'Civil Rights'
Drudge attempts to shock with his latest H1-all-caps headline "HARRIET MIERS SUPPORTED FULL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS; BACKED AIDS EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR CITY OF DALLAS." Actually, he's only quoting a linked-to Time magazine article that says "she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians."
I'd like to know - since when were special rights considered "civil rights?" I support full civil rights for every man and woman legally within the borders of the United States, be they black, blue, gay, or tree-o-sexuals. But since when was gay marriage definitely, 100%, no question about it, a "civil" right?
Of course, it's not a civil right, it's a special right. And even if some want gay marriage to become a "civil right," isn't that what the whole debate is about, anyway? Isn't the debate whether gay marriage is a civil right or not?
By running headlines like this, news outlets are skipping the debate and assuming the truth of their own conclusion.
Do I support "full civil rights" for gays? Of course I do; I think that most people do.
Do I support expanding the traditional definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry? I'm not passionate about the issue, but I lean towards the "no" side. But don't ever, ever take that and report that I don't support "full civil rights" for gays. That's irresponsible and activist.
To even suggest that gay marriage is on par with civil rights violations is demeaning and condescending to those that have actually had their actual rights actually violated. To even suggest that gay marriage is on par with civil rights makes a mockery out of war crimes, slavery, and all of the other atrocities that have been commited in the past.
All too often with these activists, everyone who opposes them is Hitler, every group that has a different opinion is a regime, and every perceived injustice is the second Holocaust. Just yesterday, some loudmouthed Hollywood busybody compared an NBC programming decision to book burning in 1930 Germany.
Government book-burning as being on-par company's programming decision about an inappropriate and off topic 3 second sound clip?
Give it a rest already.
Posted by jkhat at October 4, 2005 01:44 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1116
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # October 4th, 2005 2:12 PM kris |
| I think another reason gay marriage is framed as a civil right is that there's a precedence for the courts to enforce civil rights despite the views of the majority.
Personally, I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I don't think judges should be legalizing it. I think the majority of people need to decide they're willing to expand the definition of marriage before it happens. |
| # October 4th, 2005 2:17 PM james |
| it's not just that, it's also that getting something declared "protected" by the constitution forbids states from restricting it. why fight 50 battles in 50 states when you can fight one in DC?
that was the real tragedy of roe v wade - regardless of which side of the abortion issue you fall on, the fact remains that it's NOT a constitutional right. it was an activist court that declared it one. |
| # October 6th, 2005 7:18 PM mbrlr |
| I don't believe in abortion personally --- I'm a good Catholic --- but read the decision. There was a constitutional basis set forth, albeit not very nimbly. |