Carol Costello | News

CNN Debates Whether the Gay Rights Movement is the Same as The Civil Rights Movement: VIDEO


A CNN panel that makes you ask, what's the point of this panel?


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "the same"?

    it's a continuation of it. the Civil Rights Movement is not over.

    before i had the courage to take gay and queer books out of the library i read about the civil rights movement for inspiration and to give me hope. also, the works of women like Gloria Steinem.

    of course there are parallels.

    Sojourner Truth? her words, centuries later, ring loud and clear with profound truth.

    Margaret Garner? her actions showed a bigoted and blind culture just what a culture of oppression does to people.

    and yeah, google Coretta Scott King. That incredible woman knew the truth - no one bigotry is any better or worse than another.

    no one groups has an exclusive hold over their leaders and figures throughout history. As a gay man I continue to find much empowerment from the works and stories of Malcolm X and the brave men and women of the ongoing civil rights movement.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 21, 2013 2:04:57 PM

  2. I love the growth of panels on the news shows, most of which have just a bunch of people more or less agreeing with each other. By 2020 we should have dozens of "experts" and "contributors" talking to each other remotely and then an aggregating software that assembles the words used most often into catchy soundbites. IT WILL BE AWESOME.

    Posted by: Stefan | Feb 21, 2013 2:07:35 PM

  3. Whoever thought up that question should be impaled on the Washington Monument. There is no such thing as Gay rights, Black rights or women's rights. They are civil rights and they should be for everyone.
    Even idiots who make up stupid questions for CNN News deserve civil rights...from a distance.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 21, 2013 2:07:51 PM

  4. "The Federal government doesn't need to be put involved in that decision...Gay marriage, and marriage needs to be sumthin' that the church decides." Who gives a f#ck what teabagger Amy Kremer thinks? I'm not a violent person but whenever I see her face I wanna throw a cream pie at it.

    Posted by: Gigi | Feb 21, 2013 2:10:30 PM

  5. Well, the purpose of these type of things is to fill the airwaves with drama and it certainly does that.

    and whoever said that the civil rights movement was over anyway?

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 2:11:33 PM

  6. That question makes no sense. It's like asking, "Are CNN reporters the same as Turner Broadcasting reporters?"

    Posted by: brian | Feb 21, 2013 2:31:51 PM

  7. That Tea Party c**t knows NOTHING about marriage. It's a function of the state -- no tthe church.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 21, 2013 2:34:00 PM

  8. @chitownkev THE Civil Rights Movement ended when the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60s. The law does not discriminate against black people anymore. I think you're confusing civil rights with racism, which is certainly still pervasive.

    Posted by: brian | Feb 21, 2013 2:34:42 PM

  9. the civil rights movement, Brian, was not just about legislations.

    it's about ending the cultures of prejudice and bigotry.

    and it's far far FAR from over.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 21, 2013 2:36:27 PM

  10. Divide and Conquer. That seems to be the point of this "panel discussion". Derrick, of course, nails it to the wall. Civil rights are civil rights. Period.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Feb 21, 2013 2:41:15 PM

  11. Slow news day?

    Posted by: gayalltheway | Feb 21, 2013 2:55:24 PM

  12. I don't know why people have to even attempt to suggest whether or not something is the same. Why can't something just be similar? Discrimination against LGBT people isn't the same as discrimination against black people, but there are *similarities* between the two (sometimes intersecting) groups of people. Our experiences aren't necessarily a mirror, but that doesn't mean we can't relate to what each other is going through and understand what's in each others' hearts.

    The history of the civil rights movement and the LGBT civil rights movement isn't the same, but there are certainly plenty of *similarities* (again, sometimes intersecting) between the two groups. Our experiences of trying to gain our rights in society may not be exactly the same, but there is enough commonalities between the two for everyone to recognize the pain and anguish we've had to go through to get where we are today, and the fact that the journey to full equality has yet to end for either group.

    There are similarities and there are differences between the two groups of people and the experiences they've gone through, but each at their base is about groups of people being oppressed by other groups of people who have more power and resources in a given society.

    We should all be able to appreciate both the similarities and differences, and always rally to the causes of other oppressed peoples. We are better off working together than apart.

    Posted by: Ryan | Feb 21, 2013 3:01:09 PM

  13. <---- just fell in love with Ryan

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 21, 2013 3:03:58 PM

  14. Amy says no one has a constitutional right to marriage? As I recall, the Supreme Court says citizens have a constitutional right to marriage. Anything from a tea bagger makes me wonder. So many of them like to say they don't get involved in social issues and it is all about the economy. But so many tea baggers don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the economy, and so many of them have been pushing social issues.

    Posted by: john patrick | Feb 21, 2013 3:13:03 PM

  15. I said that there are no such thing as "Black rights" or "Gay rights", but now that I think about it I do use the term "women's rights". And I find that term acceptable (especially when you're discussing the status of women in places like Afghanistan, North Africa, Saudi Arabia etc.).

    I think when someone says, "Black rights, Gay rights or Latino rights" there is a strong backlash. People think of those as giving "special rights".

    But for some reason the same does not seem to apply when speaking of women's rights. Maybe someone can commment with an explanation. Anyone EXCEPT Rick, please. I already know what his vagina envy answer is.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 21, 2013 3:17:59 PM

  16. “We should all be able to appreciate both the similarities and differences, and always rally to the causes of other oppressed peoples. We are better off working together than apart.”

    Well said Ryan! I would just add that I believe, unlike some, that the topic needs to be broached. While given that ‘my’ experiences is not the same yours, you want to discuss the commonality of the ‘feelings’ associated with each experience, particularly for those with “no dog in the fight”.

    As throughout history, allies have made significant contributions to moving “civil rights” forward in this country. Using marriage equality as an example, I may not identify with the inability to get married but I understand the oppressive feeling and injustice of it. Sometimes it is the case that people simply do not think of it in these terms (civil rights) and when they do, through cogent reasoned explanations, it becomes an aha moment.

    IMO, that is how you tie it all together and you cannot do that if you do not ask the question: Is gay rights civil rights? YES!

    Posted by: Belthazar | Feb 21, 2013 3:37:47 PM

  17. @Derrick, it's about familiarity. Everyone knows a woman. The same can't be said for gays, blacks, latinos, etc. Having said that, like other's mentioned above, it's all about civil rights. Separating them like you mentioned just pits groups of people against each other.

    Posted by: Not that Rob | Feb 21, 2013 3:41:27 PM

  18. @Rob,

    yes your explanation absolutely makes sense. It's like the term "chidren's rights". Who could object to such a thing...unless you're some sort of religious fanatic or child abuser who believes children don't have rights.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 21, 2013 3:53:34 PM

  19. Derrick,

    It's about "equal rights for women," "equal rights for black people," "equal rights for LGBT people" and so on.

    I certainly understand and approve of why the movement for black rights called itself the Civil Rights movement, but that doesn't mean only black people have civil rights or that they are the only minority discriminated against by law.

    I have no problem breaking up the struggle for civil rights in this country into component movements by focus - and if the question was "do the current laws discriminate against gay people in identical ways to the way the laws a generation ago discriminated against American blacks?" that would be fine.

    The RIGHTS are the same. How they have been unconstitutionally and immorally constrained may vary by the times, the nature of the majority, and their power over the minority. The path to resolving that discrimination may also be different. Doesn't change the nature of the rights we all share.

    Posted by: Lymis | Feb 21, 2013 4:30:28 PM

  20. In a word "no". Next question....

    Posted by: KeepItSimple | Feb 21, 2013 4:39:28 PM

  21. Brian, I don't need you to tell me when the civil rights movement occured.

    The civil rights movement began more than 100 years before the passasge of the CRA of 1964.

    I would argue as to whether the does or does not discriminate against black people (there's some fancy legal terminology for how it does). but as long as the law discriminates against women or gay people, it discriminates against (some) blacks.

    Or at least under DADT, black women were more likely to get kicked out and targeted under that policy than any other group.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 6:18:46 PM

  22. For once Kiwi is right... sort of. It wouldn't matter if every President from now on were black, the NAACP would still seek donations to perpetuate itself. That's what these businesses do. That's why I keep asking what the Human Rights Campaign plans to do with their building once all legal discrimination has ended. The answer is clear- they will keep on soliciting donations. They have already associated themselves with "coalition causes" which have nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights for gay people and which are counter to the political beliefs of most gay people.

    Both of these groups are fronts for the so-called "Progressives."

    Then we have the SPLC who raise lying to an artform. These are the folks who in one breath claim that blacks are the number one victims of hate crimes and disproportionately the victims of violent crimes and in the next breath talk about "white supremacy groups" even though white supremacy groups have little or nothing to do with generating the claims.

    BTW- Want to know who keeps blacks on top of the hate crimes list? Google "crimes rooted in hatred increase" and Los Angeles Times.

    sample: The largest number of racial hate crimes involved Latino suspects against black victims, followed by black suspects against Latino victims. Latinos also made up the largest number of suspects in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Whites were the leading suspects in religion-based incidents. Overall, blacks made up nearly half the hate crime victims, totaling 310.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 21, 2013 6:53:57 PM

  23. CNN has time and time and time and time again attempted to put a wedge between gay people and black people.


    Why are we not holding CNN accountable?

    Posted by: ForgerIan | Feb 22, 2013 2:45:24 AM

  24. When will GLAAD call out CNN and it's tactics? This is ridiculous.

    Posted by: Duration & Convexity | Feb 22, 2013 2:45:48 AM

  25. Pinning one minority group against another is a page ripped out of the conservative guide book. This is very disappointing coming from CNN and makes me really question their position on LGBT.

    Posted by: Kevin Alonso | Feb 22, 2013 2:46:53 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «AP: 'Husband' or 'Wife' Acceptable to Use for All Married Couples, Regardless of Sexual Orientation« «