reason. That have discovered patterns, and innate differences between the physiology of a gay man's brain and a straight man's brain. No respectable organization believes that being gay is a choice, and for many of you to suggest it is, is a slap in the face to the many in the LGBTQ community. Louis, I guess we will have to see if the courts agree with you. Hopefully they won't.

  29. Barb
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Some folks are far too quick to claim victim status, to state that they're somehow being used. Anyone could make such a claim if they so desired. I support NOM b/c they share my values. The marchers in New York marched b/c NOM supports their values. Etc.

    We're nobody's puppets.

  30. Louis E.
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Badger,neither sexual orientation nor anything else can confer on anyone a "right" to escape censure for conduct as reprehensible as engaging in a same-sex sexual relationship.
    Tyler,being in such a relationship IS a choice,and an ALWAYS WRONG choice.And those conspiring under the banner of "LGBTQ community" need as many (metaphorical) "slaps in the face" as it takes to make the stop pretending their orientation excuses that choice any more than being an alcoholic excuses someone for penalties for drunkenness.If the courts don't agree with me,that means the constitution must be amended to take away their right to disagree.

  31. P. Edward Murray
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    We can always control how we behave and that idea is key here.

    Human beings need Food and Water but we can live without sex.

    Believe it or not many folks die without having a sexual relationship period.

  32. P. Edward Murray
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    Nation-States and all of human civilization depends on the abiltiy for men and women to meet, marry and bear children for they are the future.

    Those who advocate for something else have lost their sense of humanity...and if we let them we will lose our nation and eventually our lives as a species for no species can exist without reproduction.

    And we are on the way there....

  33. Mary Ann
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Badger and Tyler,
    What do you say to people who say they've chosen a gay lifestyle or relationship for whatever reason, and people who renounce that same lifestyle? I have known people in both types of these situations.
    But I can't say the same for people choosing to be a certain race, or renouncing that race.

  34. Patrick Hogan
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Glad to see Mykelb already posted the Corretta Scott King quotes -- if anyone should know whether anyone should be offended by comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, she should.

    And Mr. McEwen already beat me to the punch mentioning Bayard Rustin and the NAACP statement.

  35. Mikhail
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    P. Edward Murray- gay people who do not have sex tend to be less healthy than the gays who are "out". Im Russian Orthodox and support traditional marriage but I certainly do not think gay people should remain celibate, they should not be in the church if they are struggling with same-sex desires.

    WHY DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT GAY SEX HERE? THIS IS THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE NOT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SEX!

  36. Badger
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Mary Ann - I would tell you that their sexual orientation has not changed. In many cases they started bisexual if they are able to form relationships with people of either sex and they remain bisexual even if they "renounce" a particular identity. However that is not an option for a vast majority of gays and lesbians just like you renouncing your heterosexuality is probably not an option.

  37. GFC
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    More members of the King family:

    MLK's youngest daughter Bernice King, daughter of Coretta Scott King " publicly organized support for the proposed George W. Bush constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage" (http://atlantapost.com/2010/08/10/is-gay-marriage-a-civil-rights-issue-martin-luther-kings-niece-doesnt-think-so/).

    Dr Alveda King, neice of MLK says elsewhere on this Blog: “The question of race… there is one race on the planet and that’s the human race. And of one blood everyone was made. And so to tell two people that they can’t’ marry b/c of difference of skin color is against the foundational understanding that we are one race. So any man of any complexion can marry any woman of any complexion…now the issue of two men marrying or two women marrying, of course, is in direct opposition of what’s there. So therefore it is not a civil right…” (http://www.nomblog.com/1554/)

    The direct opposition comment appears in context to refer to two men or two women 'marrying' being in "direct opposition" to the nature of marraige being between one man and one woman.

    Elsewhere, (http://www.nomblog.com/1426/) Dr Alveda King elaborates: "It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman." (0:24-0:36)

    David Tyree is American of the Century. People will recall his heroism for many, many years - and his stance for marriage will prevail in New York.

  38. GFC
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    More from the King family:

    "MLK's oldest daughter Bernice King publicly supported George W. Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage" (http://atlantafamilylawnews.com/2010/08/mlk-niece-alveda-king-gay-marriage-not-a-civil-rights-issue.html)

    Dr Alveda King: “The question of race… there is one race on the planet and that’s the human race. And of one blood everyone was made. And so to tell two people that they can’t’ marry b/c of difference of skin color is against the foundational understanding that we are one race. So any man of any complexion can marry any woman of any complexion…now the issue of two men marrying or two women marrying, of course, is in direct opposition of what’s there. So therefore it is not a civil right…” (http://www.nomblog.com/1554/)

    "What's there" being the nature of marriage.

    She also says: "It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman" (http://www.nomblog.com/1426/ 0:24-0:36)

    Coretta Scott King is not the standard.

  39. GFC
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Apologies for double posting.

  40. MIke Brooks
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    People who label themselves based on their homosexual behavior already have equal rights, as those who participate in bad behaviors such as alcoholics or or drug addicts have equal rights.

    Show me one homosexual that is not allowed to get married under the current definition of marriage. Contrast that with the fact that Blacks were denied the opportunity to get married under the current definition of marriage.

  41. Ash
    Posted September 8, 2011 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Mykelb: "When people talk of SSM we are not talking about morality but equality under the law. That's where you guys get screwed up. Your ideas about morality have absolutely nothing to do with our Constitution and the 14th Amendment."

    I think you screwed up my comment. I wasn't saying anything about marriage being an issue of morality. I was making a point that ssm advocates often try to make opposition to ssm the moral equivalent of racism. I have been compared to the KKK, Nazis, etc. for opposing ssm (which is interesting, because I'm Black). Your side, though not single-minded, is apt to make moral judgements about people who have public policy disagreements.

  42. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted September 10, 2011 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    Where is the discrimination, and against whom, in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that EVERYBODY is either male/man, or female/woman?

  43. Cal
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    These minsters are the ones disrespecting the civil rights movement. Civil rights aren't just for groups they approve of. Civil rights are for everyone. To think otherwise puts them in the same category as the Jim Crow supporters who would've denied them their own rights.

  44. Cal
    Posted September 15, 2011 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    To those of you who question whether people choose to be gay...who cares? You know what else is a choice and not something we're born with? Religion. Imagine if a law were passed saying Baptists are no longer allowed to marry. That would be no different that banning gays from marrying.

  45. TC Matthews
    Posted September 16, 2011 at 12:00 am | Permalink

    Cal, except that you are not banned from marrying. Everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else under the current marriage definition. You do not have an inherent right to redefine marriage to suit some extra marital activity you may choose to participate in. That applies equally to everyone.

  46. Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name
    Posted September 19, 2011 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    NOBODY is excluded from the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female, even those who claim to be homosexual.

    So, where's the discrimination?