Recently, the D.C. City Council, the legislative body of Washington, D.C. government, by a vote of 11-2 approved legislation to make same-sex marriage legal in the nation’s capital. This is a great victory for both gay-rights advocates and those who staunchly believe in the right to marry whomever one wishes without government-compelled restrictions. For those opposed to same-sex marriage, it was a crushing blow and a step backwards in what many perceive to be a head-long dive into social debauchery and an egregious affront to many religious beliefs.
Today, I had a great conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Yes, “I have gay friends!” Let’s get that out of the way. She, still ecstatic about the recent vote, did have one area of disappointment. The two votes in opposition to the measure were from city wards that are predominantly Black in population. My friend is Black – more accurately, she is half Black and half white. So, she was disappointed that the representatives of those wards voted against the measure that she believed “would free so many citizens of this city of their statuses as second-class citizens.” In giving their reasons for voting against the measure these two representatives indicated that they were voting the wishes of their constituents. Quite frankly, if that is true, then they did the right thing. That is what a democratically-elected official is supposed to do – act in compliance with the wishes of their constituents, right? No? Okay, that’s another article at another time.
So, my friend asked: “Why are Black people so ignorant sometimes?” Her summarily dismissing her own genetic make-up was alarming; and since I am at least 80-85% Black, I was offended. She continued, “if no one else should be able to understand the feelings associated with discrimination and exclusion, Black people should.” This offended me even more than the “ignorant” statement; and it was here that I explained to my race-jumping friend that the two fights are not the same. I explained that while I do not believe that anyone should be the subject of hatred, violence or discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, and that one has the right to their identity, to compare the fight for same-sex marriage recognition and the fight to be treated as human beings and citizens in a place where one’s ancestors have lived and labored for nearly 400 years is an apples and oranges argument.
Now, I’m just a guy thinking, but I do not personally know of any gay people, openly so or otherwise, being turned away from restaurants or public parks because they were gay. I do not see separate restrooms or drinking fountains for “gay” and “not-gay” people. Gay people to my knowledge were not being forced to sit in the back of buses – unless they were gay and Black. I do not recall fire hoses being turned on participants of gay marches or rallies. I have not heard of police dogs biting into the flesh of a gay activist or a gay person having their heads bashed in by officers of the law – just for being gay. I can not imagine that there are many documented cases of gay bars or gay meeting establishments being bombed or children of gay couples being killed or beaten – simply for being children of gay people. I will not belabor the contrasts of the two experiences. Suffice it to say, there are many.
The fight that same-sex marriage advocates have waged for what they believe has been a hard-fought and admirable one. This cannot be denied; no matter what one’s position is on the issue. So, let that fight stand on its own merit – not piggy-back on the brutalities inflicted upon an entire race of people who did nothing more than be born into a socially disfavored gene pool.
I also reminded my friend that while most Black people are politically liberal, most are also socially conservative. This, in one regard is a function of a historical and widely-ratified distrust of government-imposed legislations that mandate what we must or must not do in our private lives. After all, it was legislation – the law of the land, in fact, that consigned Black people into life-long slavery and effectively kept Black people in a quasi-slavery, fourth-class citizen status for more than 100 years after the abolition of slavery.
But I believe there is a more profound reason for many Black people’s opposition to same-sex marriage: Yep – that one. Religion. Keep in mind, Christianity was beaten (literally) into the hearts and minds of the African slaves forced into America. Well, it worked! The Black (Christian) church still remains, albeit not on the same level as a generation ago, the backbone of Black social culture, beliefs and political might. This deeply-held identification with Christianity generally does not force the Black population on a large scale to vigorously rail against gay relationships since it is essentially a “that’s your business/to each is own” kind of issue. It does, however, compel many Black people to withhold support of it when formal legislation arises that lies in direct opposition to a deeply-ingrained, fundamental Christian/Biblical belief. That is, that same-sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of God. And to ratify its legitimacy by applying a holy sacrament (marriage) to it is wrong. Now, from a historical and even present-day perspective, can anyone deny the power of religion and its influence on the hearts and minds of people? Black people as a group are simply not as “open” about some matters as other races.
Now, I like what I am about to do (and you are going to hate it). I am going to end this article – for now. This is one of those truly hot-bed issues that require more reflection (and more writing). And this article has gone way over the limit that I set for myself. So, you will have to wait for Part II. Until then, keep on thinking . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Louis this is a well-written and carefully thought out response to your friend. I'm still on her side though (lol).
ReplyDelete“Why are Black people so ignorant sometimes?”
Her summarily dismissing her own genetic make-up was alarming;
Lou I'm 100% black and wonder why we're so ignorant. We'll raise our voices high against gay marriage but are virtually silent against black-on-black crime, rape or incest by a family member, premarital sex or the large-scale abandonment of black children by their fathers. These are all sins too, right? Is one sin more wrong than the other?
And my thing is, when we speak of biracial people, we're always offended that they don't claim themselves as 'black', not recognizing that doing so is denying half of their heritage. We don't care about that, as long as their claim 'our' half, right?
She continued, “if no one else should be able to understand the feelings associated with discrimination and exclusion, Black people should.”
Lou, where did she say that the gay rights struggle is the same as what black people experienced? She said we should understand because we've been discriminated against and excluded too.
We are so quick to point to other groups and shout, "your diversity wasn't as great as ours! Never forget what happened to us! Never forget what we've come through!" Now I agree that no one should forget but I find that we are the only ones who don't seem to remember at times. We don't value the education that our leaders marched and bled for; our families are falling apart, kids falling behind and future doesn't look that great. The promise of the civil rights movement isn't being fulfilled but we're quick to point out what we did then.
I guess this whole issue bothers me b/c black people and the black church are quick to point out whats wrong and how people are sinning, but don't accept people regardless of their sins or have concrete ways to improve upon the status of our community.
[PART ONE]
ReplyDeleteLouis,
Thank heavens I got here when I did First, you know how much I love you, but I think you’re missing some very BIG key points.
Up until some very recent human history, being homosexual itself was a death sentence. Here in the US, it wasn’t until a little over decade ago that the medical journals quit classifying homosexuality as a mental disease and yes, many religions still preach from the pulpit that it is an abomination. It is only recently that accepted science has been able to show that homosexuality is not just a choice of behavior, but a physical state of being. You do not “choose” to be gay any more than you choose your skin color or your gender. Even during the bleakest days of slavery black skin itself was not a crime punishable by death, just another part of “God’s plan” and one that couldn’t bedenied, unless you could “pass” for white.
The reason you didn’t see gay people being turned away is because gay people could “pass” for straight and unless the behavior was egregious or obvious, in which case they could open themselves up to a plethora of violence ranging from verbal assault, to once again, beating or death.The bus issue, no, but being fired or denied a job for being gay is still legal, as is being denied a renter’s application, a mortgage, etc. None of these things are covered by CRA 1964 or 991 because homosexuals aren’t considered a protected class. As for firehoses, etc., in the Civil Rights movement those were mostly in response to protests, the Stonewall Riots of 1969, considered the start of the Gay Rights movement, has plenty of head-bashing and police violence which continued unabated through the following decades and there are plenty of documented cases. “Gay bashing” incidents rose as police-condoned violence against minorities decreased, because “teh fags” were still open season.
There are also plenty of examples of violence against gay establishments (bombings, arson, and more) but it usually isn’t as widely reported for the reasons you use in you post – socially conservative people (e.g. religious conservatives of any stripe and the generally non-affected and non-effective moderates) either don’t care or sincerely believe the perverts “deserve it.”
Do the children of gay parents get attacked? Oh god yes! In some places less now than in others, but they are still targets and the monumental effort it takes to get a school district to support a curriculum that tells kids that it’s OK if someone has “two mommies” is daunting. Morever, because there is no national policy against discrimination, the fight has to take place in every district, every year, because “good” people who don’t want “their kids” taught that “homosexuality isn’t a sin” are a vocal and vicious bunch.
[TO BE CONTINUED....]
[PART TWO]
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us to the “religious” justification for opposition. I believe this makes the case FOR gay rights even stronger because religion and the Bible is the book that was most often used to support slavery, not rail against it as the evil institution it was. And those who say “yeah but the New Testament…” haven’t read Paul which explicitly supports slavery. As far as I’m concerned, as soon as someone trots out the “Lord’s Word” to support their position, I’ll bet that someone is defending a position that couldn’t pass a “love thy neighbor” test.
Louis, there are lots of deeply held beliefs that were and are just plain wrong. But that the Christian belief is wrong is still irrelevant to the argument and here is where I believe the opponents of gay marriage are, in fact, ignorant. Gay marriage legislation would not, in any way force, any church to honor any thing they disagree with. No preacher would be forced to perform a gay marriage. The church could still exclude them from communion. They could be as discriminating as their conscious and their God allows. All it would do, would mean that the STATE could not discriminate based on sexual orientation just as the state cannot discriminate against skin color, genitals, or any other God given trait.
And finally, this is that statement you made that actually hurts me: “Black people as a group are simply not as ‘open’ about some matters as other races.” Louis, could I not as easily say, for the same fundamentally flawed religious excuse, that White Southern Baptists -- notoriously racist, homophobic, and misogynistic -- should be able to excuse their vile positions because they think God agrees with them?
Personally, I believe that idiots can believe whatever they want, but when it comes to protecting ALL of our civil rights for ALL of our citizens, US law should be on the right side, not based on a “deeply-ingrained, fundamental Christian/Biblical belief, [] that some-sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of God.”
[Sorry so long, I just started typing and here's where I ended up. Writers! Sheesh!!]
Stasha, as always your arguements are brilliant. I know that gay people are discriminated against -- sometimes violently, for being gay. I am one who STRONGLY believes that homosexuality IS an immutable characteristic. And while I made a quite a few points (that you argued well against), I may have failed to make the one that I meant to make: the right to be who one is (within the confines of not harming another) should not be infringed upon by law or legislation. Equally, however, the long-established right of the free exercise of religious expression (which includes opinions thereof and participation in the democratic process) should also be respected. We all know there are folks out here who hate anything and anyone who is different from them. There are some people, however, who simply apply their principles and beliefs to the world around them. To the extent that they are not preaching or advocating hatred, I will respect that someone's strongly-held religious belief is adequate grounds for them to oppose something that goes against that belief. Now, as for whose struggle was bigger than whose, I did describe the two as "an apples and oranges" comparison. And I do believe that the same-sex marriage struggle is adequate in its own right and worthy to stand on its own triumphs, tragedies and experiences.
ReplyDeleteYou and Anilia (Prosechild) pounced on my Black behind today, didn't you!? LOL!! I love it! You've both given me great ideas for Part II. Thanks as always, love. Stay tuned . . .
See, now you go and throw "pounced" and "behind" in one sentence and have me going down a TOTALLY different road!
ReplyDeleteLookin' forward to part two --
Stasha
If we really want to be honest about this, why don't we say what this is really about? This is about how far man can demand, seek approval and justify chosen lifestyles - while ignoring God who created us all. I am not a proponent for hate crimes, of any kind, geared towards any LGBT groups, however I do believe that we have become a society so tolerant of "everything" that we refuse and are afraid to speak up and say that anything is wrong. There are no absolutes. Everything has become standard and acceptable. That's what bothers me. Just like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Medgar Evers addressed the generation of their times, with such conviction and boldness, regardless of threats made against their lives and those of their loved ones, we too must take a stand and speak out.
ReplyDeleteAs you can tell, I am a conservative voice and a friend who has sparred with "JustaGuy" on many occasions regarding issues of morality and equity. Although I disagree on some key issues, I have learned to listen and be more opened to hearing the opposing views of others. However, I stand firm (in this 5'3" frame) and say that some issues are not up for discussion nor debate. This is one of them.
The rights and opinions of others to live how you want is strictly up to the individuals, however to bind me to honor these differences and make it law, I have a problem with it. What else is next? Are you then going to force me to use the same restroom with a transgendered person and forbid me to say anything. Does that include all-female dressing rooms, nursing mother rooms? What else is next? Tell me. If I or someone else say that this is wrong, then I become subject to blackballing, at the receiving end of hatred crimes myself because of my stand and labeled as a nonconformist. Where does it end?
I look forward to Part II of this discussion and reading feedback to my comments. JustaGuy, until we meet again in the sparring room.....
LOL! Stasha, you're crazy!! But you MY GIRL!!
ReplyDeleteLadyWealth -- I believe you touched firmly upon the point that I was trying to make, and likely failed in doing so. I don't think one has to make any grand pronouncement of their religious or spiritual beliefs or principles. But I am vehemently against someone who opposes such issues as same-sex marriage as being labeled "ignorant" or "stupid." As has been mentioned in this discussion, with regard to the argument that the Bible was used to justify slavery, well that is true. Except history has shown that at the time (the 16th and 17th Centuries), VERY FEW people were educated, resistance to the European powers at the time was an exercise in futility, as their power (through the Catholic Church, no less) was irresistible. Today, (and perhaps even then) a small modicum of biblical understanding would show that such an assertion was erroneous, patently false and misleading and taken out of context. The Church was CLEARLY on a mission back then -- not only of salvation, but of wealth acquisition.
ReplyDeleteChristians today (educated ones, at least) would assert that both the Old and New Testament unambiguously regard homosexual acts as sin -- just as it does fornication, adultery, beastiality and other sexual activities. They might further assert that no where else in the Christian Bible is it exonerated or excused. Should we call them "stupid" or "ignorant" for their belief? I guess my issue here is that the face of "intolerance" is taking an alarming turn. It appears that in some enclaves, it is now the oppressed that are doing the oppressing -- true to the pattern of history. I am a strong advocate for anyone living their lives as they choose -- as long as it does not harm another. This absolutely includes the RIGHT to express and worship as one chooses, and all of the accoutrements thereunder.
Hi LadyWealth (LW)and I hope you will allow me to join you and Louis in the sparring ring.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality in itself, is not a chosen lifestyle. It is a state of being as is gender, race, height, IQ, etc., something you are born with which. In fact, embracing a religious doctrine is more of a "lifestyle choice" since at any time you can simply choose another religion or, as in my case, no religion.
The point you make about "ignoring God, who created us all" is one that you choose to believe and is the underpinning of your argument -- that no one can or should ever dispute the will of God.
You say that you are not a "proponent of hate crimes" (good grief, who is?) but your argument is the same one as "separate but equal." As long as the negros stay in their place they should be unmolested but who are they to tell us we have to eat with 'em or let 'em in our swimmin' pools or ..." you get the idea.
As for being so tolerant we refuse to say things are wrong that is not the case. What is the case is that people don't agree on wrongness. You position apparently is that homosexuality is wrong and therefore does not merit equal rights under the law. My position is that injustice is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.
MLK, Parks, and Evers were speaking out but they were speaking out to be included in the rights of citizenship, not exclusion. But they weren't speaking out against the internment of the Japanese nor of the bizare injustices and corruption of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They were fighting their own fight. Moreover, they, like the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Banaker, and Ghandi were all products of their time and were not perfect examples of a more perfect union.
As for your point that some issues are not up for debate, why? Because you say so? Because you are not on the recieving end of the inequality? Because you believe in a God that would create a child, in His image, then make that child unacceptable to the "chosen" or "the saved"?
Also, regarding the things you listed: Odds are, you are already sharing bathrooms with transgendered persons and are none the worse for wear and why does a nursing mother need a separate room to do something that is wonderful and natural anyway?
And, yes, under the law, you would be bound not to legally discriminate in the public arena but no one would force you invite gays, lesbians, trans, white, black or yellow people into your home or church. You could exclude them at your will.
As for saying standing up and something is "wrong" who would blackball you? People who agree with you? As for being a "nonconformist" that isn't a protected class and I've been on the recieving end of plenty of nasty, vicious, and downright nutty attacks -- interestingly 100% of them have been from those spouting some type of "Christian" opposition. As a former fundamentalist myself, those people scare the hell out of me, because I know how much they believe God's got their back.
As for where it ends, it ends with liberty and justice for all. In the meantime, the debate goes on.
Sincerely,
Stasha
Louis, I am, indeed, you're girl. That said, I press on. You stated:
ReplyDelete"Except history has shown that at the time (the 16th and 17th Centuries), VERY FEW people were educated, resistance to the European powers at the time was an exercise in futility, as their power (through the Catholic Church, no less) was irresistible."
Uneducated? Who? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington? The almost entirety of the Senate and House of Representatives of the soon to be recognized greatest nation on earth? Those men weren't just educated, they were visionaries, and many were geniuses. They were also flat out wrong regarding the application and short-sightedness of their own brand of liberty. God knows you and I weren't on their list of "All men" that were created equal but over time and through the efforts of people who would stand up for rights in the face of popularity and those who told us what was promised in the Constitution could not be ours because it was "unnatural" and "against God's will," you and I can enjoy equal protection under the law.
As for resisting the Catholic Church those old boys (Founding Fathers) told the guys who told the Pope to shove it (Teh King o' England and head of the Anglican Church), to shove it. In fact, their resistance to religious dominance of the government is well documented. Most of them were "Christians," but some were not.
But I fear we're getting off on a tangent here. Question for you regarding the original point:
Are you asserting that a firm belief in religious faith, or principal, is a justification for NOT supporting the rights of an unpopular minority group? In essence, to remain silent.
OR
Are you saying that that same religeous belief is a justification for actively OPPOSING that the minority group has the same rights as the majority? In short, an obligation to vocally oppose?
Stasha,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the uneducated period that Louis was speaking of was 16th century Europe. At that point in time, the masses were, for the most part, not well educated - especially in regard to the religious texts of the time. The Catholic church had the lions share of the power. The Bible was kept in its Latin form for the sole purpose of preventing the average joe from reading it.
The biblical interpretations of can and have been debated ad nauseum. Leviticus is clearly concerned about it, as well as not mixing clothing materials and the correct ways to offer an animal sacrifice.
The real question, I believe, is whether or not a same sex couple should be afforded the opportunities and guarantees under the Constitution of the United States. Not whether or not a particular religious genre acknowledges the marriage. There are many examples of heterosexual marriages that are not officially recognized by one church or another...marriage after a divorce, a Catholic wed into another faith in another church, etc..All of these examples are still protected under the law of the land. I see no difference in a same sex marriage.Filing for a marriage license is pretty much a non religious errand consisting of paying a filing fee at a courthouse. It is a legal document to that allows for two people to merge their life goals. Their religious and spiritual lives should be a separate matter all together.
My 1 cent. - Pete
J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, two of the major researchers most widely cited as having demonstrated that "homosexuality is genetic," were forced to admit otherwise by the results of their own research. They themselves wrote:
ReplyDeleteThese studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.
Another scientist states that since most traits are polygenic, meaning that they are determined by many genes, not just one single gene, a large percentage (like 98%) of our genes don't even code for our expressed traits.
... See More
This research has been deemed "inconclusive", and is not thoroughly comprehensive, statistically.
Spiritually speaking, the Bible does clearly state that we are all born in iniquity, shapen in sin, which is why God made us higher than the animals, with a neurological system that enables us with the ability to reason and make choices. Yes, sin is sin -Adultery, lying, murdering, gluttony, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., and we were all born with the propensity to do these things, but what separates individuals are the choices they make. Children are born with genes that predispose them to alcoholism, diseases, drug addictions, etc, but some of those offspring do not exhibit the traits that they inherited for several different reasons. So ultimately homosexuality is a choice. However, this article is about the comparison of civil rights and gay marriages, and I think Louis made his points very clear and thorough. Trust me, I cannot and will not judge anyone for their choices because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and I do love my neighbors, however, when God created the holy sanctity of marriage, He knew what He was doing when He created woman for man. I do not believe that He has changed His view on what He feels is natural. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Just as man's law tends to follow the tenants of the ten commandments, it tends to follow the idea of marriage in the same way. Much love to you all…we all have our "sins" that need to be placed at the foot of the cross.
Also, when considering scientific research, an exhaustive literary review is required to gain an overall concept of what is theorized. Then, analyze the methodologies as well as the subjects used and the statistics reported, then thoroughly read the conclusions.
6 hours ago · Delete
Pete, your final paragraph makes the point succinctly and elegantly and I agree.
ReplyDeleteLouis, I know you're a busy man an' all, but I'm looking forward to your take in part two. I'm on pins and needles here, honey -- pins and needles.