Can the ideology of separate but equal as originally intended be applied to the ban on gay marriage? why?

Gay activist are comparing the ban on gay marriage to the civil rights movement ';separate but equal'; status with Blacks. What do you think? Can the ideology of separate but equal as originally intended be applied to the ban on gay marriage? why?
Yes, it can.





Whether the seats in the front of the bus are for some people while the seats in the back are for others, one water fountain is for some people while another water fountain is for others, or a marriage license is for some people while a ';Civil Union'; or ';Domestic Partnership'; is for others, all employ the same discriminatory reasoning of Separate but Equal.Can the ideology of separate but equal as originally intended be applied to the ban on gay marriage? why?
Interesting what others that have answered this question here think. If nothing else it shows just how fractured we are as gay people even among ourselves regarding this issue. If separate but equal wasn't good enough in the battle for civil rights what makes anyone think it is good enough now? In fact, shouldn't that argument be that civil rights apply to all people? That battle wasn't just a color issue. Comparing the battle for gay marriage equality to the women's movement's struggle for the right to vote is a new one on me. Are we asking anyone to redefine marriage? Actually, what I think we're trying to do is stop those who want to limit it's existing definition. Legally marriage is domestic partnership between two consenting adults. The man and woman part is a religious issue. That being said it has no place in in this argument. You'll notice that the proposed changes to state's and the federal constitution seek to limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman NOT the other way around.
i had a discussion with my friends about this. i think its not the same as the civil rights movement. There isn't as much emphasis being put on the gay marriage ban as the civil rights movement, for example you don't see gay people being physically attacked or verbally abused on a daily basis because they are gay. yes i know it does happen, but it's not talked about 24/7. it is impossible for everyone to know who is gay, but yet if you are black/white everyone knows it. so because of the color of your skin you're automatically a target.
Yes, I think the ';separate, but equal'; finding should apply to same-sex marriage. Our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens and unfortunately the current situation creates two separate classes: those who can enjoy the benefits of civil marriage and those who cannot. There are many who argue that domestic partnerships can have all of the benefits of marriage, but for some reason heterosexual couples don't seem to be jumping on board domestic partnerships instead of marriage. That suggests to me that there is something inherently unequal to domestic partnerships.
I think it has more in common with womens rights movement then the civil rights movement because marriage, by definition is between man and woman and gays want to change that definition, like with the women's movement, only men could vote and women wanted to change that definition to where as both men and women could vote. I honestly think gay marriage has nothing in commen with the civil rights movement, black people are people just like white people, they were equal to begin with but being denied that they were people.
I think ';civil unions'; are an example of how ';separate but equal'; doesn't work.





Here in New Jersey we've had civil unions for about 2 years now. They're supposed to be equivalent to marriage, but hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who've gotten civil-unioned in the last 2 years have found that they are NOT treated the same as a heterosexual married couple would be, with regards to company health benefits, pension plans and other spousal benefits, because they are not considered ';married'; by their employers' health insurance carriers, pension plan administrators, etc.





So all that talk about civil unions being separate but equal to marriage is just BS. It doesn't work. People understand what you mean when you say that you and your partner are MARRIED, and they respect that relationship -- they don't necessarily understand what a CIVIL UNION is, nor do they respect it as equivalent to marriage.
It is not ';The civil rights activist's stance...'; anymore. No. this question was settled by the Supreme Court. ';Separate but equal'; does not hold in any area of law. The precedent has been set. If any further case like it goes to the Supreme Court like this the ruling will be the same.
I think they're in the right. Marriage is marriage; with all that it implies (spousal listing on medical records, income tax credits, etc.) and civil unions aren't marriage. Anything else is less. Separate isn't equal.
Civil rights are based on traits. Homosexuality is an activity. I've met ex-homosexuals. I've never met an ex-black.
Separate is never equal, give us all the rights and privileges that straight married people have and I don't care if you call it marriage, civil union, or tuna fish casserole
I think the presidential election is more important. And who cares anyway. Whats the big deal.