Talk:Special rights/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gay rights vs. civil rights

I noticed several reverts regarding the issue of gay rights vs. civil rights.

1. Do there exist self identified civil rights activists who push for legislation like same sex marriage? If so a few cites
2. Do there exist self identified civil rights activists in positions of leadership (i.e. head civil rights organizations) that hold that issues like same sex marriage are not civil rights issues? If so cites?
3. Do there exist people that identify as gay rights activists that do not identify as civil rights activists? cites?
4. Do there exist organizations that self identify as gay rights that do not self identify as civil rights? cites?

jbolden1517^Talk 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Well, for #1, it's pretty easy. We can start with Coretta Scott King (many cites; in speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, USA Today, March 24, 2004, she said "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages".) Julian Bond: "Are gay rights civil rights? Of course they are."[1] He also didn't attend Mrs. King's funeral because the church it was held in was anti-gay. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Martin Luther King, Jr supported civil rights is highly controversial. I have not seen authoritative quotes which lead me to believe that he supported them. DavidBailey 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good cites for the #1 issue! BTW are you joining in on the mediation? jbolden1517^Talk 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I should, since I'm not on any one side or another; I've just been researching and bringing facts to the discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I just figure you are pretty regular on the talk page. You are also a well respected member of the community. Its silly for me to be mediating if you are here regularly and neutral. I guess what I'm asking you is how you want to play your role. I can mediate between the others and you can chime in, but that's basically joining in. Anyway you get the picture. jbolden1517^Talk 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing any role other than my favorite -- gathering information. For such a tiny article, there sure is a lot of fuss going on. I'm not a regular on the talk page; I've made a total of three comments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One question we're missing which I think is key. Are there civil rights activists who don't consider themselves, gay rights activists. And I think there are many. To compare the two is to legitimize the term "gay rights", which is a controversial term, because many social conservatives don't believe homosexuals are being denied rights. They can associate with whom they choose. They can enter into contractual arrangements with a partner. They can engage in what consensual acts in the privacy of their homes without breaking the law. They can grant power of attorney and have joint checking accounts. What some gay activists are looking for is to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples regardless of this fact. Frankly, I think it's less about rights and more about being "mainstream" and having everything "be the same" as other married couples. The tax benefits are lousy. The history of marriage is that it is a religious tradition. The state began to recognize it because they believed it was in the interests of society to foster stable family relationships to raise children and pay taxes. I'd be interested in other views on this. DavidBailey 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The question you are asking is #2 on my list. Jpgordon cited plenty for #1. do you have cites for #2? jbolden1517^Talk 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Missed it. I'll find some cites. Regards. DavidBailey 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do, . --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some citations. [2] [3] [4] [5] DavidBailey 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[Outdenting] Good cites David! OK we still need a little more evidence

1. I need some evidence that McKissic is in fact a civil rights leader and not just the pastor of an african american church
2. Similarly for Rivers and Johnson
3. The Jesse Jackson reference doesn't work unfortunately because he does consider gay rights to be a civil right he just considers it offensive to compare black rights to gay rights. But he certainly qualifies.

Keep it up we need to find a few high quality sources which back your position. jbolden1517^Talk 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly certain why only "civil rights" leader can comment about civil rights here. Can't a religious leader also comment on the appropriateness of the use of the term "civil rights"? DavidBailey 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "civil rights" is no longer used in the article. If a religious leader comments on the rights of religious minorities in the sense that these are not special rights, that can certainly be included, and I believe that it should, though I have no quote on hand.--Bhuck 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you have an example of a Russian orthodox leader speaking about the situation of non-Orthodox groups in Russia (religious minorities, who are being oppressed by the Orthodox majority) and saying that these groups should not be granted special rights. That would also be worthy of mentioning.--Bhuck 21:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in dispute is the general section, not the section about usage in regard to the pro-/anti-gay-rights issue. See the discussion above, where the comparison is made about firing people because of their skin color vs. firing them because they are ugly. Therefore, using the term "civil rights activists" does not imply in any way that "all civil rights activists are gay rights activists". Just as there are those who strive for racial equality who do not support gay rights, so there are also gay rights activists who do not necessarily support racial equality (at least I presume there must be, though I can't think of any at the moment). Nevertheless, both sorts of activists are supporting (different kinds of) minority rights. Just because Louis Farrakhan might happen to support Affirmative Action doesn't mean he also has to join the Anti-Defamation League or Bnai Brith.--Bhuck 11:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that gay rights activists may consider the fight for "gay rights" equal to "civil rights". But to lump them together in Wikipedia is to take a view which shows a strong gay-rights-activist-perspective bias. Many people who believe in the civil rights movement disagree with gay rights. Whether or not gay rights activists consider the fight to be technically or literally the same, using the words in this fashion are not helpful, they are confusing. DavidBailey 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also biased and potentially confusing to insist that gay rights are *not* civil rights.--Bhuck 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DavidBailey on the missing question, but from a different perspective. As stated in the article, many equality activists don't consider themselves "gay rights" activists even though they support equal rights for all people, regardless of orientation. The questions at the top of this section presupposes that the term "gay rights activist" covers all people arguing for equality. CovenantD 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article state that "many equality activists don't consider themselves "gay rights" activists even though they support equal rights for all people, regardless of orientation"? The article neither states that nor does it state the opposite.--Bhuck 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a paraphrase of "Minority rights advocacy groups often contend that such protections confer no "special" rights, and describe these laws instead as protecting equal rights." By implication, they don't consider themselves "gay rights" activists. CovenantD 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The place where that sentence occurs in the article does not make it clear that "such protections" refers to protections of rights for gay people, but it could (and does--see the comments by Pudge above) also refer to Affirmative Action, for example. That has nothing to do with gay rights.--Bhuck 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck - does Farrakhan self identify as a civil rights activist? jbolden1517^Talk 11:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know--I was more making the abstract point that people who engage themselves on behalf of one particular minority do not necessarily support the struggle of another minority of which they do not happen to be a part. Some do (often for reasons of solidarity), but some don't. I think that is something on which everyone here would agree--more controversial (to judge from DavidBailey's comments) is probably the claim that lesbians and gays constitute a "sexual minority", but that is a far more specific question than the general point I am making at the moment.--Bhuck 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the question is not about XYZ rights activists but rather civil rights activists. In other words "civil rights activists" claim to believe in an abstract principle while say Armenian rights activists claim to support a particular cause (or collection of causes). No one is arguing that gay rights are part of say Armenian rights but rather the question is whether they are part of civil rights. jbolden1517^Talk 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is that we are using the term "civil rights" in different ways. I would say that Armenian rights activists are also civil rights activists. Maybe it would be better to drop the term "civil"? But what do you call "rights activists" in general, without regard to the group whose rights are being advocated? "Human rights activists" might be a possibility, but then you generally tend to think about anti-torture issues, or maybe the right to demonstrate, not about the right to vote, or anti-discrimination protections. While the term's usage in the US, particularly in the 1960s, was primarily with regard to racial issues, I am not using the term in that limited sense.--Bhuck 07:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been some good efforts to find citations that directly address the four questions, so I'm going to address this on the more general level. Generally, I'm confused about why anyone would think that gay rights are anything but a subset of civil rights. Consider that gay rights activists are asking for such basic things as protection from workplace and housing discrimination and the right to marry despite being gay. This is very much the same as African-American activists who wanted protection from workplace and housing discrimination and the right to marry despite being black. It used to be that blacks could not marry whites, but this has been changed. It is, in most places, still the case that gays cannot marry, and this is a key issue being fought over. Al 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Al see Begging the question. The question at hand is whether the two fights are analogous to one another you can't simply assert it. You have to prove it. jbolden1517^Talk 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I disagree with the idea that literally speaking, fighting for equal privileges under law for homosexuals, say, in the form of recognizing all civil unions as legal equivalents as marriage, isn't "civil rights". However, to state that "gay rights" is "civil rights" is confusing in that most people associate the term "civil rights" with the anti-racism and minority voting rights movement in the US and world-wide and not with the actual definition of "civil rights". For instance, a Google search (which you have been fond of using to illustrate usage, Al) shows at the top return being the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which states "citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices." Webster refers to "nonpolitical rights especially those guaranteed under the 13th and 14th amendments". None of which says anything at all about homosexuals. To use the term this way is a widening of accepted ideas and definitions. Again, I'm not stating it shouldn't be in the article, but the title and first paragraph should reflect the fact that this is a new use and not widely accepted. DavidBailey 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think DavidBailey is (unfortunately) right when he says that many (actually he says most, but I think that is a US perspective) people associate the term "civil rights" with the anti-racism and (racial) minority voting rights movement. I happen to think that this association is somewhat distorting and that the term should be used more generally. Currently, however, the term "civil rights" does not appear in the article, only the term "minority rights". (Maybe this is why that phrasing has been so stable?) That can mean ethnic minority, but it can also mean sexual minority, religious minority, or presumably whatever other kinds of minorities one could think of. I'm not sure I would agree with Webster calling civil rights "nonpolitical rights" as the right to vote is also a civil right and it is very much political, but that does not seem to be the issue causing controversy in the article here.--Bhuck 07:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the OED which is both more authoritative and not American. According to them civil rights are rights of citizenship (i.e. the protections the Romans gave to people who were certified citizens against their local governments). Further they list many "civil rights" struggles from the 16th century which have nothing to do with the African American civil rights movement. Because there are legal consequences of "right to marry" in the US I think you could argue that the proposed usage is consistent with the OED. Further in America I know that Jews defined the struggle for being able to buy property in gentile neighborhoods as a civil rights struggle even though here the problem was lack of laws (i.e. there were no laws preventing jews from owning property just laws allowing real estate agents to engage in discrimination). On the other hand I have confirmed that Webster's definition is what David asserts. I'm starting to suspect that the article is going to need a paragraph discussing this issue and we just can't assume it on either side.

Given the new evidence are there objections to this? jbolden1517^Talk 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article civil rights takes a similar position to the OED. I think that position is also correct. I am not sure we need to have a paragraph in this article discussing what civil rights are, since the phrasing "minority rights" has ducked the issue, and since that is covered in the civil rights article, anyway. But if there continues to be confusion over this issue, I suppose that would be the preferred way to solve such problems.--Bhuck 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that using the term "civil rights" to mean "gay rights" is either NPOV or clear. I think "minority rights" is passable, but it still assumes that you can have a "minority" made up of a people of a sexual orientation, which lends credibility to the gay rights cause, which is still not NPOV. DavidBailey 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing there should not be a paragraph addressing this. If so how would you respond to the OED's definition of the term which makes no distinction between discrimination based on religion, race, sexual orientation (or any other criteria for that matter)? I guess what I'm asking is are you continuing to contend that the evidence is not mixed? jbolden1517^Talk 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, just that it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. And if there is a paragraph in the article, it should explain this issue. DavidBailey 19:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Brief explanation

1) It's a political term, not a buzzword. The former is also a category, which means that calling it a buzzword removes this article from a list. Bad idea.

2) As the issue of "special rights" involves more than gays, it involves civil rights advocates, not merely LGBT rights advocates.

3) It is a simple fact that the Christian Coalition "opposes the extension of certain rights to sexual minorities", with marriage as an obvious example.

I reverted all three changes. Al 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If you look up buzzword, you'll see that political term can be a buzzword. It fits most of the other criteria very well also.
2. Considering it said gay rights activists when I started, I made an improvement.
3. Whether or not it's a fact, it's irrelevant to what Reed said.
4. Next time, try talking about the edits before doing a blanket revert. You didn't even have time to consider them. CovenantD 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Can you two address the issues above? I mean you could just go back and forth and keep reverting one another forever but DavidBailey had asked for a little mediation and this way is substantially less stressful. More importantly as communication breaks down what starts to happen is the article gets written in a way which is designed to be defensible in terms of the argument rather than most useful for our readers. So that while each individual edit may be an improvements, "improvements" in an environment where the talk pages have become divisive or hostile are likely to result in this article getting worse not better. Mediation is often successful in reducing hostility when people of good faith engage in it and this will help the article. I'm not going to force anybody to engage but I would urge to consider it rather than revert warring. jbolden1517^Talk 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of edit-wars, myself, but I'm not sure that mediation is possible here. Frankly, some people have such strong bias against gays that they wouldn't recognize NPOV if it bit them, so I'm not even sure that there's any point. I've just walked away from a failed RFM, so I have some experience in lost causes. Al 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is if both sides act in good faith. Right now for example I've got a press spokesman for Every Nation and a guy who thinks that EN is a dangerous heretical cult working together productively on the EN article. They still hate each other, but I've managed to establish the parameters and its pretty low stress and the article is getting better. I've done the same thing on a guy who hates the Latin Mass society and a guy who is a member.

It really is possible. The rules of wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV help to give people the distance they need. To take your example, even the people who personally hate gays would agree there exist reputable organizations which have different opinions. Hence something is not NPOV if those organizations disagrees with it, regardless of what is "true".

Anyway its up to you. I mean after I leave you can go back to your edit war, its not like the issue is going to fade any time soon. jbolden1517^Talk 13:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand why I am skeptical, and that you don't take it as any slight on you. I'm not sure that formal or semi-formal mediation is appropriate or useful here, but I'm always willing to try to come to some consensus with anyone who acts in good faith. Al 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrific, glad to have you onboard! Take a crack at those 4 questions above. jbolden1517^Talk 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1) As I said before, it's a political term, not merely a buzzword. Arguably, the former constitute a subset of the latter, but even if so, the former is more precise and accurate. Moreover, it constitutes a wiki-category, which means the article is automatically added to the category list. For these reasons, I prefer "politiical term" over "buzzword".

2) Perhaps it was an improvement, but we can improve it further, and have.

3) I'll have to check again, but I remember it as relevant context, since Reed is himself a good example of the Christian Coalition.

4) You'd be surprised how quickly I can accurately consider these issues.

I look forward to your response. Al 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my phrasing was ambigious I meant 4 the questions at the top of Gay rights vs. civil rights not these 4 from CovenantD. Sorry, my fault. jbolden1517^Talk 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

libertarian and Social Conservatives

The opening paragraph inappropriately links social conservatives and libertarians as opponents of “special rights.” The implication is that both groups advocate similar positions on the issue. This is simply false. Libertarians are strong supporters of individual liberty over the power of the government. As a result they often are on the side of sexual minorities against social conservatives. I would point to the Cato Institute’s support of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v Texas as one example, of many. The Libertarian Party Platform states: “We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.” [6] This is not the position of social conservatives. While it is true that pure libertarians sometimes refer to marriage benefits as ‘special rights,” it is not because they oppose equal treatment of gays. Rather pure libertarians believe that the government should not favor anyone, and would abolish civil marriage in its entirety. As they see it, heterosexual couples are granted special rights, which gay couples are now seeking. The pure libertarian answer is abolishing the “special rights” of everyone regardless of sexual orientation. This is what is reflected in the party’s platform. Most libertarians however, see the abolition of marriage as unlikely and therefore advocate granting equal rights to gays. The Wiki article on libertarianism sums it up nicely:

'"The dilemma for most libertarians arises from the fact that a currently unjust situation is popular. Heterosexuals currently have tax-funded protection and the assumption of enforceable contract resolution for their marriage contracts. Homosexuals often desire inclusion in this flawed system. Libertarians then, are caught in the situation of trying to expand an unjust system to grant incorrectly-perceived benefits, or to deny certain parties membership within that unjust system. Many libertarians advocate the concept that there can be no such thing as a just separation of people into differing status groups under the law, so the current definition of marriage must include all those who wish to marry, with the later goal of eliminating this increased role of government in marriage entirely."

I do not argue that Libertarian views on this subject cannot and should not be included in this article. I do believe that any such reference should point out what Libertarian views are and not imply that they are the same as those of social conservatives.Franklin Moore 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How about restoring a section near the bottom that outlines the libertarian view of "special rights"? Al 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I go through the history and read it. If it truly distinguishes the position of libertarians from those of social conservatives it would be welcome. Franklin Moore 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, however, I think you're missing the mark a bit. I've never seen (not that it's not happened) Lawrence v. Texas called the granting of "special rights" to gays. There are other arguments made against it (including my favorite, that the Texas law was, while distasteful and anti-liberty, not unconstitutional, and therefore the court should defer to the legislature), but I've never seen that one.

Similarly, most (in my experience) social conservatives also do not consider gay marriage to be a "special right." Just because something is in favor of gays and against the will of social conservatives, does not mean it is about "special rights." Special rights most specifically are about anti-discrimination laws geared specifically at a class of people that give them rights against discrimination that most people do not have, such as protection from discrimination in housing and employment. Simply ending something that is specifically discriminatory -- right or wrong -- such as prohibitions on gay marriage or gay sex are not about special rights; that is the inverse of what the "special rights" are all about (and is why Colorado's Amendment 2 was struck down in Romer v. Evans: the court found that rather than conferring special rights, the amendment held back normal rights from a particular group; I frankly disagree with that analysis, since I do not think it in fact removed any rights, but that's beside the point). Some social conservatives do call gay marriage "special rights," but I see that only rarely (though I see allegations of social conservatives doing it very often!), and I consider it an incorrect usage. Pudge 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have several points: (1) I included Gay Marriage in my discussion as it is listed in the article as one of the prime venues that “social Conservatives and Libertarians” use the phrase “special rights;” (2) as the sources cited in the article say, the phrase “special rights” is used to argue against any claim that people are seeking “equal rights,” which is the primary argument of those supporting gay marriage and (3) social conservatives miss the libertarian point which if they ever use the phrase (and I really cannot remember Libertarians using it) they would certainly categorize marriage (heterosexual, homosexual or polygamous) as granting rights to a certain group and not others and would therefore oppose that, or as I pointed out, if the civil institution has to continue they argue that none should be excluded. This article implies the opposite view by libertarians.

As to issues of non-discrimination, libertarians do differ from social conservatives as well. While libertarians oppose using government power to force private individuals to conform to some view of political correctness, libertarians firmly oppose discrimination by the government, in employment, services and benefits (although they generally want the government do employ few, provide few services and benefits). Social conservatives, used the phrase, special rights to oppose Clinton’s ban on discrimination in federal employment. Libertarians support non-discrimination policies of this type, even in the Military. The party's platform states:

We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military. [7]

When it comes to private discrimination, I would also argue that social conservatives and libertarians sometimes part ways. A few years ago when I was living in California several issues came up. Many apartment and condo complexs were refusing to rent to couples with children. Family value oriented social concervatives were outraged and sued and won. The landlord violated non-discrimination laws. A triumph for family values, but a defeat for libertarianism. Another one, which I think was a little bit of gotcha, occured. A timeshare resort decided to market itself as a "gay resort." Local religious leaders filed a Human Rights Complaint, as it discriminated on 'sexual orientation - heterosexuality is a sexual orientation after all. The upshot: the resort was no loger exculsively gay. I beleive it later went bankrupt. I point these out, because Libertarians would support the right of these property owners, while social conservatives did not. My main point is that while libertarians and conservatives have much in common, they should not be grouped together, because especially on the social issues the differences are real. Franklin Moore 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And I am denying the claim that 'the phrase “special rights” is used to argue against any claim that people are seeking “equal rights."' I see no evidence of this. The term is, by far in my experience, not used about equal rights, but about extra rights, rights other people do not have. I don't see any sources that back up the claim.

Further, this is also false, as stated: 'social conservatives miss the libertarian point which if they ever use the phrase ... they would certainly categorize marriage (heterosexual, homosexual or polygamous) as granting rights to a certain group and not others and would therefore oppose that.' I am proof positive, as I am a social conservative, and oppose any government definition of marriage. I favor government getting out of the marriage business entirely and having it only recognize civil unions. Granted, I am not just a social conservative; I am also a (little-l) libertarian. These absolute statements about what categories of people do and do not think and believe just don't make sense.

I do agree with you that they should not be grouped together, but I do not agree with the absolute statements, esp. sorely lacking in citation about the purported views of "social conservatives," including this: 'Social conservatives, used the phrase, special rights to oppose Clinton’s ban on discrimination in federal employment.' I recall no such thing, and can find no example, and this highlights well the points I am making: I think more often people think people are using the phrase for certain instances when in fact it was their imagination (not that in this case it was ... I am open to seeing the evidence, of course). Pudge 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey this is the talk page and already I have cited more references than the article itself. That having been said, as to the Clinton employment discrimnation issue, a quick google search turned up numerous references to the opposition to Clinton's Executive order as granting "special rights." Many are from organizations that I assume you distrust, so for now I'll just refer to the website for The Concerned Women of America, where Carmen Pete, said the executive order was "not about equality under the law, but about special privileges." [8] I know there is a difference between rights and priveleges, but for me it is clear. I will continue to search. By the way my purpose on this talk page is to argue how the Libertarian view should be expressed; For that I have cited references. As to your argument that "special rights" refers only to "extra rights," not pocessed by the majority, I would state that that needs to be made clearer in the article. I think that we have agreed that marriage is not an "extra right," so the reference needs to be removed. If freedom from discrimination in government employment, services and benefits including military service is not an extra right that needs to be made clear in the article. If social conservatives have a different view on that, than do libertarians that needs to be explained. If freedom from discrimination in private employment, public accomodations, and the private housing is an extra right for sexual minorities, it needs to be discussed whether or not it is also an extra right for other groups, race, religion gender etc. If all we are left with is affirmative action, then, as the article refers almost excusively to sexual minorities, it should be mentioned when sexual minorites have advocated for any form of affirmative action. If after that is done, social conservatives and libertarians agree, then so be it, if on the otherhand there are differences, then they need to be pointed out, with both social conservatives and libertarian views expressed correctly and without POV. Franklin Moore 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me slightly: I did not imply that you are required to cite it here on the talk page, only that I wasn't going to believe it without citation. Still, even with your citation, I consider this usage to be far more rare, and is IMO incorrect (not that their incorrect usage is your fault ...). Also, it is not "affirmative action" per se; antidiscrimination laws specific to race, gender, age, and so on are not "affirmative action," but are "special rights." Pudge 14:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First let me say that I think that a reader of our debate would be better informed on the issue than would a reader of the article. While, it may be true that people have misused the phrase, it appears that the authors of the article are doing the same thing. The article states: “While it is occasionally used to describe affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities, the overwhelming majority of usage of this term is in regard to sexual minorities (e.g. prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, same sex marriage, etc.).” And thus includes issues that I think you would agree do not involve “extra rights, (e.g. same-sex marriage).” If the phrase is confined to rights given to one group, but not to another – that needs to be clearly stated. If Libertarians are to be included, I would urge that the article read something like the following:

“Libertarians support a society which is structured to maximize the individual’s personal freedom and right of action in the organization of his or her family and economic life. Libertarians disapprove of any governmental action, which favors any segment of society over others by (1) granting certain special rights to one group, (2) diminishing the rights of other groups, or (3) otherwise unnecessarily limiting the freedom of action of the individual. Libertarians favor a small government with a limited role. However, when the government does act, Libertarians believe that it must do so in a neutral fashion, treating all citizens equally. In the present debate over the treatment of sexual minorities, as in past similar debates, this philosophy has led most Libertarians to find themselves sometimes supporting the claims of sexual-minorites while at other times opposing them.

In support of claims, Libertarians generally support the freedom of association of sexual minorities and see sodomy laws as infringing upon these. They also believe that the government should promote equality and therefore support bans on discrimination in governmental employment, including the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military. As to marriage, most Libertarians see civil marriage, as it is presently constructed, as granting “special rights” to heterosexuals, and therefore believe that the institution must be changed. Philosophical purists argue that this should be done by the abolition of civil marriage (leaving the issue to the individual, their religious institutions and to private contract.) Other Libertarians, noting the near political impossibility of this, argue that if abolition is not possible, then all individuals, including same sex couples, should be allowed to marry.

Conversely Libertarians oppose governmental action designed to mandate that private individuals associate with others not of their choosing. In this regard, except in rare cases (such as a private utility operating under a governmental monopoly), Libertarians oppose most anti-discrimination laws when applied to the private sector. They oppose all forms of affirmative action and hate crimes legislation, which punish the thought, not the act.

The cites for these claims, can be found above in this discussion. What do you think? Franklin Moore 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that Libertarians had such prominent views on the idea of "special rights", I withdraw my objection to inclusion of a brief summary in the opening paragraph. However, I still feel that these two usages should be separated into their own sub-sections in the article and not blended together. They are different views. DavidBailey 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I entered into this discussion because I felt that if Libertarian view were to be mentioned in this article they should not be grouped with those of social conservatives as there are signifcant differences in the two group's philosphies regarding special or extra rights. Franklin Moore 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should have a general introduction which discusses that the term is used by both groups, but for different reasons. In the case of libertarians, they might even use it to apply not only to minority rights, but also to majority rights (such as the right of heterosexuals to marry)--however the use in regard to majority rights is very rare compared to the usage in regard to minority rights (when one looks at all usages and not just libertarian usages, which is what we should be doing in the introductory section). The section on social conservatives already exists, so we would just need to modify the introduction slightly and write a section on how the libertarian usage differs. I think Franklin Moores suggestion above is a bit long and not sufficiently focused on the term "special rights" but instead goes into a lot of explanation about what libertarianism is, which belongs more in the Libertarianism article and not here.

Incidentally, as far as the application of the term special rights to marriage goes, one could argue (from a social conservative point of view) that gay marriage is a "special right" because gay people are currently allowed to enter into (heterosexual) marriages (they just generally don't want to do so), and the "special right" would be allowing them to choose a marriage partner other than someone of the opposite sex--after all, heterosexuals are also not allowed to choose a same-sex marriage partner. (Of course, in Massachusetts, heterosexuals are allowed to choose same-sex partners for marriage (and also generally show little interest in doing so), but usually the debate doesn't get that detailed, because that is not what political shorthand terms are meant to do.)--Bhuck 07:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick response to Bhuck. I entered into this long debate after I read the article, which clearly, and incorrectly lumps, libertarians and social conservatives together and implies that the two have similar views on the issue. My initial thought was to argue that all references to libertarians should be deleted as they really do not have a horse in this race. Upon further reflection, I had to concede to myself, that, if others wanted a reference to libertarians here, it was appropriate because they do have a concept of "special rights" or preferential treatment and have a long history of opposing such governmental action. Therefore, I believed that if Libertarians were to be included their views should be expressed correctly. Bhuck is correct that much of my suggested phrasing does not focus on the phrase. I did this because I felt it necessary to point out that Libertarians do not share the social conservative view on many issues (once again to avoid confusing readers into believing that Libertarians have such views). As to the issue of special rights given to the majority, I would argue that to Libertarians, special rights, preferential treatment is most often given to the majority. In other words the majority has often granted to themselves "special rights." To a Libertarian a special right is a privilege granted to one segment of society but denied to others. Examples of this are racial preferences (e.g. Jim Crow Laws benefiting whites and affirmative action laws benefiting racial minorities), (gender preferences in child custody (female) or estate administration (male), Marriage laws (as previously discussed) etc. Libertarians have a long history of opposing this type of law no matter who they benefit. In truth, while libertarians have certain disagreements with certain goals of the LGBT movement, I do not believe that I can remember them ever objecting to any such claim based upon "special rights." If, however, affirmative action is ever sought by the LGBT community, I would assume they would do so. Perhaps, I can suggest an easier solution. Remove Libertarian from the first sentence. At the end of the introduction add the following:

"Libertarians have also used the term and opposed laws they perceive as granting "Special Rights." The Libertarian concept differs from that of social conservatives. For a general view of Libertarian thought on this issue see: Libertarianism and libertarian perspectives on gay rights "

This is short, accurate and does not confuse the issue. What do you think? Franklin Moore 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what "special rights" are. If special rights are gay rights, then it would be right to talk about the social conservative use first, and then tag on an additional "by the way, libertarians think differently" paragraph. I think the libertarian usage is the more general usage, so I would prefer to discuss this first, and then (as the current article layout does) go on to how social conservatives have appropriated that term for their particular anti-gay agenda (but this of course not being phrased so POV as I am allowed to do so in the discussion). So if a term is to be removed from the introductory paragraph, then it should be the term "social conservatives", but only if you are sure that both uses cannot be discussed together. I would prefer trying to find a way to accurately discuss how the term is used generally before going into the specific uses by the various groups.--Bhuck 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit you placed in the article is acceptable Franklin Moore 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, by any means, of the Libertarian use of the term, but have started a section that needs to be fleshed out more. Franklin, much of your discussion here has been very illustrative. Could you elaborate in this section? Thanks. DavidBailey 19:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the section on libertarian usage should be expanded so that it presents enough information that the reader does not ask him or herself why this is in a separate section instead of being dealt with in the introduction. The current form of the section can continue for a while as a stub, but if it does not expand to four or five sentences, it will hardly merit a separate section.--Bhuck 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To DavidBailey, I'll take a look at your suggestion and post a response here in a day or two. I am sorry but I have several other itmes on my plate. On another subject I ran across this article. It makes some very interesting points, including the potential question of whether the Religious Tolleration Act (requiring private employers to accomodate religious beleifs grants protections based upn sexual orientation and secondly, does this law grant special rights to all religious persons? Take a look. [9] Franklin Moore 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus prior to editing first paragraph

Bhuck, please do not ignore mediation and allow for a consensus prior to making edits in the first paragraph. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that I was ignoring mediation. I think the current version reflects what was consensus going into mediation, plus the changes that were made in consensus following the beginning of mediation (for example, no one has argued with expanding the article to include EU laws as well as US laws). Is there some change to the version in effect from 12 June to 16 June with which you disagree?--Bhuck 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit from 18:43 on 15 June and Franklin Moore's from 20:46 on 16 June led me to believe that these changes met consensus. The previous version, which did not sufficiently distinguish between conservative and libertarian usages, is certainly not consensus, either, to judge from Franklin's objections and your withdrawal of your objections.--Bhuck 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the introduction of Libertarian perspective, it is your other edits that leave me concerned. I will open a new section to discuss them. In the meantime, I think we need to leave the article without the statements that all "gay rights" are "equal rights". This is an area we have debated before. DavidBailey 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a phrasing we will agree on. I do believe that gay rights are equal rights, but if we find a phrasing that ducks the issue, that would be ok, too. Your suggestion in the section below is a good starting point.--Bhuck 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What's left to mediate?

OK what issues (if any) do you want to address? At this point it appears the civil rights definition paragraph seems to be acceptable to all. This paragraph as far as I can tell was the core area of disagreement. It appears there has been a shift delinking libertarian and social conservatives and that no one is opposing that? Are there any other issues that people feel they would like help resolving or are we done (with mediation not with the article)?