So when George Washington and the rebels did their whole revolution what do you think they wanted? And what about African-Americans and women protesting to get their civil rights?
George Washington and the Founding fathers knew that if they lost they were dead men. The understood who they were going up against, the greatest military power in the world at that time. They pleged their lives, property, and sacred honor for the American Revolution.
Point Two: Sufferage was a legitimate protest as women were denied a whole list of rights such as voting, inheritence rights, divorce rights, et al.. Largely, these demonstrations were peaceful. I am sure if I did my history their were radical elements here too. But the majority of rights were won through peaceable means.
Point Three: Blacks were denied many of rights won during the Civil War that had previously been denied by their slave status. When reconstruction ended, Jim Crow laws were put in place to keep blacks from gaining power in the South. Even during the era of Jim Crow only black males could vote.
Blacks also largely gained their rights through peacable means. Marches, sit ins, protesting, were all largely non violent. Of course you see overreaction by both sides in instances such as hosing down of black and white protesters on one side when provocation was not initiated by the protesters. But many protesters of the more radical element did get out of line and the law had to deal with them.
Take Rosa Parks. What she did was one of the greatest acts of courage by refusing to go to the back of the bus. Was this illegal? Yes. Violent? No.
Blacks of the Civil Rights era just wanted equal rights and protection under existing laws. That is all. They did not seek special status over their white or other race brothers, just equity under the law. Republicans supported the black cause more than Democrats ironically.
Now to the gays and marriage. Gays want equality under the law. They should have equality under the laws of the land. But, first marriage is a heterosexual institution. It is meant as a legal contract between a man and a woman for the purposes of starting the foundation of a family and having children.
Homosexuality is not instituted on that premise. Neither are homosexual unions. You cannot deny some group of people a "right" that does not exist for them. Give them civil unions and equal protection for their partners. But it cannot be marriage even if government wants it to be defined that way. Marriage is a heterosexual union, not homosexual. In my world view you call a spade a spade.
The fight for civil rights as mentioned above were for all human beings. They were not unique to gender, race, religion, creed, or sex. They were intended for all people, and equity under the law.
Homosexual "marriage" is not meant to be. It flies in the face of thousands of years of tradition of successful rearing and raising of families in societies from tribal primitive to advanced civilization.
No one is out to deny our homosexual citizens their rights. Just protecting a heterosexual right unique to that relationship.
Take "Fiddler on the Roof". Tevia has three daughters and tradition to deal with.
The first daughter weds an orthordox Jew, but he is not matched up by tradition. He is still a Jew.
The second daughter weds a secular Jew. He is not orthodox, nor is he practicing. But he is still a Jew. Both of these changes Tevia could recognize, even with hardship.
Along comes the third daughter and wants to marry a gentile. Although a good man, Tevia draws a line in the sand and says that even tradition has it's limits and marrying outside of the faith is not one of them. He rejects his third daughter's marriage.
Now I am not arguing for or against the marriage of the third daughter or that all traditions are correct. But I am illustrating that people can push, and push, until someone draws a line in the sand and states no more.
That is what the people of some 30 states of the Union have done with marriage. They have defined it as it has always been between a man and a woman, a heterosexual institution. Even polygamy, where and when it has been practiced is heterosexual in nature where that type of marital union is legal.
But homosexuality never has been or will be marriage. Change all the laws you want and bring down the wrath of the judges. It won't change what marriage is.
Again, no one is out to take away from gays their rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness under the law. We as a society are drawing a line in the sand and saying no to redefining marriage as something it is not.
And finally vandalism and debaucherous behavior have never won anyone anything except the animosity of society at large. Take the KKK. They are part of the lunatic fringe. Most of society rejects their white supremacy and should.
It is the same with any other extremisim. You don't win support by punching people in the nose so that you can get your own plastic surgery done.
