New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz, just hours after NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered an excellent speech describing why everyone — including conservatives — should support same-sex marriage, released a racially-charged statement invoking slavery and the Holocaust, while claiming there “is no just comparison between America’s struggle to overcome the evils of slavery and the promotion of the lifestyle of homosexuality.”
READ: Kill The Gays NYC? Gays Should Die Says Pastor At NOM Marriage Rally
The statement (full text below,) misleadingly titled, “Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and Civil Rights Obstructionists,” claims it is “in response to reports of New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s speech about America’s civil rights movement.” The speech, which beautifully invoked many different elements of America’s civil rights movement, including the fight to end slavery, women’s suffrage, and workers’ rights. Diaz did not seem to take issue with those noble causes, only with Bloomberg’s mention of rights for LGBT New Yorkers.
Calling the fight for marriage equality “the push to legalize homosexual marriage,” Diaz, 68, says, “Black Americans should not sit back and let Mayor Bloomberg compare the long struggle of their ancestors against American slavery to the current fight for a lifestyle choice. The effort to redefine marriage to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman can never be compared to the struggle against slavery.”
Note to the Senator: homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice,” any more than being African-American is. But being an Evangelical Pentecostal Minister is. And, less you forget, there is a clear separation of church and state in this country, even though you choose to say there is not.
New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz, who has meshed his secular duties as a New York State lawmaker and elected representative of all the people — not just African-Americans or those over whom his ecclesiastic mores he can dictate — has been working actively and rigorously against gay men, lesbians, and bisexual and transgender peoples for decades. But this latest statement may go further than many others have in thew past, and must be roundly excoriated by everyone, but especially by African-Americans and people of faith, as they are the only ones Senator and Reverend Díaz hears.
New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz should hear the words of his neighbor, New Jersey Senator Nia Gill, who while speaking on the floor to her fellow Senators in 2009, said marriage equality is a civil rights issue. Gill, an African-American, stated,
“It is a civil rights issue — not because African-Americans own the copyright to civil rights, it is a civil rights issue in the analysis of the equal protection of the fourteenth amendment in the constitution. And maybe some in my community want to hold on to it, because it’s ours. Because our blood has been shed for the right to vote, and we jealously guard that as a re-affirmation of being American. And so we hold it, because no one can do civil rights and have civil rights better than we do. That’s emotional, but it is certainly not an analysis of the constitutional imperatives that face us. It’s a civil rights issue.”
Listen: NJ Senator Gill: “I vote for the equality of marriage because I believe in the constitution.”
Or perhaps New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz should listen to the words of the wife of Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, who spoke in 1996 at the Atlanta Gay and Lesbian Pride Festival in Atlanta, and proclaimed, “I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation.”
While directing Mayor Bloomberg to “take a look at the uncivil discourse that is taking place by those whose goals he has embraced,” he conveniently forgets the anti-gay marriage hate rally he headlined and promoted, both as a New York State Senator and as a Minister, during which another man of the cloth just moments before Senator Diaz himself spoke, said “gays are worthy of death.”
The “uncivil discourse that is taking place by those whose goals he has embraced,” is a false flag, Senator Diaz. Surely your own granddaughter will tell you that.
Here is the full text of New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz’s statement:
May 26, 2011
For Immediate Release
Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and Civil Rights Obstructionists
New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz (D-Bronx) released the following statement today in response to reports of New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s speech about America’s civil rights movement.
“It was disturbing today to hear Mayor Michael Bloomberg trivialize the suffering and agony of African Americans during the slave era by comparing it to the push to legalize homosexual marriage.
Slavery in America destroyed countless human lives. The slave trade involved kidnapping people from their homes in Africa, placing them in bondage, shackled, whipped and abused on cargo ships until sold here in America. At that point their families and their lives were subject to the whims and cruelties of their masters. Even after Emancipation, former slaves, who were freed faced lynch mobs, segregation and denial of basic opportunities for housing, education and employment. Peaceful efforts to address these injustices were met with police in riot gear, fire hoses and violent dogs.
There is no just comparison between America’s struggle to overcome the evils of slavery and the promotion of the lifestyle of homosexuality. It is preposterous for Mayor Bloomberg to degrade and minimize the plight of African-Americans in this civil rights struggle by equating it with the effort to push to legalize homosexual marriage.
As all survivors of the “Holocaust” will likely agree, comparing the unique evil of that genocide to other tragedies in the world devalues its lesson to the world. While the dictionary may have its official definition, it means so much more and is not allowed to be tossed about to make a point.
Black Americans should not sit back and let Mayor Bloomberg compare the long struggle of their ancestors against American slavery to the current fight for a lifestyle choice. The effort to redefine marriage to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman can never be compared to the struggle against slavery.
Before Mayor Bloomberg attempts to borrow from history for comparisons, he should take a look at the uncivil discourse that is taking place by those whose goals he has embraced.
Black leaders should not allow Mayor Bloomberg or anyone else trivialize their suffering and their history!”
(Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, who lists nine examples of Diaz & Co.’s “uncivil discourse.”)
{ 24 comments }
The Mayor is not as informed … or as forthcoming … as New Yorkers would hope him to be! Senator Diaz will recognize the tactics used by his detractors in Reason 2 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?"
The lesson of Sheridan Square is best characterized by lawyer Roger J. Magnuson's commentary about a "craven capitulation to the power of the mob" in his book "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!". The book should be essential reading for all New Yorkers and their elected officials!
And if that were not enough to impugn the Mayor's motives, consider his decision to cut Teachers' and Firemen's jobs "to save a buck" when the Mayor KNOWS that the CDC has predicted that the city/stater/country will be paying through its nose in the foreseeable future through the institutionalization of a behaviour that has serious personal and social consequences!
How do we know this? Look no further than the CDC's "FastFacts for HIV/AIDS" in its September 2010 issue ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact… ). These four points appear to have been studiously downplayed by the Mayor:
1. MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons). But … the Mayor will ignore this! … even though MSM represent less than 4% of the population!
2. MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections). But … the Mayor will ignore this!
3. While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men). But … the Mayor will ignore this!
4. MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. But … the Mayor will ignore this!
Now, ad nauseam, and regarding "civil rights", we refer the Mayor, Governor … and their "supporters" … to the article "Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right" by Regier and Garcia! But … the Mayor will ignore this!
Now consider the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?" There are 27 distinct reasons listed why New York will reject gay "marriage"! But … the Mayor will ignore this!
Gay-advocacy may be based on a nothing more significant that a tall, wide, distinct pile of … intellectual dishonesty! In another place, it is called a "strong delusion"!
Either that … or the Mayor will tell us how he intends to fund the medical costs for a behavior he is attempting to institutionalize through "marriage"!
But … that will mean that he actually has to admit that the problem exists! Is that feasible?
Roger, are u aware that racists make those arguments about the rate of HIV in the black community to impugn African-Americans? Kinda puts a pall on your ramblings, doesn't it?
Not really … because, Alvin, you cite no facts, no sources!
The CDC's figures tell me differently … see "FastFacts on HIV & AIDS for September 2010" (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf )
If, as you infer, the figures are a surprise, then ask no less of a standard of Mayor Bloomberg. The least elected officials can do is to become familiar with details … and the dangers … of same-sex-attraction disorders!
So … given the CDC's figures, why would Mr. Bloomberg choose funding medical brigades to combat new infections anticipated in a behavior-based group rather than save Firemen's and Teachers' jobs?
You say that he may not have thought about it that way? Then by all means, Alvin, you must ask him to! and does this explain why gay-activism … without exception … will always seek to influence/commandeer the health sector?
I apologize for this David, but roger, check it out – http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=88578
This clearly proves the point I made. BTW Roger, YOUR link is broken.
Alvin, the correct link to the CDC's FastFacts for September 2010 is http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact… .
The problem appears to be with the way the number 508 was presented …
I am now reading you reference …
What can I say? The figures in the CDC FactSheet ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact… ) speak for themselves … and legislators have to be guided accordingly!
The figures tell me that Reasons 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the online article all illustrate an unmistakable, race-neutral truth!
Is Cuomo ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?"
I'm not going to even debate your numbers, merely ask a question: If marriage is designed to support, nurture, and reinforce monogamous unions — which most of same-sex couples wanting to marry desire — then wouldn't allowing same-sex marriage, to your way of thinking, reduce the spread of HIV? Wouldn't it therefore be in the interest of the state to support it?
Your protests are illogical, and, bigoted, and, irrelevant.
David, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" offered that in discussions with persons like yourself "… the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded …"
Surely this must mean psycho-sexual/spiritual distress … remedied only via due diligence to the last sentence in Dr. Paul McHugh's "Surgical Sex" ( http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/Surgical_Se… )
As to the question of "state support', will you ALSO ignore the inevitable conclusion that it is the behavior, rather than the absence or presence of a condom, that makes same-sex activity "unsafe". To deny this, David Badash would have had to refute the following statement: ""…The Surgeon General has said, "… Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice…." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239).
Then it is a relatively short journey to the "other" issues that the state would have to contend with as being inherent to same-sex-attraction-disorders! they are initially summarized at Reason 7 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?"
Bottom line … is it feasible to ask the state to engage in denial as … large … and as consuming … as yours?
Where has gay-activism earned the right to have you lie to yourself?
You realize of course that Jeffrey Santinover is with the discredited group NARTH (a group affiliated with "life my luggage" George Rekers), don't you. But by the way, you really aren't proving anything about gay marriage. That link says nothing about gay marriage, but I did find something interesting. Unlike you, the CDC is not saying that the lgbt orientation is indicative of the rate of HIV and AIDS, but it DID give the following as one of the reasons:
"Social discrimination and cultural issues: For some MSM, social and economic factors, including homophobia, stigma, and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services."
Basically you seem to be guilty of distorting information for your own purposes. And it speaks to David's point about your argument's lack of veracity. You are cherry picking rather badly.
Alvin, since day one you have been my hero! Thanks for sharing your thoughts — and your work. I will have to link more often to you myself. You are the king of dealing with discredited researchers and those who make ludicrous arguments! Thank you!
Funny that the Congressional Record described Dr. Satinover's book as the "… best book written on Homosexuality in our generation… "! Were they misled?
Alvin, the ad hominem argument is properly defined as an attack on the proponent of an argument rather than the substance of that person's arguments. this is addressed at Reason 8 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?"
So, what, exactly, do you disagree with in the law review "Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review" by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_… )
And lest we assume that all gay-activists are without fault, tells us what, exactly, you disagree with in Dr. Judith Reisman's 2002 law-review "Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth" ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_… )?
Reisman documents in that review gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen as saying "… AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority…" Should we focus on the duplicity … or the FACT that, according to the CDC, "… While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men …"
Thereafter, what, exactly, do you disagree with in the 2002 law-review "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" by Steve Baldwin ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_… )?
What the CDC is saying seems to be clear to everyone but you! Then again, there are none as blind as those who … would not see!
Yes some members of Congress were misled. Who was the Congressman who said that" William Dannemeyer from California? He was extremely homophobic.
Let's go through the list of your other mentions:
George Rekers – uses the work of the discredited Paul Cameron (who believes that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums) and was embroiled in a scandal last year with a "rentboy."
Judith Reisman a former songwriter for Captain Kangaroo who sued the Kinsey Institute when they answered back rather forcefully her lies about Alfred Kinsey. She was laughed out of court and her suit was dismissed with prejudice meaning she can never bring it back up again. No one takes her seriously.
Stephen Baldwin, who also cites Paul Cameron. No one takes that nonsense he wrote seriously. The paper has been called a recitations of fabrications and outright lies about gays. And isn't Regent University run by Pat Robertson. Oh yeah, take HIM seriously.
Lastly, citing someone who cites someone else (rather badly) like Reisman did Kirk and Madsen is proof of nothing. You are digging yourself a deeper hole roger. Quit now.
So let the people of New York judge for themselves!
You cite no facts, you refer to no authority, you infer that Congress was misled in taking the unusual step of condemning the APA for their promotion of pedophilia!
Now you would be a … reasonable … candidate for Reason 8 of 17 in the online article "New York Rejects Gay Marriage 2011"
Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson makes the point at page 137 of "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of The Controversy" that gay militants typically use a fourfold tactical plan in their initiatives at deception:
a) They avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay rights measures,
b) If debate is imminent, they seek to intimidate opposing voices into silence.
c) If debate occurs, they use ad hominem arguments; label opponents as superstituous, insensitive and ignorant.
d) If the debate goes beyond ad hominem labelling, they avoid at all costs discussion of homosexual behaviour, and keep the discussion asabstract as possible – civil rights, discrimination, minority status.
Do you see yourself at (c) ?…
Roger, I've cited facts and now u accuse me of some bizarre plot. You HAVE made a spectacle of yourself. It's rather amusing.
"… Denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …"
The online article "New York Rejects Gay Marriage 2011" outlines 27 reasons … 17 explicitly stated … why New Yorkers will reject gay "marriage" in 2011 & 2012!
Focus, Alvin … address the details!
You offer no authority, you cite no reference, you deny the factual detail … and yet you are "amused'!
A very learned man once called that :… a strong delusion…"
There is only one reason why gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have a right to marry, because we are human beings and that is our unalienable right. As American citizens we have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and the right to freedom of association.
As for our human rights history in America, for 235 years we have been denied the right to marry. While Africans were enslaved, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans were imprisoned for who they were and who they loved. That was supposed to have ended with Lawrence v Texas in 2003, but gay men are still entrapped, and our bars are still raided, and LGBT heads are still smashed in by cops.
After slavery ended, to be gay, lesbian, bisexua; or transgender in America was still a crime, the right to marry or work was still denied.
During the Jim Crow laws, the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans of all ethnicities was still denied.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave African Americans the right to public accommodations. In 2011, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans still have no public accommodations rights, as Chrissy Polis found out when she tried to use a bathroom and her head was kicked in.
Loving v Virginia the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that marriage is a fundamental human right. In 2011, most American states deny us the 1138 federal and state fundamental human rights of marriage, and the United States Congress codified gay bashing in the Discriminatory Offensive Marriage Attack (DOMA).
In 2011 after 235 years of waiting for our human rights to be acknowledged, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students are being gay bashed and gay bashed to death. We are still denied the right to work or to housing. And yes we are still forced to pay for the heterosexist married lifestyle while being denied these rights ourselves.
Why? Because even President Obama has said he has not made up his mind if we are human enough to have unalienable human rights or American enough to have unconditional constitutional rights.
Our struggle is not about civil rights. Our struggle is about unalienable human rights. Our struggle is about unconditional constitutional American rights.
And anyone who thinks that the KILL GAYS BIBLE should be the law in America can take their homo-hot-and-bothered heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRAT bible and shove it down their own genocidal throats and choke on it, Roger Williams you can shove that kill gays bible down your throat and choke on it after Senator Reverend Diaz does.
"Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right" ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ) by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia offers the following:
"… When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement.
Essential to the homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuals are fighting for basic civil rights denied them by an oppressive society. This argument strikes a sympathetic chord among many Americans, whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at the truth about homosexuality and the political goals of the "gay rights" movement shows that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority, that opposition to special legal protection for homosexuality is not bigotry, and that extending such protection is dangerous to individuals and society …"
It's time NY.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace,
The challenge in these threads is to stay focused, understand that most if not all pro-gay-marriage arguments are more emotionally- and opinion-driven than evidence-based, and provide New Yorkers with the information they need to make informed decisions!
The online article "New York Rejects Gay Marriage 2011" illustrates 27 Reasons … 17 stated explicitly … why New York will reject gay marriage in 2011 and 2012.
It is evidence-based!
btw i noticed you ignored my point about racists and what you are doing here.
Alvin, I already answered that one, but perhaps a repetition is necessary::
"… What can I say? The figures in the CDC FactSheet ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact…. ) speak for themselves … and legislators have to be guided accordingly!
The figures tell me that Reasons 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the online article all illustrate an unmistakable, race-neutral truth!
Is Cuomo ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?" …"
In other words, we must move from "Stigma & Discrimination" to "Information and Treatment" … both spiritual and medical!
The only thing that can be added to the above is that overt attempts to "protect" a psycho-sexually disordered group (whose behavior has demonstrably negative personal and social consequences) using the "civil rights" argument actually demeans the noble struggle by Blacks and Jews!
yawwwn. The proof is in the pudding and frankly you have shown yourself to be less credible than gays. You cherry pick work, cite bad studies and then you insult lgbt history. Oppression is not related to only African-Americans (of which I am one by the way) and Jewish people. Oppression happens when folks justify treating others in ways less than they deserve as human beings. Oppression is not indegnious (sp) to only one group or race. And as you have proven, neither is ignorance.
"… Denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …"
The online article "New York Rejects Gay Marriage 2011" outlines 27 reasons … 17 explicitly stated … why New Yorkers will reject gay "marriage" in 2011 & 2012!
You offer no authority, you cite no reference, you deny the factual detail … and yet you lecture on "ignorance"! And yet David Badash below "worships" you!
A very learned man once called that :… a strong delusion…"
go to bed roger. you are beginning to make a spectacle of yourself.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }