Los Angeles Times – Niche LGBTQQUAI Media?

I agree with the title of this Los Angeles Times editorial that "gay rights" are human rights. I believe that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to life, liberty, property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. The devil is in the details of the editorial.

The editorial notes that South Africa is one of the few nations that have neutered their marriage laws and it has a constitution that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (things that I don't necessarily consider rights, depending on whether or not the application violates someone else's rights).

Gay groups flourish - soccer clubs and church organizations included - and middle-class gay men and women live relatively openly.

But the editorial goes on to cite that a cross-dressing homosexual woman was apparently raped and murdered, the implication that it had to be about her sexual orientation.

Two other openly gay women have been murdered in the township since 2008, and some gay men and women report having been raped by attackers who claimed to be teaching them a lesson.

Obviously, nobody should be raped, regardless of the reason.

A gay rights demonstration in Moscow was disrupted last month by counter-protesters, and Russian security forces detained people from both sides of the protest.

So two sides expressed their opinions. What is the problem with that? People should have the freedom of speech, even if they disagree with homosexuality advocates.

In Jamaica, homophobic lyrics in dancehall music have been blamed for violent attacks on gay people.

Were they playing Eminem? What does the Los Angeles Times think of social/cultural conservatives who say that music lyrics incite kids to fornication, dope smoking, and other destructive things?

On the other hand, some countries have progressed further faster. A decade ago, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, nine more have followed — and the U.S. was not one of them.

Neutering state marriage licenses against the will of those who issue the licenses is not a right nor progress.

I gather that I believe in more rights for homosexual individuals than the Los Angeles Times and many homosexual advocacy organizations, because I believe all individuals have certain rights that should not be usurped by the collective or by interest groups.

The paper also has an article by Paloma Esquivel covering the tired "woe is them" immigration aspect of the homosexuality advocacy movement.

They had fallen in love quickly and planned on marrying but soon learned that, unlike similar situations with straight couples, their relationship wouldn't help Oliva stay in the country.

Immigration policy is supposed to benefit the receiving country. The policy seeks to reunite (or keep united) married (bride+groom) couples because the United States have an interest in bride+groom couples that they don't have when it comes to other couples. Why should the nation's immigration policy try to keep same-sex couples united any more than it tries to keep platonic friends united? It's essentially another article about the evils of DOMA.