From the liberal gay left-wing, you constantly hear the phrase that the gay rights movement of today is the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's.
Well, are they comparable?
From our point-of-view, race and sexual orientation are not comparable; even if homosexuality stems from innate urges that the gay individual cannot control, the expression of those impulses (like all sexual behavior) involves elements of choice. According to author, pundit Michael Medved, this push for compliance can be called the new “tyranny of marriage equality”. In addition, he stated that the prospect for changes not only threatens the future institution of marriage (by altering that institution beyond recognition), but the core idea of this Republic - that legal standards and social norms should reflect the preferences (or at least the consent) of the majority of the people.
Most blacks find the comparison between gay rights and black civil rights demeaning and insulting (this does not include the self-serving Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus). In fact, when Proposition 8 (defining marriage as being between a man and a woman) came up for a vote in California, blacks voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
When gay rights advocates say that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals, they confuse discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All our laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. That is the purpose of our laws. While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined - and if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles? If that happens, it then becomes the theater of the absurd and screws up centuries of tradition as set down by most cultures and religions.
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions, among other things, that have the potential to produce children, and to provide a stable family relationship, which is the future of the nation.
It should be said that not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay, it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. We, as a country have the right to determine what and how we define the term marriage. To oppose interracial marriage, for instance, is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. Society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called “marriage”.
It is intolerant for the gays, who demand tolerance from others, to call those who oppose gay marriage homophobes and bigots. We should be able to agree to disagree in a civil manner.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann