The Urban Politico asks a question likely to get people fired up. Check out an excerpt of their staff weighing in below
The Janitor's 2 Cents:
I don't think that the Gay struggle should be compared to Black struggle, but probably not for reasons that you might think. I understand the attraction of wanting to use the Black struggle as an historic example of legal precedent standing for equality. As a lawyer, I get that. However, I don't think that's a smart strategy for Gay rights. In other words, advocates shouldn't say Gays have the right to marry today just because Blacks got the right to marry back in the 60's. One argument should not be dependent upon the other. If that's the case, then, for the sake of argument, if Black's were ever to lose the right to marry, Gays would then also lose the right to marry. Instead, Gays should have the right to marry because if a particular state denies them that right, that state is not following the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Period. No matter who does or does not have the right to get married in that state. Another reason why it's not good strategy to base the argument for Gay rights on the Black civil rights movement is because the Black community is still largely beholden to the Black church, and I don't have to tell you where the Black church stands on the concept of Gay marriage. (see California's Prop 08) And lastly, when arguing before a court, there are still too many differences between (A) Black people and (B) human sexuality that can be used to distinguish, and therefore, defeat the argument for Gay rights if you try to equate the two. So in other words, I don't think that the Gay struggle should be compared to the Black struggle because it doesn't need to be in order to be victorious.
Rebuttals? Thoughts?