Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Comparison of Black Civil Rights and Gay Civil Rights

This is what I get for scanning blogs. I ran across one blog that had the following:

[�There is today a great debate over what, if any rights the same sex couples are entitled to. If indeed, these people are to be singled out, how shall we decide what rights the same sex couple is entitled to and which ones they should be denied? Is there any logical argument for the denial of basic rights to any group of citizens in the United States? There is a large history of debate over the last one hundred fifty years of the subject in regards to civil rights for Black Americans and women, in particular.

Blacks were denied the most basic civil rights in the United States for over half of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Segregation existed in every aspect of daily life. Separate Hotels for Blacks and Whites, separate drinking fountains, dining areas and schools. Women could not vote in the United States until 1920. The point is that these groups continued to be denied what appears today to be the most basic right available to all citizens today.�]

["I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus," said one 37-year-old California man who recently went to San Francisco to "marry" his male partner. "Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus,"]

Look Snoop is a reasonable guy for the most part, but on the same sex marriage thing this really pisses me off. In case some of you are pro same sex marriage folk, and in conversations with friends you have made the comparison let me peep you on what most of us black folk think about this issue:

**When has a multitude of gays been kidnapped and made to be slaves for 400 years? When was it illegal to teach gays to read and write? When were there ever any gay Jim Crow laws? When were gays required to say "sah" or "ma'am" to straight people? When were there separated gay and straight water fountains? In public buildings, when were there separate entrances for gays and straights, the gays going out the back? In theaters, have gays been forced to sit in the balcony while the straights sit on the main floor? When were there segregated lunch counters based on sexual preference? When was a gay required to give up their seat on a bus to a straight person? Who was the gay Rosa Parks? Were gays at the bottom of the economic social structure for decades? Where were the poor gay ghettos? When have gays gotten worse jobs and lower pay than straight people? When were there separate-but-equal schools for gays and straights?***

**Black civil rights leaders have also expressed strong condemnation of attempts to hijack the civil rights movement. "We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Bishop Andrew Merritt of Straight Gate Ministries and several other Detroit pastors said recently in a statement supporting traditional marriage. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."**

This comparison of the two issues has pissed me off since my days growing up in the Bay Area and the �were here, were queer� chants in the Gay rights parades in San Francisco.
Blacks during the civil rights era did not go down the street half naked, grabbing each others ass, wearing feathers, leather straps and other shit.
Part of gaining respect of mainstream society is to earn respect not to rub your lifestyle in the faces of the general public. AND high jacking the civil right era to make your case is not a smart strategy. If in 2008 the left continues to make the civil rights comparison more and more blacks will certainly lean more towards the Republican Party. You democrats know very well that if you lose what was a guaranteed base of support in the black vote your screwed.


Ok, lets make one thing perfectly clear.
Snoop does not agree with the current Supreme Court decision concerning Eminent Domain. The decision was simply wrong. HOWEVER, on my trip I stopped for a break and was watching CNN and this dude who was the son of one of the plaintiffs was standing in front of one of the properties in the case. This place looked like a fucken mess!
The house was all jacked up. Paint chipping, door hanging off, trash in the front yard ect.
I am thinking the CNN camera man set this poor sap up. I use to do videography years ago while in the Air Force and setting up the RIGHT shot was VERY important. CNN could have chosen somebody with a nicer home or one that was cleaned up. So what message was CNN sending Hmmm?

My kinda sorta point first of all is although the decision was WRONG it is not the end of the damm world. If you are a property owner and your property is a piece of shit and an eyesore to the community, if you want more sympathy from the average Joe then either do something constructive with your property or at the very least clean it the fuck up!
If your city or town pulls this shit and you do not agree then vote the bastards out of office, plain and simple.
BUT people do not have the right to have a shitty eyesore piece of property that hinders the land value of others around it.
To me its like people who own homes and their house is full of weeds, trash, kids toys, dog shit, fence falling down, chipping paint, cars on blocks. They are either lazy fucks or have no regard for the people around them.
If your property looks like shit then you are affecting my properties value.
That is equally WRONG.