For some reason, a blogger named Derrick Mathis listed black LGBT-rights blogger Pam Spaulding as an example of "white privilege" in the LGBT activist community. That was strange enough, but this part of the argument is odd too:
The anti-Obama machine in Gay Inkdom is alive and strong. It’s purposefully misleading, resentful and born out of the ironic reality that the LGBT community has yet to suffer one casualty in a so-called quest for civil rights.
Do all the people who have been killed for being gay not count? Because if that's the case Emmett Till doesn't either. We haven't seen a major gay-rights leader gunned down Medgar Evars style, but the definition of a civil-rights issue is whether or not it involves civil rights. It doesn't hinge on whether or not enough blood has been spilled in your cause. The ability to marry another consenting adult of your choosing, or serve your country openly in the military, clearly qualify. Gays and lesbians aren't living in the Jim Crow South, but unless we're adopting the Ann Coulter definition of civil rights here, this argument is a gratuitous non sequitur. The point of the civil-rights movement was not that black people suffered and thus became worthy of being granted civil rights; it was that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Moreover, it's not as though violence against civil-rights leaders humbled the movement into silence. Why would gay-rights activists take the opposite lesson from their example?
UPDATE: Yeah, somehow I forgot about Harvey Milk. Not that his absence makes the argument any less weak.
