Gay rights are civil rights
Feb. 19, 2004 12:00 AM
Jesse Jackson is again saying the struggle of homosexuals does not fall under the category of civil rights.
Perhaps Mr. Jackson is mixing up the words civil and racial. He claims that just because the struggle does not mirror that of the Black struggle, it is not a civil matter.
Mr. Jackson, please look up the word civil. It has nothing to do with race, but with humans, all humans. Homosexuals are demanding the same rights as any other human in the United States. If that is not civil, I do not know what is.
We are not asking for a form of affirmative action where we would be placed above another simply because we exist. But we do demand equal civil rights.
Also, if one looks up the definition of race, one might stretch it a bit to say it is also racial. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history.
Demanding equal rights in all areas of life is a civil matter.
- Mike Lonergan, Goodyear
'Gay rights' are not civil rights
Feb. 21, 2004 12:00 AM
Regarding the letter published Thursday, "Gay rights are civil rights":
With all due respect, it once again must be said that this is not a civil rights issue. To indicate that it is, is an insult to those who fought tirelessly for civil rights legislation in the mid-20th century (such as Walter Faunteroy, a comrade of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who is in support of traditional marriage).
A homosexual has the same rights as any citizen. Just because a person cannot marry another person of the same sex does not take away from this fact. There are many potential "marriages" that are forbidden by law. A person may not marry his/her parent, child, neighbor's spouse, etc., despite the level of "commitment" that this person may have toward the other. Yet this person who would wish to do so still has all of the same civil rights as anybody else, despite being denied (for good reason) these types of proposed marriage.
Casting this issue as a question of "civil rights" seems to be commonplace in our public discussions of late, but I would urge all persons to thoughtfully consider the implications of doing so. Do we live in an age where any disagreement with established laws are to be met with cries of "civil rights" violations? If so, then how should we define the purpose of law?
- Chris Valdivia, Phoenix