I periodically hear people argue that the struggle for homosexuals to achieve full equality under the law is not comparable to the Civil Rights Movement, and even that a comparison of the two is offensive. The argument, which I believe is fundamentally rooted in prejudice, seems to take several forms.
One form is the argument that gay suffering is not comparable to African American suffering. While it may be true that, with the possible exception of Native Americans, no community has suffered in America to the degree that African Americans have, this does mean that we should overlook either the suffering of others or their right to equal treatment. And in a country where consensual sex between members of the same sex was long a criminal offense, one can hardly argue that gays have had an easy time of it.
It is worth noting also that the language of opposition to gay rights and gay marriage is not typically the language of tolerance, inclusion, equality, and love. Not all opposition is couched in the language of bigotry, but enough is to render suspect the motives of the opposition.
Some will argue that gays should be content with a lesser legal status in the form of "civil unions.". The problem with this argument, as we have seen ever since Plessy v. Ferguson, is that the majority will only protect the prerogatives of the minority when the minority's rights are coextensive with the majority's. Sauce for the goose. If gays want to be sure that their marital rights are identical in law and fact to those of other citizens, then their status needs to be the same: marriage.
I find the argument that extending the institution of marriage to the gay community will somehow ruin marriage for the rest of us to be absurd and disingenuous. If anything the desire of the gay community to participate in the institution only serves to validate marriage and affirm its importance as a foundation of modern society. The only reason for disagreement is an immature queasiness about gay sexuality that underpins a view that gays are not in every respect equal and deserving of equal rights.
Such intolerance sometimes takes the form of the argument that homosexuality is a matter of voluntary misconduct rather than immutable biology. Apart from the contrafactual nature of this argument, it is consistent with the hostility toward gay sexuality so often expressed by opponents of gay marriage. And one might easily conclude that proponents of this view who are loudest in their profession of their Christianity are the least Christ-like in their views.
Finally, if civil rights pioneer and former SNCC Chairman John Lewis, the hero of the Pettus Bridge, considers gay marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, who am I to disagree?