|
A guy approached me. “Sign
this petition?”
“What’s it for?”
“Supporting Gay Marriage.”
“Oh, I’m straight.”
And with that, I walked away, trying to get home from a day of school
and work. Why was I so reluctant to sign the petition? It wasn’t until I
was on my way home that I realized that my response had duel
connotations. I was simply saying, “I’m straight,” as in “no thanks.”
But as I sat there, the irony of the situation hit me. “I’m straight.”
Not much of a revelation, but enough to give me one of those personal
smiles.
The Roman Catholic Church calls it an “objective disorder.” Some call it
“sexual orientation,” some call it sin. “In the same way the men also
abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans (1:27).
Most fundamentalist Christians who are against gay marriage claim that
the issue is a moral one--allowing gays to marry would taint a sacred
institution and it would be a condoning of “sin” by a government that is
supposed to represent us all. Taking that view, I wouldn’t want my
government acting in ways contradictory to what I myself would do in the
same situation. I wouldn’t want my government going and instigating a
war or making deals with nations whom I wouldn’t make deals with. I
wouldn’t want my government to “speak for me, break bread, and peace
treaty across seas for me” (as T-Mo from Goodie Mob would put it). And
so, why would a fundamentalist Christian who opposes gay marriage want
his government not only to accept the practice, but also to condone it
and sanction it? Is this about morals?
Maybe it’s about rights. In an April 24, 2004 rant, James Goldstein
writing for the Star Tribune mentioned the issue in a paragraph where
the first sentence read simply, “Civil Rights.” Goldstein went on to
reference the “1960s” but must have decided against directly mentioning
“black” or “African American.” An interesting question presents itself:
is the struggle for the civil right to gay marriage synonymous or
perhaps even similar to the famous civil rights struggles of African
Americans. The argument is well enough put together: civil rights are
civil rights. Civil liberties are the guarantee of the constitution to
the people--all the people. One New York state mayor, Jason West of New
Paltz thinks that the movement is “the flowering of the largest civil
rights movement the country’s had in a generation… the people who would
forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made
Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.”
The legacy of Rosa Parks and her defiant sitting on a segregated bus has
been resurrected in mainstream America recently. But many straight black
people disagree with the comparison. Their annoyance: how can you
compare something that is a choice (being homosexual) to something that
can’t be changed (the color of your skin).
But it’s not that simple. To support their annoyance, you have to
support a very crucial assumption: that being gay is a choice.
Although here’s a fact: (While perhaps not ethical to the proud) a
homosexual white male or female can simply choose to conceal his
sexuality and easily get by in American society as a heterosexual white
male or female and instantly receive all of the benefits that the Twin
Cities (with its “conceal and carry racism under your coat” attitude)
has to offer to a white male and female. A black man, a black woman,
straight or gay, is black, whether they choose to be or not, whether
they want to conceal it or do not.
Blacks against gay marriage? Don’t worry; the Republican Party has
already jumped all over it. Drawing false battle lines, (as is the
tendency of American politics) gopusa.com is reporting, “African
Americans [All of them?] Offended By Comparison made by Gay Marriage
Activists.”
Maybe it’s too amazing for many to conceive, let alone ask the question,
but are there any black people who are gay before being black? Do you
have to choose? Beverly Greene, a St. John’s University (New York)
psychologist says “there’s more at stake” for black people coming out
and fighting for gay rights. “They don’t have as many places to go in
the gay and lesbian community.” Some gay blacks (or black gays?) sit at
home watching gay rights protests on TV full of white people, torn
between feeling good about the protests and not being satisfied with
them. After all, those people on TV can’t be their voices: they are a
minority within a minority. Black, lesbian, women, a minority within a
minority, within a minority. Which minority status do you start with?
Are you lesbian first? Black first? Woman first? Do you have to choose?
Many gay blacks say they feel ostracized by both communities to which
they belong: the black community doesn’t understand them being
homosexual and the gay and lesbian community doesn’t understand them
being black. One man, christian, gay, and black (or whatever order you
feel most comfortable with) uses the bible, not to condemn his sexuality
but as reassurance of his spirituality in the midst of his sexuality.
“Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you
could not be justified from by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39).
Civil rights are civil rights for all. The undeniable fact is this: to
deny anyone a civil right because of religious belief is incompatible
with the intention of the constitution. While the spirit of man has been
at the foundation of many and most of America’s truly positive
contributions to humankind, the constitution doesn’t recognize it.
Hence, Mr. Bush’s push for a constitutional amendment to give the
historical document a new pair of eyes.
And there are serious dangers that come with formally marrying religion
and law, thus denying Gay’s a fundamental civil right: The longevity of
the state and the theoretic ability for it to be a balanced entity both
become extremely vulnerable (i.e. various Middle Eastern countries,
including Israel) What is at stake? In freedom we trust? Or god? |
|
Our Sponsors
(please check
them out.)
|
|
