GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Rosa Parks–Profile in Courage

by

Like many Americans, I am deeply saddened by the passing of Rosa Parks. By refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in the segregated South, she defined courage in defying an unjust system. Active in the NAACP, she was well aware of the consequences of even this simple act of civil disobedience.

She knew that other blacks had been imprisoned — and worse — for defying Jim Crow laws. In the 1950s, angry white mobs still lynched black men. Cops regularly beat African-American protesters. And if a black woman was raped by a white man, she had little (if any) recourse to the justice system. Thus, the simple act of refusing to give up her seat took great courage. She had no idea what punishment she would face. And no idea that her defiance would rally her community — and inspire the nation.

I am delighted that America today recognizes the significance of her refusal to stand. She was the first woman, the first African-American, to lay in state in the Capitol rotunda. The president and congressional leaders came to pay tribute. CNN covered much of her funeral live.

As we recall this great lady, let us above all salute her courage. Today, we bandy the word courage about to describe anyone who takes a stand. Log Cabin seems to call any Republican “courageous” who disagrees with the GOP on gay issues. And yet, those individuals don’t face the consequences Rosa Parks did for refusing to give up her seat in the segregated South. I should know; I’m one of them. It didn’t take much courage for me to come out as gay to my fellow Republicans.

To be sure, there are many gay people whose very coming out is an act of courage. Those who risk losing the love and support of their families and communities. They are among the true heirs of Rosa Parks. Let us remember Ms. Parks for her simple courageous act which inspired a great movement and helped change America for the better.

And let her also become a reminder of what true courage is — doing what is right when such action likely invites severe consequences.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Comments

  1. Amen to your words on Rosa Parks (it is wonderful to see America acknowledge her courage and contribution), but a big raspberry to your cheap comparison of HER bravery to your coming out as a gay Republican. I’d ask “how dare you”, but I think I know the answer.

  2. Excuse me, Pussy, did you even read my post? I call her a woman of great courage, yet say that my action of coming out as a gay Republican “didn’t take much courage.”

    I never said I had her courage. That’s part of the point of the post.

  3. Today while I was at work listing to Talk Radio there was a segment about Rosa Parks about how her one act of defiance “ignited” the civil rights movement.
    I found myself wondering if there will ever be a comparable moment for gay rights.

  11. Just so nobody misses it, shall we show Pussy’s reading comprehension skills again?

    What GPW said:

    As we recall this great lady, let us above all salute her courage. Today, we bandy the word courage about to describe anyone who takes a stand. Log Cabin seems to call any Republican “courageous” who disagrees with the GOP on gay issues. And yet, those individuals don’t face the consequences Rosa Parks did for refusing to give up her seat in the segregated South. I should know; I’m one of them. It didn’t take much courage for me to come out as gay to my fellow Republicans.

    What Pussy read:

    Amen to your words on Rosa Parks (it is wonderful to see America acknowledge her courage and contribution), but a big raspberry to your cheap comparison of HER bravery to your coming out as a gay Republican. I’d ask “how dare you”, but I think I know the answer.

    Amazing.

    Of course, the interesting thing is this; according to liberals like Kevin, conservatives are out to exterminate gays. Indeed, gay Democrats claim that internment camps for gays are already in existence. Given that “fact”, outing oneself as a gay person to conservatives would be a supreme act of courage, indeed a life-threatening one. However, these same liberals in cases like this insist that it ISN’T courageous to out yourself, that it’s no big deal, nothing’s going to happen to you.

    In short, why do liberals say it isn’t courageous to out yourself to conservatives when they insist that conservatives will exterminate you the minute they know you’re gay?

    and you still sit in the back of the bus of the GOP.

    HYPOCRITE.

    You can’t hold a candle to her.

    So say the people who call stripping gays of rights by constitutional amendment “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and give millions of dollars to politicians who espouse such things.

    If Rosa Parks had had the courage of a gay Democrat, Jesse Jackson would be screaming about how racism was GOOD and how blacks should THANK Democrats for supporting segregation.

  12. Oh by the way, isn’t it on this blog where your pundits slam anyone for drawing comparisons between gay rights and racial civil rights? Like for example when people compare the barrier to gay marriage to interracial marriage?

    A bit hypocritical if you ask me for you to use this kind of comparison now.

    [Don’t recall any gay people arrested for declaring themselves married. Or for those gay couples who get married in Canada and return to any of the 49 states which don’t recognize their unions. In Loving v. Virginia, the interracial couple had a choice–go to jail or leave Virginia. –Ed.]

  14. Pussy, alas, that you can’t understand why I made clear that in coming out I did not show the same courage as she did (in refusing to give up her seat)–in large part to show the “gutsiness” of this lady’s bold act. She did the right thing when doing the right thing had consequences. As the writer of this piece, I meant to imply that I admire her courage because I’m not sure, in a similar situation, I could have been as gutsy as she.

    I’m sorry you find fault in my acknowledgment of my imperfections.

  17. Dan, ignore the critical comments. You made valid points in an excellent tribute to Rosa Parks (‘tho the aside about the Log Cabin Republicans probably wasn’t necessary).

  20. Dan, nice post on Ms Parks. Ignore the spews from the LibLeft radical commentators here.

    I was in Detroit at the musuem yesterday and it was a pride-filled moment for nearly every person I spoke with in line to pay respects or assist the mourners in an orderly fashion. Yeah, I wrote “pride filled”.

    What struck me about yesterday was how willingly the Left allowed RosaParks to be used and abused in later years –and it all started when she spoke out in 1991 at Tiger Stadium about gay rights, some of the black pastors in Detroit clucked how pitiful it was that Rosa was losing her faculties in old age. In later life, when she really wasn’t in control of her faculties, some in the black community in Detroit stood mute while she was used to promote business ventures that were riddled with fraud, missapropriations, and impinged her well earned credibility and integrity. And those were fellow-blacks doing it to one of their own -dare I say it- “saints”.

    Granted, former Mayor Archer and a federal judge finally stepped in after the press splashed the story all over the front page for days… but still, she was pretty much forgotten for a long time in 1980s and 90s by many of those fawning yesterday in the light of media attention.

    But in line yesterday, it wasn’t a time for remembering what became of Rosa Parks and how some of her people let her down, for me it was to pay tribute to a civil rights worker who stood up for gay civil rights when many in her community held gays in bigoted contempt.

    And even then, some of those same bigots -now more gray and older– were there to use Rosa one more time.

    Your post is good Dan. Thanks for writing it.

  22. [Don’t recall any gay people arrested for declaring themselves married. Or for those gay couples who get married in Canada and return to any of the 49 states which don’t recognize their unions. In Loving v. Virginia, the interracial couple had a choice–go to jail or leave Virginia. –Ed.]

    First of all, please don’t “edit” my comments. Have the courtesy to respond in a normal post.

    [This is our blog, not yours. Be grateful that we don’t delete all you comments which, given your past behavior here, would certainly be in order. –Ed]

    Secondly, it was only in 2003 that sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court. Up until that time, gay men were prosecuted under those laws especially in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas where the laws only applied to gay men and women and not heterosexual men and women.

    [Please provide examples of said prosecutions and we will object to them. –Ed]

    There’s also this thing called the Stonewall riot you might investigate sometime. I believe a few people went to jail for their protest. In fact, gay men and women and their advocates have been going to jail for decades for their protests against discrimination. You do read about history now and then, right?

    [That was a very libertarian riot back in 1969, rioting against government interference. And we commend their courage in standing up for the right to associate freely. But, you were talking about marriage, not speaking out against government interference. –Ed.]

  24. [Please provide examples of said prosecutions and we will object to them. –Ed]

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200407\CUL20040712b.html

    “”The Virginia sodomy statute is on solid ground because it deals with a public health risk,” Glover [of the Family Policy Network, a conservative activist group] said. “There’s a tremendous public health risk associated with acts of sodomy.”

    Health risk, huh? Enough to try to enforce Virginia’s sodomy law past when the Supreme Court struck it down?

    Or perhaps this video?

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1272

    Object away.

    That was a very libertarian riot back in 1969, rioting against government interference.

    Libertarian? And it had nothing to do with gay rights? Sometimes your comments are nothing short of jaw-dropping.

  25. It depends on what your definition of “gay rights” is, GayCow. If it means the right to be left alone (in bed)*, then “gay rights” and “libertarianism” are one and the same.

    If it means legislation by judicial fiat, quotas, mandated benefits, etc, then it’s something completely different.

    *Heh… that sounds like a fortune cookie.

  26. Brilliant, Bob….let’s jump to the defense of someone who was stupid enough to solicit and ask that sex be performed in a public restroom — and they pled guilty to doing so!

    Don’t even presume to use Robin and Linda as examples, GayCowboyBob. They want to raise a family and hold a job; you want to beg people to have sex in public restrooms and get away with it. It’s people like you who have used their legitimate complaint to push your irresponsible behavior that have put us into this fix. There’s a reason the Supreme Court went to such lengths to make it clear that states are perfectly within their rights to block adoption and other public acts, such as marriage, for whatever reason.

    Sodomy laws are, if the pun will be pardoned, a pain in the ass. However, the way to get rid of them is through legislative repeal, not through forcing convoluted cases using people who have been convicted of assaulting other gays ( Lawrence) or asking someone to have sex with them in a public restroom.

  27. Ohhh…ND30… you’re so bold. 🙂

    Anyway, good point about the Lawrence case. It is pretty sad that the current gay rights strategy is saying, “but our rapists aren’t worse then your rapists!”

  28. #27
    And slavery should have been left to the individual states.
    Rosa Parks was an Alabama issue.
    School segregation was a Kansas issue.

    Do you actually believe the crap you print about gay rights being a STATES issue.

    Civil rights redresses are a FEDERAL issue.

    Crimeny.

  29. Do you actually believe the crap you print about gay rights being a STATES issue.

    Oh Chandler….you walked right into this one.

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    In a separate interview with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.

    “We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”

    All together now….what did gay liberals, gay Democrats, and “gay rights” groups call that? “Pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”!

    You’d think that, if they really cared about gay rights, these groups wouldn’t give millions of dollars to and promote as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” those who believe that the states should have the ability to strip gays of rights and call it “doing the right thing”…..but then again, you’re making the assumption that HRC, NGLTF, Stonewall Democrats, and others are interested in gay rights and not just in partisan politicking.

    What’s even funnier, Chandler, is that do you know what Harry Reid, whose campaign you have worked for so faithfully, says?

    “I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and I believe in the sanctity of our Constitution,” Reid said in a statement. “I have voted both as a citizen and on the floor of the Senate to protect traditional marriage. …

    “Before we tinker with our most cherished rights, we should allow the states to deal with this issue, as Nevadans already have.”

    Reid voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a law approved in 1996 that denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

    Reid also voted for Nevada’s Question 2, the state initiative that defined marriage in the state as only between a man and a woman, Hafen said.

    And, as a lovely encore, do you know what Reid’s HRC score is?

    100%.

    A perfect score for someone who voted for DOMA, who supports state bans on gay marriage, and who constantly says gays don’t deserve equality — and Chandler’s out walking doors for him while bashing Republicans who hold the same positions.

    There in a nutshell, people…..the gay Democrat in action.

  32. That depends, Chandler, on what you define as “pro-gay”.

    If you use the definition applied to John Kerry and Harry Reid, you can support stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment and Federal legislation and be “pro-gay”.

    If you use the definition applied by HRC President Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch/Hilary Rosen crony Ellen Malcom, you can support the FMA and be pro-gay (and get hundreds of thousands of dollars for your trouble).

    Which one do you prefer?

  33. Yup, GCB in #25, libertarian. The riot was sparked by a police raid on a bar. The drag queens et al. were tired of being harassed, tired of not being able to gather freely. And this blogger sees in their reaction a good deal of courage.

    While I disagree with the argument of Lawrence v. Texas, I do agree with the result. State sodomy laws should have been struck down. But, I thought the issue you were bringing up was gay marriage.

    And some crackpot from the Family Policy Network doesn’t seem to have standing to enforce a law overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  35. I understand Andrew Sullivan compared Mary Cheney’s girlfriend being listed on an official White House function guestlist as “guest” as being like Rosa Parks being forced to give up her bus seat.

    Someone needs to bitch-slap Andrianna and say, “Get over yourself, princess.”

  36. The riot was sparked by a police raid on a bar. The drag queens et al. were tired of being harassed, tired of not being able to gather freely.

    Excuse me, but why the hell do you think they were being harassed by the police in the first place? Simply for gathering? Simply because they couldn’t express their libertarian selves?

    Don’t be dumb.

    And this blogger sees in their reaction a good deal of courage.

    Is that considered speaking of yourself in third person? Highly pretentious in any case but I’m glad the royal we approve. Not that you would have done a damn thing about it yourself if you lived in New York City at that time. I’m sure you would have been libertarian gathering somewhere else.

    And some crackpot from the Family Policy Network doesn’t seem to have standing to enforce a law overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If you read the story carefully, the State of Virginia was attempting to convict this man with sodomy laws AFTER it was struck down. I’m saying the state failed to comply but it’s right-wing neocon numnuts that actually believe bullshit like Mr. Family Policy guy.

  38. inclined individuals. And police harassment deprived those who frequented the bar the freedom to gather as they say fit. Rioting against such harassment is thus a libertarian gesture–protesting against the heavy hand of the state.

    The state of Virginia currently has a Democratic governor. If the state tried to enforce such a law, then your concern is with whoever attempted to enforce that law. Or it may have been some Commonwealth’s Attorney. I don’t know. But, whoever tried to enforce the (overturned) law was wrong to do so.

  42. NoDick,
    I provided right wing verification of a pro-gay senator. I gave no definition myself.

    But if Harry Reid is anti gay marriage, anti abortion, they why don’t you consider him a Republican, or at least a DINO, and embrace him as the true conservative he is?

    Narrow definitions, like the narrow minds that proffer them, tend to be illogical.

    E.g., lets define pro gay as an openly gay elected officials that only votes the “gay agenda”. A very, very small group.

    I think that I will change “pro-gay” representative to “tends to be pro-gay” representative. Would you comprehend that, NoDick?

    Could you comprehend that a person could be
    anti-gay marriage,
    pro civil union,
    pro gay in the military,
    pro no gay job discrimination,
    pro domestic partner benefits,
    pro gay adoption
    and be considered “tending to be pro-gay”?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  44. But if Harry Reid is anti gay marriage, anti abortion, they why don’t you consider him a Republican, or at least a DINO, and embrace him as the true conservative he is?

    Again, Chandler, which Harry Reid do you want to be embraced?

    Is it DC Harry, who stands up and spouts off about how gays deserve full inclusion and equality and a woman has the right to do whatever she wants, or is it NV Harry, who says gays are filthy infidels who don’t deserve rights and that abortion is murder?

    As one of my wise friends put it…..how do you embrace someone whose stance on the issues depends entirely on where they are?

    Could you comprehend that a person could be
    anti-gay marriage,
    pro civil union,
    pro gay in the military,
    pro no gay job discrimination,
    pro domestic partner benefits,
    pro gay adoption
    and be considered “tending to be pro-gay”?

    Nope. You see, Arnold Schwarzenegger is all of those things, and you don’t call him “tending to be pro-gay”; you and your fellow California Democrats call him completely, totally, and irrevocably antigay because of the first thing on the list there. Mark Leno and Fabian Nunez would have you burned at the stake for even suggesting such things.

    Of course, to save your life, I could just send John Kerry walking by; the two of them would trample each other to death in the process of scrambling for his butt.

  45. Nope. You see, Arnold Schwarzenegger is all of those things, and you don’t call him “tending to be pro-gay”; you and your fellow California Democrats call him completely, totally, and irrevocably antigay because of the first thing on the list there.
    ====================================
    I would call Ahnold tending to be pro-gay.
    Hell, he was trade in his pre-picture muscle days.