8 Replies to “In the Name of Love”

  1. Although I couldn’t agree with him more, I actually found it a bit overwrought. I think he could have made the same point in half the time, and with less flowery language. When his voice trembled, I didn’t find it sincere, it came off as an affectation.

    For me, his strongest points were about Obama’s parents not being able to marry under previous U.S. laws. I would have stuck to these kinds of arguments. That “separate but equal” has been discredited. That no harm can possibly come to straight couples through gay marriage. That the “gay agenda” is simply equal treatment under the law. That gay rights are civil rights.

    So I think it was worth watching, but I couldn’t show it to someone who voted yes on Prop 8 and change their minds.


  2. Hi Daniel. I didn’t perceive his voice trembling as an affectation – it seemed very sincere and impassioned to me.

    I’m not quite clear – are you saying that you consider these points discredited:

    That no harm can possibly come to straight couples through gay marriage. That the “gay agenda” is simply equal treatment under the law. That gay rights are civil rights.

    If so, how are they discredited?

  3. Just the opposite. Those are the additional arguments I would have made. (He did mention the first, but not as bluntly as I would like.) I feel very strongly that there should be no line you can draw through the population which creates first and second class citizens.

    Additionally, I believe it’s the responsibility of every minority who has succeeded in their own civil rights struggle to help the remaining minorities which haven’t. It’s not good enough to reach the top of the mountain yourself – you need to reach a hand back down to people who are still on the way up.

    I’m sure he was sincere, but looking down between segments and changing cameras felt theatrical. Maybe he just doesn’t connect with me emotionally. The first half was pretty strong though.


  4. Agreed on changing cameras – I never like it when he does that.

    On civil rights – until an hour ago I never questioned that this is a civil rights issue. But listening to the latest episode of KQED Forum (via podcast), several speakers/callers pointed out that many African Americans take umbrage to comparing the two struggles – that to compare gay struggles to the history of civil rights is to utterly diminish the history of African Americans.

    I can see this point, but also feel like that’s a narrow definition of civil rights. History aside, civil rights is exactly what it says it is – the movement to erase laws that discriminate between groups of people.

    I feel that we should be able to call both struggles “civil rights” issues without being accused of diminishing African American history.

  5. The whole “civil rights” thing is a mere tactic by the gay movement to equate themselves with a REAL struggle. Their hijacking of the term is offensive to blacks, and indeed to any thinking person.

  6. @M: No, not “indeed to any thinking person.” See my comment just above yours. There’s no question gay rights is a civil rights issue. Look up the definition of civil rights.

    The only question is whether African Americans should be able to keep the phrase all to themselves, whether they’re right to be offended at the thought that the term could apply to any other group.

  7. M: Oh really? How many centuries of persecution, hatred, and discrimination against homosexuals does it take to make it a “real” struggle? Don’t forget to include in your answer the process by which you were granted the right to pick the answer for all “thinking people”.

    It also seems to me that if you’re going to make a borderline offensive comment on someone’s blog, you could have the courage to post under your full name. But hey, congratulations on the flame-bait, you got me to respond.

    Daniel Switkin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *