Do we need to redefine "Civil Rights"?

I have been reading the Rick Warren threads with a mixture of interest and despair. I've been too intellectually lazy to post in any of them or to write an OP. But I was reading an OP in GDP where a poster was making the case that it was a mistake to compare the struggles of Blacks and Gays to achieve equal treatment in this country. Many folks weighed in their opinions and the usual DU passion was on display.

While I don't want to continue that discussion here, that thread did get me to thinking about what "Civil Rights" actually means. Probably on some base level, it means that all people in this country should be treated equally regardless of what color, sex, religion or sexual orientation. But that's not really true is it? I don't think so or threads about Prop 8 or Rick Warren would be non-existent. So in this day and age, what should the civil rights movement really be about?

Rightly or wrongly, when civil rights are mentioned most folks, myself included, will think of the struggles of Black folks in the deep south and elsewhere in this country. I believe that part of the dust ups we are seeing between Blacks and Gays are due to that reason. Say the term "Civil Rights Leader' to yourself and I think most of us will instinctively think of a Black person. While I am proud and respectful of the history of struggle of my people, I wonder if somehow that struggle has become the civil rights movement to th detriment of other folks seeking equality.

It's not only the issue of Gay marriage, there are other groups that are routinely discriminated against and treated as society's castoffs that you rarely hear included in a discussion about civil rights. Poor people and poverty have pretty much disappeared from our national vocabulary. Mental illness is still such a stigma in this country that in some professions, people would rather blow their brains out than to seek help. And I'm sure I don't have to point out how "lively" some DU threads can be when they deal with the issue of obesity. Are some of the real discrimination that these groups face part of the civil discussion?

So what say you? Is our national concept of "civil rights" too narrowly defined? If it is, how do we make it more inclusive? My opinion is that through the result of historical occurrences, it probably is narrowly construed. I don't know how we move past that but we need to. Like to hear your opinions.

Thanks

Just interested in what folks consider to be "civil rights".

Obviously there are a lot of folks who don't view the GLBT marriage issue as a civil rights issue including some Black ones so I would question what civil rights means to them

What that means to me is that all citizens are protected equally under the law. The civil rights movement does seem to focus on Black people because they are the most visible minority and the history of denial of their humanity is one of the most shameful stains on this nation. There were however, many movements within the civil rights movement. Chicano and Immigrants were fighting for recognition of their rights, women were also fighting for full inclusion (and the fight continues, Native Americans were there, and the LGBT community was along side fighting for their rights.

What members of these groups want is access to and inclusion into the civil institutions that have been available to White people of the nation since the founding of the country.

... "Constitutionally invisible people."

Those are people who are not explicitly mentioned in any laws and can be ignored by those who choose to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

I believe that if the Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, the only reason for discrimination to continue is because some people are "invisible" in the eyes of the law.

Think about how laws had to change to allow more people to vote.

BTW, here is a neat little right to vote timeline from the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/12999res20050304.html

and pretty soon they'll have to give rights to the polyamorist (or polygamist) and just where does it end.......................?????

It kind of sounds like I'm against you, huh? I'm not. I believe you deserve the same civil rights as any other American citizen. I believe I deserve those rights as well. I have two husbands and the three of us parent our severely autistic son but we don't have the rights accorded those who decide to follow two by two, just as you don't because you don't couple "correctly". But at least you couple. Two is the only number any one wants to hear about, I assure you.

...I don't have an answer.

and even today, have control over their own bodies.

Do you think womans issues have become divorced from the civil rights struggle? I have to own up to my own potential bias: when I was writing this OP, womans rights didn't pop into my mind. Not that I don't think the issue isn't important. Psychologically, I think I just categorized them as a womans rights issue, not a civil rights one.

I was about to post that maybe this is all much ado about nothing that maybe I'm just picking at semantics but your post proved me wrong.

The word civil, to me, firstly reminds of civil versus criminal court. (Sorry that I didn't rise to your expectation of thinking of a black leader like Rosa Parks firstly.)

Since the executive branches prosecute criminals in criminal court, but generally leave civil court cases to the private sector, except in cases where there's a huge uprising, then there's a giant official vacuum when it comes to enforcing civil rights.

Hence, it's true that the term "civil rights" are too narrowly construed. The term itself seems to me, in some ways, just another dualistic oxymoron. If you've got plenty of money, you can continually buy access to civil rights, up until your funds run out; if you've got some lawyers' group pet peeve dream case and you yourself are poor, and you somehow hook up with that group, you can likely see your civil rights enforced; but if you're poor and or disempowered in other ways, it's quite unlikely you'll ever see your civil rights enforced, except in some rather narrowly constured ways.

To say we have civil rights in the U.S., but to limit civil courtroom access mostly to those who are relatively wealthy, is essentially to ignore the biggest part of mundane civil-rights violations. Therefore, civil rights are more like civil allowances or grants, subject to the whims of the current political leadership. I'm not saying they should be considered allowances rather than rights, I'm saying that in actual practice, they are much more like allowances than rights.

Didn't even cross my mind about civil vs criminal.

unfortunately that seems to be what it takes in this day and age. Your issues may have to be addressed to the ACLU or similar groups.

of all persons -- regardless of irrelevant characteristics -- to take part equally in civil benefits and to have their interests considered fully in forming public policy.

This doesn't mean that we can't discriminate among people based on relevant characteristics. I can refuse to hire you as a copy editor, for example, if you can't spell. But I can't refuse to hire a black person because he is black, or a woman just because she is a woman, or a gay person because he or she is gay.

We should be able to refuse to give you a driver's license because you're too young, too infirm, blind, etc. But we shouldn't be able to refuse to give you one because of your race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

Denying anyone full participation based on irrelevant characteristics is a civil rights issue.

Blacks do not own the term.

Actually, in quite a few places--you CAN.

That alone says a lot.

And what is ironic is that those people opposed to equal treatment for Gays are raising the argument that their civil right are being violated if the are forced to extend civil rights to another group.

Thanks

Most people can be persuaded with an equal rights or civil rights argument .... at least that is my experience. The best part of this approach is that Religion is forced to publicly oppose "equal rights" or "Civil Rights". The discussion needs to be moved from the "homosexual" community because it is only a subset of a larger group. The larger group should be the platform for the argument.

Who are the few who dictate the entire set? And, why can they not agree on the simple fundamentals of their own faith? They will run like cockroaches if cast into this light.

At least, those are my thoughts.