Something to think about. Civil Rights were not granted that I'm aware of

[mmonk]

because bigots were at the table negotiating or voicing limiting a person's rights. It has always been when bigots were no longer welcome at the table and their shame was able to manifest itself did achievements in Civil Rights prevail.

eom.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. It is acomplished through changes in social mores... what is considered mainstream

Which is exactly why the Warren thing is important.

[yardwork]

4. No. The changes in law come first, then the bigots have to comply.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. No, you're thinking of the dead-enders

By the mid-1950s racism was quite impolite in the north. People had what attitudes they had, but you wouldn't casually drop an N-bomb in polite company or goggle at the idea of a black physician. Public schools in the north had been integrated for a long time... white people didn't generally think black people were just like them, but they had shared all public accommodations for quite a while.

Eventually racism came to be low-class and outre in all taste-making centers.

The isolated south didn't get with the program and were thus eventually integrated by law/force (which are the same thing, really), but they were a hold-out.

Had social mores not changed in most of the nation there would have been no laws passed.

(And the Supreme Court is at heart a rubber stamp of 'informed' opinion, though not always of popular opinion.)

[yardwork]

45. I grew up in Ohio in the 1960s and 70s and people still refused service to black people.

There were no Jim Crow laws in Ohio, but many people's attitudes were just as bad. The Klan was more active in Ohio, Indiana, and other midwestern states than it was in the south.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. True that.

[roguevalley]

55. they integrated schools against the bigoted world view of most

people in the fifties and enforced it with cops. That didn't follow change. It made change happen.

[yardwork]

57. I seem to remember that busing in Boston didn't go all that smoothly either.

I guess some people were absent the day that everybody's minds were changed through gentle negotiations?

[roguevalley]

63. it was horrendous everywhere for years. I remember a lot of

moments when the law forced change. We'd still be waiting on some things if it was up to people to change, ergo, gay rights.

[yardwork]

66. It's still horrendous. Without constant vigilance many people would ignore the laws.

Many people don't share civil rights out of the goodness of their hearts. They have to be forced to comply with laws.

[roguevalley]

73. agreed

[slackmaster]

2. Civil rights aren't granted by anyone

They are inherent to the condition of being a human being.

(If you believe in a divine creator, it's OK to hold them as being granted by that creator.)

[yardwork]

5. I believe that I have an inherent right to get married, but my state and country disagree.

Can you help me out?

[slackmaster]

8. Your state and country are infringing on your rights - I have been and will continue to help

I am on your side 100% on this, yardwork.

[yardwork]

12. Thanks.

A lot of posters here have been suggesting that gay people already have all the rights we need. I wasn't sure how to take your post. Thank you.

[slackmaster]

18. My position is that you DO have the same rights as everyone else

But some of your rights have been infringed. That's the part that needs to be fixed.

[yardwork]

29. I understand now. Thanks.

[scheming daemons]

11. Vote with your $$$.... move to an enlightened state like Connecticut

Yes.... I know you shouldn't have to. Nobody should.


But in doing so, you take your political and economic capital to a state that doesn't restrict your civil rights. Connecticut (and you) are better off for it, and your old state is worse off.

If millions of others like you do the same, the cumulative effect will be very large.

Other states will get the message that being anti-gay hurts their bottom lines.



It's an idea.
:shrug:

[yardwork]

17. I guess black people should have all moved to CT instead of complaining about the south, right?

Turns out that we didn't need the Civil Rights Acts or Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education. The solution was right there all the time! All black people had to do was move to the one or two states that didn't discriminate against them!

All the complaining for nothing. But wait. It's not too late. We could repeal all the Civil Rights Acts and as an added bonus, the Democrats would get back all the racist white votes in the south!

[scheming daemons]

26. You asked what you could do now....

I gave you an option.


I also stated that you shouldn't have to..... a part you apparently missed in my post.

[yardwork]

28. I didn't ask your opinion of what I can do now. I know what I'm doing now.

Moving to another state is not an option for me. My children are here and so is my job.

[CTyankee]

24. Yes! Come to Connecticut, we need you! We are losing our population of younger people

here and we need an infusion of talent, brains and creativity.

It is very pleasant in my town, New Haven, which is the culture capital of the state. We've got wonderful opportunities here...

[JerseygirlCT]

123. Your rights have yet to be recognized

or better put, the fact that your inherent rights are being witheld from you has yet to be recognized, legally.

But you already have an inherent right to equal treatment under the law, and to equality.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

7. Ask a judge or a lawyer that without them laughing at you.

[slackmaster]

9. Ask a judge or lawyer what?

There was no question stated or implied in my reply.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

10. Sorry, I meant "tell."

But the point still stands.

[slackmaster]

Let me direct you to an important document that supports my statement

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

[yardwork]

19. Unfortunately, my state and country don't agree with your interpretation of it.

[slackmaster]

21. I'm right and they are wrong

Let's keep working on it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

20. Wow, the slaves had civil rights?

I wonder why they remained slaves.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

22. Yes, they most certainly did have civil rights

Their rights were infringed.

Governments cannot grant or create rights. Governments can only limit them. Some limits are lawful, through due process. Other limits are unlawful infringements.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

37. Infringed? How about totally ignored?

The fact that they were slaves pretty much discounts the "they had civil rights" line. If they weren't able to practice their civil rights, then they didn't have them, regardless of what the Declaration of Independence said.

You can play your semantics game all you want, but if a group's civil rights are ignored, their rights are NOT legally binding. Therefore, they have no civil rights -- a gay person's civil rights falls under the Declaration of Independence in theory, but not in practice.

[slackmaster]

38. The people who enslaved them were infringing on their freedom

Governments that allowed that practice failed to protect the inherent civil rights of the people who were enslaved.

...a gay person's civil rights falls under the Declaration of Independence in theory, but not in practice.

In practice, their rights are being infringed.

Arguments over semantics don't change either the reality of the situation or what needs to be done about it. I am disappointed in people who fail to grasp that government is not the source of rights. Government can restrict rights, but it cannot create them.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

46. At first, you said civil rights are inherent to the condition of a human being.

Then you pulled the Declaration of Independence card, which narrows the focus to America, so which is it?

[slackmaster]

48. Red Herring, irrelevant

All humans have rights.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

58. According to whom or what?

You can tell oppressed people they have rights simply because they're human, but the courts would disagree.

[slackmaster]

80. The courts can be wrong

And the courts are subject to change through the will of the people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. But not necessarily the will of the majority of people.

Brown v. Board of Education, for example.

[slackmaster]

87. That's an excellent example

I'm glad we are on the same page.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

89. Are we? You keep going around in circles.

And doesn't the Brown decision destroy your argument that we should listen to people like Rick Warren, considering no segregationists/racists would have supported the Supreme Court's decision re: Brown?

[slackmaster]

90. Rick Warren is not the issue of this thread

He doesn't have jack shit to do with whether or not anyone has a right to say, own, or do anything; or whether that right has been infringed.

And doesn't the Brown decision destroy your argument that we should listen to people like Rick Warren...

You seem confused. I haven't advanced any such argument in this thread or anywhere else.

Rick Warren has a right to say whatver he wants, within legal limits. You have the right to ignore him. Whether or not you do that, I don't care.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

97. Bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4675208&mesg_id=4675284

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4675208&mesg_id=4676370

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4675208&mesg_id=4676660

So you actually are okay with allowing Warren's ignorant viewpoint re: homosexuality to not be an impediment to talking with him.

He doesn't have jack shit to do with whether or not anyone has a right to say, own, or do anything; or whether that right has been infringed.

Do you even know what Prop 8 was? Or the fact that Warren was a VOCAL SUPPORTER of this that took away GLBT civil rights? And you still think we should talk to him because otherwise we aren't being "progressive"?

[slackmaster]

101. I made no comment on whether anyone should or should not listen to Warren in any of those posts

You're grasping at straws.

Do you even know what Prop 8 was?

Yes. I was very active in the 2008 election. I was very familiar with all of the California ballot propositions, and all of the candidates for local office in my area. I donated to No on 8 and campaigned against it. I had a No on 8 sign in my front yard for months.

I volunteered dozens of hours of my time campaigning for an openly gay man who ran for the San Diego City Council in my district. And guess what - We now have TWO openly gay men on the council out of eight members. That is unprecedented in my city. I'm proud to have been part of that process.

And you still think we should talk to him because otherwise we aren't being "progressive"?

I think our President Elect has the right to the speakers of his choosing, and I think we should respect HIS choice whether or not we like, agree with, or are willing to listen to whoever he chooses. I think the calls for Obama to rescind the invitation insult our new elected leader.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

104. "We" includes Dems/progressives, including Obama.

We voted for him, and we expect him to not give a virulent homophobe a prominent spot.

Yes. I was very active in the 2008 election. I was very familiar with all of the propositions, and all of the candidates for local office in my area. I donated to No on 8 and campaigned against it. I had a No on 8 sign in my front yard for months.

I volunteered dozens of hours of my time campaigning for an openly gay man who ran for the San Diego City Council in my district. And guess what - We now have TWO openly gay men on the council. I'm proud to have been part of that process.

So then you should be fully aware that Prop 8, which Warren was a major backer of, did in fact strip civil rights from gay people. So Warren DOES have something to do with "whether or not anyone has a right to say, own, or do anything; or whether that right has been infringed," as you stated before:

He doesn't have jack shit to do with whether or not anyone has a right to say, own, or do anything; or whether that right has been infringed.

[slackmaster]

105. Yes, Rick Warren and I disagreed on Proposition 8

...Warren was a major backer of, did in fact strip civil rights from gay people. So Warren DOES have something to do with "whether or not anyone has a right to say, own, or do anything; or whether that right has been infringed,"...

That statement would have been true before the election, but the election is over. Despite the best efforts of those of us who opposed 8, we turned out to be in the minority. We lost that battle, it proves we are in a very long, hard fight, and I am not willing to take up the mantle of a sore loser by taking every possible opportunity to shun the majority who thought that voting Yes on 8 was the right thing to do. I do have personal friends who voted Yes on 8, and that is not grounds for writing them off. I don't believe that support of Prop 8 automatically makes one a bad person.

Once again, the choice of Rick Warren as a speaker was not MY choice, it was Barack Obama's. If you have a major problem with it, tell it to him.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

107. So you're letting the bigots win? Got it.

[slackmaster]

109. Please don't misrepresent what I said

I believe that is a violation of the posting rules.

I said the war is not over. People who favored Proposition 8 won that battle. They aren't all bigots, and they haven't won yet.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

111. Because they denied gay people civil rights, they ARE bigots.

But you don't seem to mind them:

I don't believe that support of Prop 8 automatically makes one a bad person.

[slackmaster]

117. Appeal to "isness" a.k.a. Ipse Dixit fallacy

All you have done is insist on a particular definition of a word. The quality of your posts has degraded to the point where they are free of meaningful content.

I think I've stated my views pretty clearly. If you disagree with me, that's your business and I really don't care.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

118. You've defended bigots as people and have trivialized civil rights.

So yes, I disagree with you.

[slackmaster]

124. Bigots are indeed people but I have done anything but trivialize civil rights

I trivialize what I see as a symbolic outrage over the Warren selection that will do nothing to advance civil rights.

[AntiFascist]

120. You simply ....don't ......... understand!

In the California state constitution, as in the Federal constitution, we have something called the equal protection clause. The California marriage ruling did 2 things, it proclaimed that marriage is a Fundamental Right (for the first time), and that sexual orientation is a Suspect Class afforded strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause (for the first time). Even if a bare majority decides to strip us of our Fundamental Right, it does not necessarilly mean that it stands legally, and the California Supreme Court has yet to rule on this issue. We have not yet lost the battle, in fact the battle may be just getting started on the best playing field we have been hoping for.

As for Warren, I do think he is a bad person because of what he has chosen to stand for. Oppression of gays and anti-Semitism should not be fair reflection of Christianity, it is more a reflection of the Third Reich.

[slackmaster]

125. The Yes on 8 people are arguing that 8 does not violate equal protection

Because a gay man is free to marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man, just like all other men and women.

I don't agree with that view, but that's what they are saying.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. Slackmaster

I should have read this before posting below!

:toast:

[yardwork]

3. I have lived in the southern U.S. for three decades.

Nobody here admits publicly that they were against the Civil Rights Acts now, but if those acts hadn't been forced on the south, the laws would never, ever have changed.

It's the same in Ohio, where I grew up, although the laws there were never as bad.

There are still plenty of racists in the United States, but the things they want to do, and used to do, are now against the law. The racists try to get around those laws all the time, and many southern states try to get around them, so constant vigilance is required. That's why I contribute every month by automatic draft to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Not only against the law but culturally unacceptable.

One of the lasting impacts of the cultural revolution of the 60's is that racism, which once was as out of the closet as homophobia is now, is now generally unacceptable behavior. Not that there aren't racists, there certainly are, but they cannot casually flaunt their racism in the general population without meeting with adverse consequences. It is culturally unacceptable to be an overt racist.

What really pisses me off about Warren is that it makes homophobia acceptable. It is an act that says 'its ok to hate the gays'.

[yardwork]

68. I know. I agree. And it stopped the forward momentum after Prop 8.

[cali]

6. I suggest you read Caro's biography of Johnson

Your post is just flat wrong, and embarassingly ignorant.

[mmonk]

16. So you are saying the Civil Rights Act being forced into law

and the schools being forced to desegregate did not lead to Civil Rights becoming both acceptable and enforced through law? I lived through it. If they are not told to stop discriminating, what is stop them?

[cali]

35. I'm saying there was a shitload of negotiating with bigots

read some history.

[mmonk]

49. I remember kids going to school under armed guard.

I didn't see much negotiation in that.

[Empowerer]

76. Those were very isolated incidents - they got a lot of attention and many people who don't know much

about the civil rights movement and what it was all about think that they were the sum total of the movement.

Cali is right - there was much, much more involved. The civil rights movement did not start and end with the Bus Boycott, the March on Washington, the Little Rock Nine and Dr. King. And much of it DID involve all manner of negotiating with all manner of people.

Other books that provide good information - Taylor Branch's "Parting of the Waters," "Pillar of Fire," and "At Canaan's Edge."

[yardwork]

81. Taylor Branch is a white guy from Atlanta who ghost-wrote books for John Dean.

He's certainly not the one and only source on the history of the Civil Rights Movement. He may have some valid points, but he's not the only one with an opinion.

[Empowerer]

84. Wow. I didn't say that he is "the one and only source on the history of the Civil Rights Movement"

But he has written three of the most widely-respected historical analyses of the Civil Rights movement - and won the Pulitzer Prize doing so.

If you're not interested in reading about the movement, that's certainly up to you. But attacking Taylor Branch or mischaracterizing my post does nothing to advance any point.

[yardwork]

92. I didn't attack Taylor Branch, I listed some of his attributes, all of which are factual.

If you consider that an attack on him, we're probably not going to understand one another. Never mind.

[CTyankee]

13. Not necessarily. If you are talking about the Civil War, then there

were other issues at stake, namely the preservation of the Union, and the civil rights of that era came at the end of an armed conflict with a militarily defeated enemy in ruins.

I'm not sure your thesis applies to the passage of the 19th amendment. It's amazing it passed, IMHO, when you realize that only men (for the most part) were being allowed to vote on it, both in Congress and in the state legislatures where it needed a 3/4 majority.

Lyndon Johnson was able to get his civil rights legislation through a largely Democratic Congress at a time when the country was still grieving over JFK. He lost the South for the Democratic Party (no loss, IMHO) and the party had to rebuild itself during its time in the wilderness.

But you raise a very interesting question...

[mmonk]

74. The achievements in Civil Rights came to fruition by not having

people push for limiting that person's right in a give and take. In other words, they had to be told it will no longer be acceptable. This came after recognition of those citizens and their struggle for equal treatment under the law.

[CTyankee]

108. Yes, all the more reason that I advocate for the California legislature

spell out that Initiatives CANNOT restrict the rights of minorities by a vote of the majority.

If this needs to be done in other states, then our work is cut out for us. This is where we need to be, working for this kind of arrangement, for states reps who are enlightened.

This is hard work, given some Stone Age people in state leges. But it is work that must be done and that is a hard slog. State lege work is difficult and unrewarding. No wonder not many people want to do it! But it is necessary. As I am sure you know anyway...

This is the real work, and it will have to be done long after Obama's inauguration...

Let's get busy...

[Windy]

14. If some bigots didn';t have a change of heart Civil Rights legislation

would NEVER have passed!!!!!

[yardwork]

23. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the ERA was never ratified.

Never been passed. I guess we'll all have to be patient just a little longer.

[CTyankee]

30. I went through that struggle. People now say "You have achieved equality through

the 14th Amendment, you don't need to be in the Constitution." I won't accept that. AAMOF, I'd like to see a renewed ERA campaign, the 3 state strategy which sounds pretty intriguing (there is a current pro ERA group pushing this).

[yardwork]

51. I agree. Sitting around waiting for people's minds to change didn't work.

[yardwork]

64. Oops. I see that you edited that statement out of your post instead of apologizing.

Around DU, it's considered polite to say, "I was wrong, I didn't know that" when you post an error of fact. It's considered bad form to sneak back and delete the error as if it never existed.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Kennedy got shot in the head

and LBJ used that to finally push the civil rights act through congress. The disgusting outrage in Selma helped to push the Voting Rights Act through congress in 65. There was not a lot of 'heart changing' among the segregationists, as evidenced by Wallace's third party run in '68 and the total abandonment of the Democratic Party by the 'solid south' from '64 on. Thurmond and Helms didn't have a change of heart, they switched parties. To this day the Democratic Party suffers at the poll because our party took the lead in ending apartheid in america. To this day white voters in the south vote their race not their class.

Name those bigots with a change of heart who made a difference in the civil rights struggle.

[yardwork]

59. The majority of white men in southern states still vote against the Democratic Party.

They seem to be very resistant to gentle persuasion.

[yardwork]

60. You excel at changing your posts after people response to them.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Civil Rights back then were achieved via court rulings.

What didn't happen then is that the majority of Whites didn't get a chance to overturn court decision via propositions at the ballot box.

So now that the majority has recourse at the ballot box to negate court decisions, what they think or how they might vote is as important in obtaining our goals as court rulings are. If they don't get a seat at the table in order to sway some of them our way, then the majority...which is who they appear to be, wins....and nothing is won in ways of Civil rights.

[yardwork]

25. That's incorrect. Civil Rights were achieved through federal rulings.

The southern states have followed kicking and screaming, and the majority of whites in many states would still never support civil rights for African Americans.

The difference is that federal courts and the U.S. Congress and the U.S. president insisted on making new laws and interpreting the constitution more broadly than it had been in the past.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Actually, that was the point I was making,

even if evidently I wasn't clear.

But proposition 8 passed because it was offered up to be voted on. That should not be allowed, IMO.

[yardwork]

44. I agree that California's system is against the U.S. Constitution.

However, I think that California is the only state or one of only a few with that system. Meanwhile, at least forty states have passed constitutional amendments or legislation outlawing gay marriage, and the vast majority outlawed civil unions "and anything approximating gay marriage" as well.

In Arkansas, Florida, and many other states it is explicitly illegal for gay people to adopt children, even the biological children of their partners.

In Texas it is illegal for gay people to even draw up papers approximating the rights afforded by a civil union, such as inheritance, power of attorney, or medical decision-making. That constitutional amendment passed some years ago in Texas.

In the few states that haven't explicitly outlawed these human rights, most don't allow them in practice. My state of North Carolina, for instance, has not yet amended its constitution to outlaw gay marriage and civil unions only because a handful of Democratic legislators have prevented it from appearing on the ballot with the argument that gay marriage/civil unions are already illegal in the state.

With the help of my monetary support and votes, Obama won NC in both the primary and general election. Now I feel like a chump.

[mmonk]

27. The reason is someone had the courage to say no to them.

Not listen to them. Not every state has such ballot box iniatives and personally, I'm against that kind of direct democracy.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I am as well.

If it would have been up to the White Majority as to gets equal protection under the law, etc...., the tactics would have been adjusted, because then the goal would have been to gain that majority. I don't like the fact that the majority has say-so on the rights of any minority. That's not how this country is supposed to work...especially when it comes to constitutional matters, which Civil Rights are.

[CTyankee]

39. All the more reason to have state legislatures forbid any initiative that seeks to restrict

the civil rights of any group.

This whole initiative thing is SO against the founders intention. IT is the closest thing we have to what Madison was so upset about in Federalist #10, the "pure" democracy of 6th century Athens.

Our ballot question in CT was whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to help "expand" democracy in our state, i.e., overturn our wonderful CT state supreme court decision on marriage equality, along with throwing in a few more restrictions on Roe v. Wade and union rights. It was a crock and was soundly defeated. Big mistake by its proponents: lumping all 3 together since you've got 3 groups working against you not just one!

[Solon]

33. There's a possiblity that Proposition 8 will be overturned by the California Supreme Court...

and if Obama keeps his promise, and rescinds DOMA, there will be lawsuits nationwide to force states to enforce the full faith and equal credit clause regarding same sex marriages that are already legal in the Northeast, and possibly California. There is nothing bigots can do at the ballot box to overturn that. After that, it would only be a matter of time before a state that refuses to perform same sex marriages, but recognizes them from other states will be forced to defend this policy in a court of law, and if the justices are truly impartial to constitutional law, they will rule in favor of civil rights and all those Anti-Gay Marriage laws and Amendments on the books in any of the 50 states will be overturned.

[slackmaster]

40. I don't believe the court will overturn it

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, but there will be more twists and turns before things are finally set right.

It won't be over until the issue is resolved the right way by the federal courts.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Prop 8 should be overturned....

and shouldn't have ever been placed on a ballot to begin with. This proposition signature gathering bullshit has got to go....when it comes to constitutional issues. period.

[slackmaster]

47. The California state legislature has been shirking its duties for decades

If they were doing their job in Sacramento, there wouldn't be a plethora of voter initiatives at every election.

If our elected officials were doing their jobs, the major parties wouldn't be losing membership over time. People in this state are fed up with the system. That's why we passed Proposition 11, which will stop entrenched politicians from drawing district boundaries that suit their interests rather than those of the people.

[noamnety]

34. Not only that,

but those changes happened when protesters created enough tension that the so-called liberal politicians who enacted civil rights legislation (and are considered heroes for it) were FORCED to do so.

[CTyankee]

41. "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty" - Thomas Jefferson n/t

[yardwork]

52. That's exactly right.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Oh no you are obviously as stupid as I am

I am being told that I am delusional about this same exact point. It turns out that sitting down with racist shitheads was exactly how the civil rights movement prevailed, only us idiots saw the edited for tv version where people willing to put their lives on the line to defend their rights and demand equality were beaten and killed for doing so and foolishly believed that was what actually happened. I'm glad there are other people as stupid as I am, I was feeling quite alone.

[mmonk]

54. Thanks. I'm glad I'm not alone.

[yardwork]

56. I'm puzzled because I still hear terribly racist things coming out of people's mouths

and yet I'm told that gentle negotiations have enlightened everybody and laws were never needed!

[stillcool]

69. Actually many racist shitheads...

joined the chorus in the cry for civil rights. The televised version did come about until it reached a climax. Surely you don't believe the civil rights movement began with Rosa Parks? Surely you don't think that the negro could have attained their rights without the inclusion of some recovering racist shitheads?

[yardwork]

71. Name one.

[stillcool]

75. Those involved with the Underground Railroad?

My grandparents. Prejudice is societal. It is taught and learned.

[yardwork]

78. I asked you to name a bigot who changed his mind and was instrumental in the Civil Rights Acts.

That's what you contended. You said that the Civil Rights laws were changed because bigots changed their mind and came out in support of them. You stated that Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and the many other protesters - which included many white people who were never bigots to begin with - had no influence on Civil Rights being made law. You said it was due to bigots having their minds changed who then went on to push through legislation.

I asked you to name one.

[stillcool]

83. No..no I did not..

say that Rosa Parks and others had "No Influence". What I said was the climax of the movement resulted in the Civil Rights Act, but the battle started long, long before, and...I might add..each and every person was needed for that success, including those whites who had let go of long held beliefs. Legislation was the result of all that went before, it was not by the good grace of LBJ. The women's movement, required men that had also let go of long-held beliefs about a womens place in society...and was years in the making before the right to vote, and is still a work in progress. The Gay Movement is full of many non-gays, and recovering homophobes. Movements start long before it reaches the public consciousness, and changing minds is necessary for a 'movement'.

[yardwork]

94. I agree with all that but I didn't see any of it in your other post.

The point of the OP is that civil rights are won by struggle, not solely by waiting around until people become "enlightened."

[stillcool]

99. I think it's the consciousness...

of society that is the struggle.

[yardwork]

100. History indicates otherwise.

[stillcool]

112. How so?

when has the leader of anything changed without being pressured to? And where does the pressure come from?

[yardwork]

114. It sounds like you now agree with the OP. Struggle is essential to change.

People have to pressure bigots to change their minds.

That's what I'm doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Don't hold your breath.

The more I think about this argument, the more absurd it becomes.

[stillcool]

98. You don't know of one bigot..

that has changed their mind...ever? You think from 1868 when African Americans were first recognized as citizens until 1964 no one 'changed their mind'? Do you think that no men who had been raised with the attitudes of a womans place in society, 'changed their minds' and joined the women's movement to achieve a womans right to vote ? You think there are no recovering homophobes involved in the Gay Rights Movement? You think that human beings are born with the attitudes of the society they are born into?

[yardwork]

102. That's not what you said, though. You said that the Civil Rights Movement

came about because of bigots in the 1960s who changed their minds and then pushed through the changes. You said that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Park and the other activists didn't do it. You said that bigots who changed their minds did it.

I asked you to name one. Name one bigot who was opposed to black civil rights and then had an awakening in the 1960s and then became responsible for pushing through the Civil Rights Movement.

You made the statement. I'm asking you to give one example.

[stillcool]

110. Stop it! I did not..

Bigots had to have changed their minds somewhere along the line from 1868 to 1964. You want to know a singular person who had a change of heart between 1960 and 1964? Is that it? Okay..how about LBJ?

[yardwork]

113. Ok, LBJ. He was president. So we should work on changing the president's mind.

I'm with you on that. I'm working on changing Obama's mind.

What's the problem?

[stillcool]

115. I don't have a problem..

I agree. I've done the very least I can do to voice my dissent..albeit in a polite manner. Or being 'nice' to 'oppressors'.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/building_the_community_a_guide_to_comments

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home

http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/

[yardwork]

116. Then we agree. Good to know!

[CBGLuthier]

61. No, you are wrong

Harry S. Truman was a bigot. Admitted it. He still knew integrating the armed forces was the thing to do.

LBJ was a bigot. The one decent thing he did was force the civil rights legislation of the 60's through.

[mmonk]

67. Those that practiced discrimination were no longer permitted to do so legally.

You can't erase what may be in someone's heart but you can make actions based on it unacceptable for society. That is not achieved by allowing the discrimination to continue legally as practice.

[yardwork]

70. I think you are in agreement with the OP's point, then.

The point is that human rights shouldn't be dependent on people's good will. Human rights should be a matter of law.

[stillcool]

62. Civil Rights were not granted...

until society was ready to 'grant' them. It was not LBJ that 'granted' blacks their rights. It was a long, incessant cry that got louder in increments, and a hell of a lot of 'we the people' who joined the chorus. I can't imagine that people might think that Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King were responsible for the Civil Rights Act.

[redstate_democrat]

86. It took the NAACP and other groups filing lawsuit after lawsuit all over the country

that clogged the courts with cases after case about racism from schools to swimming pool access. This was the mission of the NAACP at its inception and lawyers like Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston knew that the separate but equal doctrine was not going to be abolished by majority vote in the south. It took the courts to knock that down. The Civil Rights Act did not abolish the separate but equal doctrine, since that doctrine was shut down first in Brown v Board of Education, and cases following it in the 50s. The Civil Rights Act simply created a mechanism to go to federal court to seek relief if a person was discriminated against. The only "rights" it granted were statutory, and those "rights" were remedial in nature. The right to be equally protected under the law is a constitutional right that was recognized with the enactment of the 14th amendment, almost a 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Act. And if you have a right, then the government should obviously defend that right. The Civil Rights Act was a defensive mechanism to ensure that the inalienable rights of people were protected.

This protection didn't come easy. It certainly didn't come by just sitting down at the table with your enemies and hashing out a plan. It came after many people were beaten, hung, bombed, shot, stabbed, drowned, decapitated, dragged, and mutilated. It came after people marched in the streets, demanding national attention, due to the violence directed at them from the enemies of Civil Rights. No one sat down at the damn table with the people who bombed four little girls in Alabama. No one sat down with the governor of Arkansas and Alabama. No one sat down with the KKK. These people had to be forced by law enforced by threats of occupation by the National Guard to recognize, or at least tolerate the recognition, of basic Human Rights. This came only AFTER countless people died. When the Civil Rights Act was being negotiated, even on the day of the March on Washington, violence was rampant throughout the south. Two weeks later four little girls were bombed. This didn't come by simply sitting down with those folks. It came because if it hadn't, this nation would have gone up in smoke. It was simply a move to preserve the union. The people on the other side would have had no qualms about it, but rational thinking people knew that they couldn't allow it to happen. The nation couldn't wait to get "everyone" on board. Things had to happen despite the unpopularity of the notion.

The Civil Rights Act would not have been as strong as it was, if it were not for the bombing in Alabama two weeks after the March on Washington. President Kennedy tried to weaken it, fearing that some Republicans wouldn't support it. However, when that bombing happened, supporters of the legislation strengthened it, and then there was some movement. Also, the death of JFK also had a lot to do with its passing. So, it wasn't simply a matter of sitting down with bigots. It took a lot of force, threats, and the promise of total meltdown if it hadn't passed. Yes, we eventually got some people to come over to our side, but that view simply doesn't reflect the entirety of the situation. It was a perfect storm, so to speak, that made this happen. A decade of pure violence, state governments giving the federal government the finger, and unpopular court opinions to lead to the Civil Rights Act.

And yes, some Republicans were on board with the Civil Rights Act. But you have to remember how the political parties were set up at the time. The Republicans of that day were not the same breed as the Republicans of today. Many Democrats were racist, segregationists. Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, etc were Democrats. They switched to the Republican party in response to the movement in Civil Rights. Not all Republicans were against Civil Rights, just as all Democrats were not for it. So, sitting down with some of those Republicans was not the same thing as sitting down with some of these Fundagelicals, because they were at least open to it. A staunch segregationist wasn't. Just as a staunch homophobe wouldn't be open to compromise on the issue of gay rights. The Southern Manifesto was written by a Democrat, Strom Thurmond, signed by 99 DEMOCRATS and 2 Republicans.

The Southern Manifesto was a document written in February-March 1956 by legislators in the United States Congress opposed to racial integration in public places.<1> The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Democrats and 2 Republicans) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The document was largely drawn up to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which integrated public schools.

The initial version was written by Strom Thurmond and the final version mainly by Richard Russell. The manifesto was signed by 19 Senators and 81 members of the House of Representatives, including the entire congressional delegations of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. All of the signatories were Southern Democrats but two: Republicans Joel Broyhill and Richard Poff of Virginia. School segregation laws were some of the most enduring and best-known of the Jim Crow laws that characterized the American South and several northern states at the time.

The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of "clear abuse of judicial power." It further promised to use "all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto

So the issue wasn't necessarily a party issue, it was an ideological and tolerance issue. The Civil Rights Act was moved because people with the same view made it move. Just as with any fight for Civil Rights, it will take people who are on the same page to make it move. Yes, we can try to get people who are against basic human rights to come to our side, but we shouldn't be mistaken to believe that the rights of others should depend on the generosity of the persons infringing on those rights. This country went to war with itself over the issue of slavery not because of a lack of trying to raise awareness about the evil of slavery. It was because states started seceding from the U.S. because they simply refused to get on board with the idea that slavery was evil. At some point, these people should be ignored and forced to comply.

[stillcool]

91. Yes but all that is recent history...

and defining the civil rights 'movement' in such a time frame negates all that went before it. As you mentioned it was 1868 when blacks were 'recognized' as citizens. That is a long, long road to 1964.

[redstate_democrat]

93. As I stated at the beginning of my post, the NAACP began the groundwork for the

Modern Civil Rights Movement. The NAACP formed in 1905. Several cases were brought longed before the 50s that led to cases like Brown v. Board of Education. They took baby steps, targeting smaller issues first. When I talk about the "Civil Rights Movement", I am talking about the modern Civil Rights Movement in American history. That movement was an extension of everything that came before it, because everything that came before it created the environment and precedent that allowed it to grow stronger. I am not negating anything that came before the modern movement because I recognize that it is all tied together. Just as that movement is tied to what is happening now with the gay rights issue. It is all connected. The precedent that was created from what came before will be what is used to knock down some of the last vestiges of discrimination today, whether they be Women's or GLBT rights.

[stillcool]

106. I couldn't possibly...

say it any better.

[yardwork]

96. Those hundreds of years involved court battles and legislation as well.

It's simply untrue that civil rights get handed over to people just because they are "nice" to their oppressors. I don't think you can name a single instance of this ever happening in the history of the world.

Four thousands of years people have had to fight for their rights on the battlefields, in courtrooms, in the public square, and everywhere else. Yes, talking to people is one part of the struggle, but certainly not the only one.

[stillcool]

103. No one said anything about "nice" to "oppressors"...

and the oppressors to civil rights were the people.

[yardwork]

95. And these battles continue to this day, which is why I contribute every month

to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Civil Rights are neither won nor protected by waiting around for people to become unselfish.

[mmonk]

88. My point is when their rights became non negotiable, then society

came along to accept it. Where would we be if those that wanted to continue to limit their rights were allowed to carry the day? Sometimes, you have to say no to discrimination to make rights concrete in people's mind. Compromises such as one man's vote equalling 3/5ths of another's never achieves parity when it comes to rights of a citizen.

[Empowerer]

72. Actually, that's not true. You should check your history.

[mmonk]

77. OK I'll scrap this post. Civil Rights are achieved by letting bigots

negotiate limiting them. That's how we ended up granting full rights to all people. Let's have our party agree with those that want to limit people's rights by granting them dialogue in the public square and embracing them in our party so as to broaden our voting appeal. Who's with me?

[yardwork]

79. Taylor Branch is not the last word on history.

edit for typo

[AntiFascist]

119. K&R, excellent point !

it was the CA Supreme Court which determined that marriage is a Fundamental Right which gays and lesbians, as an oppressed class of people, are entitled to. They have yet to rule on whether Prop. 8 should be overturned, possibly on the basis of equal protection. People who have made a name for themselves based on their bigotry should never be welcome.

[JerseygirlCT]

121. Just one little quibble

Civil rights have been recognized. But they're not granted. They're inherent - before any laws.

I think it's an important distinction, because Prop 8 still shows how easily people can confuse that, and start thinking they can vote on someone else's rights, you know?

[slackmaster]

126. That's more than a little quibble IMO

It's a central issue, and I'm disappointed that a lot of others fail to recognize it.

A civil right is not something that can be arbitrarily granted, or taken away without due process.

[JerseygirlCT]

128. Precisely. nt

[HamdenRice]

127. "not granted that I'm aware of" -- Complete, total, perfect lack of historical knowledge on display

these last few days is perhaps the most depressing part of this debate.

What planet are you on? Have you ever once picked up a history book and actually learned anything about the civil rights movement?

Every step was negotiated with people opposed to civil rights, and those negotiations limited and still limit, the extent of civil rights remedies.

One of the best scholarly articles on this was entitled "Legitimating race discrimination through anti-discrimination law" because it showed how the severely delimited notion of anti-discrimination law actually enabled all sorts of discrimination to continue -- which it does today.

No one knows what Martin Luther King actually did, which is tragic considering we now have a stupid holiday named after him during which we studiously ignore who the man was. His main tactic was provoking the knuckle dragging southern police which in turn was bad for business. This smoked out the real racist powers in southern cities -- the businessmen and officials -- and he negotiated desegregation agreements with them.

A dozen years later when desegregation finally got to Congress, it was intensely negotiated with southern Democrats and libertarian Republicans to ensure its passage.

Court decrees implementing desegregation were heavily negotiated with racist local officials who opposed desegregation in order to limit remedies.

Please don't be afraid to inform yourself of history.