The Homophobia Has to Stop
Part of an email I received from a friend right after Obama won:
I’m still not safe in my country … my state … my city … my county … my polling place. America has indeed spoken. On a night when so much of my history was celebrated, perhaps vindicated, so much of me was mutilated and discarded. That’s what it feels like. I would be remiss, however, not to remember much of that history was spent enduring extreme suffering and hate. I accept that this is sometimes a part of the process and I recognize that many have endured a lot more than I have. I fully appreciate the role I must always have in being and demonstrating love and acceptance. I jokingly call myself the “Gay Obama: disarming white people and heterosexuals since 1980.”
Last night I cried for my friend in California who contributed half her salary last month to help defeat Proposition 8. Who has worked tirelessly and effortlessly to reduce the need for gays and lesbians to pay (expensive) lawyers like her exorbitant amounts of money to contract what meager rights they can. Last night I cried for all the people who stood on street corners with signs that asked that discrimination not be mandated. For the men and women who want to be legally recognized parents, but can’t.
I did some more digging and found this opinion over at the Atlantic (the comments get kind of heated, but the point is understood):
It’s disgusting. And we need to let this shit go. There may be great, sound reasons beyond–the blacks are pathological!!–to explain this. But there are no great, sound reasons that excuse it. Cut this shit out. We know better. Even if other people didn’t.
I’m going to throw my centrist hat in here and whole-heartedly agree.
First of all, historically, the institution of marriage was about the distribution of property. Two parties signed a legal contract and established ownership. If the contract was breached or if one party wanted out, the property was dispensed properly.
Second, this argument that because the Bible defines marriage between a man and woman is flawed on two fronts. Yes, our country is founded on the inalienable rights outlined in the principles of the Bible, but what happened to the separation of church and state? Why is this not applicable to the legal definition of marriage? The Bible also states the principles of ‘eye for an eye’, yet it is highly discredited in the principles of capital punishment, especially in the disproportionate enforcement to Black inmates. Is it possible that the outdated mandates of the Old Testament have expired?
Finally, and this is what really gets me, is how anyone can sit atop their soap box, in a glass house, and support a law that regulates a way of life for ANYONE. While its debatable that the equality struggle of our homosexual brethren relate to the historical struggle of our racial past, the principle is simple.
Love is love.
The fear exhibited within parts of our culture and parts of our church is a giant mistake I know our kids and grandkids will be looking back on us and hang their head in shame. The fear that irradiates from many spiritual leaders, masked behind literal interpretations of scripture, is sad. The Bible, for me, has always been a book of philosophical awakening and challenging principle. While it is a tool towards the path of grace, I think the lessons and words defined in it are convexed enough that any man believing that ‘they understood what God meant when these words were cast’ is arrogance in its highest form.
Of what is even more disturbing is this projection that heterosexual Black men have of gay Black men fostered from how they treat and view Black women. The idea that gay Black men would treat them remotely the same is really the true story.
It’s equivalent to how some white people feared the election of Obama and the prominence of the minority community. If in one breathe you could convince yourself that there was no racism and that ‘Black people needed to get over it’, why then are you so afraid of a Black man being in power? If everything was so great, why would you fear retaliation or reciprocal treatment?
This argument that gay marriage is against the Bible and your principles isn’t really about you. It’s about the rights of others who are different.
In the end, for all of us, who has the final judgement call anyway? Last I checked, it wasn’t the preacher.
We need to challenge ourselves, long and hard, to break this tide of misinformation and fear. While I know not everyone has to agree on the ‘right and wrong’ of homosexuality, one must look past themselves and dig deeper. Do we really believe disallowing anyone basic human rights is the right thing to do? Since when is it ok to enforce your beliefs through law in this melting pot of America?
What say you, community?
"There is no duality. There is perception. There is wrong-thinking based on human choice and will, but the only "evil" ...
Greeat post and I agree -- Chicago has so much to do each summer. I often have people ...
Just found your blog through Google, and I have to say I thoroughly enjoy it.Thank you for the info. I’m ...
i like the idea of including socio-economic status. not quite sure the embedded inequities have been overcome re: race yet. 
Thanks Gee, You're right. I hate the boredom pedagogy of science, eg. sit down and memorize vocab. It's ...
It's crazy that I stumbled upon this post because I was considering adding a science section to my magazine, but ...
Comment by JD on 6 November 2008:
I believe marirage should be between a man and a woman. Having said that, who are we to deny the joy marriage seems to bring members of the homosexual community. Love is Love and marriage is a risk to provide as much unhappiness as happiness. There are many legal reasons for ao couple should be able to marry. So even though, marrage should be between a man and a woman, I am getting closer to understand and being for gay marriage.
Comment by ybpguide on 6 November 2008:
Right. See, I think that is a reasonable point of view.
You can disagree with someone and not mandate a law preventing others who disagree with you.
I guess my question is, if it were legal in the U.S., what is the big consequence everyone is afraid of?
Comment by nikkicutie5 on 6 November 2008:
I am very dissapointed with my state (Florida) and others for the decision to deny equal rights to a minority segment of the population…yet again. I wish I could say that I am surprised but I am not. To answer the question “what is the big consequence we are all afraid of”, I turn to the past. In every society, there is an us and a them. Not so long ago in the U.S., the “them” was black folk. Let's face it division among people works! Division tell us that we are right and good. And if we are right and good, all things that come from us must be right and good. Conversely, if the others (”them”) are wrong and bad, all things that flow from them must be wrong and bad too; even love and committment. Now that we as black folk have “reached the promised land” (and the White House..GO OBAMA), we have joined in with the majority to create another “them”. It saddens me so. We know how much it hurts to be “them”, yet we get out and march, now in order to deny others rights. I'm sure white people believed just as strongly that it was just plain wrong for black people to be treated as equals and had plenty of “biblical” support to back it up.
As a lawyer, it's funny the way you see things. I see the Bible in the same way that I see the U.S. Constitution now. You can pretty much interpret it to say whatever the hell you want it to! It is time for all of us to reflect and see if we really carry the PRINCIPLES of the Bible in our hearts..love, acceptance, forgiveness, brotherhood, peace. These are the things that make one of sound moral character, not judging others and making every effort to ostracize people who are different. We, of all people, should know how that hurts and what it does to a people.
Comment by nikkicutie5 on 6 November 2008:
I am very dissapointed with my state (Florida) and others for the decision to deny equal rights to a minority segment of the population…yet again. I wish I could say that I am surprised but I am not. To answer the question “what is the big consequence we are all afraid of”, I turn to the past. In every society, there is an us and a them. Not so long ago in the U.S., the “them” was black folk. Let's face it division among people works! Division tell us that we are right and good. And if we are right and good, all things that come from us must be right and good. Conversely, if the others (”them”) are wrong and bad, all things that flow from them must be wrong and bad too; even love and committment. Now that we as black folk have “reached the promised land” (and the White House..GO OBAMA), we have joined in with the majority to create another “them”. It saddens me so. We know how much it hurts to be “them”, yet we get out and march, now in order to deny others rights. I'm sure white people believed just as strongly that it was just plain wrong for black people to be treated as equals and had plenty of “biblical” support to back it up.
As a lawyer, it's funny the way you see things. I see the Bible in the same way that I see the U.S. Constitution now. You can pretty much interpret it to say whatever the hell you want it to! It is time for all of us to reflect and see if we really carry the PRINCIPLES of the Bible in our hearts..love, acceptance, forgiveness, brotherhood, peace. These are the things that make one of sound moral character, not judging others and making every effort to ostracize people who are different. We, of all people, should know how that hurts and what it does to a people.
Comment by gib on 6 November 2008:
for so many of us, we have learned that homosexuality is wrong. a choice. unnatural. unbiblical. abominable. that is valid and true for a large portion of us. when people cast those votes they really thought they were protecting children and an institution. and that reality has to be accepted on some level, because it was the reality for those individuals. those are noble reasons to cast a vote. i don't think it is a deficiency of any one person. it's a lack of knowledge and understanding.
there is another reality. no one can point to any appreciable, scientific, research accepted by the field that suggests homosexuality is a choice. neither can they point to any evidence that homosexuality poses a risk to children. There is no scientifically accepted research to suggest any maladaptive disorders or maladjustment of children raised by gay parents or who “learn” about homosexuality. Homosexual parents do not produce homosexual children. If that logic followed, there should be no homosexuality since, presumably, all children are born to heterosexual men and women. there is no scientifically accepted research to suggest that gays are disproportionately represented among child sex offenders. In fact, over 90% of child molesters are heterosexual white men. Pedophilia, it turns out, is not a predictor or indicator of adult sexual orientation. It is entirely separate.
I know this because I have been in the same room as the foremost authority on child development (from the University of Oxford) and the foremost authority on pedophilia (from Johns Hopkins). The information is available. But, everyone doesn't have that information.
still, simpler than scientific research, simpler than fora and panels is the fact that day-to-day, moment-to-moment we have a choice: peace or no peace?
when i am pointing my finger and judging, i have noticed i am not feeling peace at the same time. in fact it's the farthest thing from my mind. when i am making someone wrong about something they are doing, i am not feeling love. i am not even remembering to, and i am starting to see judgment and love can't exist in the same place.
instead, when i am connecting to the innate goodness of the person next to me, when i am responding with compassion and the understanding i don't know everything, and i can't know his walk, my defenses are down, my mind and heart are open, and i respond with generosity. even when i don't agree. it would be impossible for me to agree with everyone about everything. however, it is not impossible to remember every one of us is made in the image and likeness of God and innately good. when i focus on that, i never meet a stranger. i never meet an “other.” how can i love and expect good treatment from Being i can't see, and not express genuine, unconditional love to the hundreds i see every day?
a friend reminded me recently that people tortured, beat and killed Jesus. Someone else who in the pursuit of love and peace challenged convention and rigid, calculating fundamentalism. she said “if it happened to HIM, then some shit is bound to come our way.” My gift to those who think gays might deserve legal and perhaps other harm is peace. My gift (and thanks) to those like nikkicutie5, fredric and the JDs of the world choosing love more and more, is also peace. in the face of Pharisees and those who would see any person harmed for some perceived difference, I must still be the change i want to see. WE must still be the change we want to see in this world. We must be, find, and pursue peace.
Comment by moretoblack on 7 November 2008:
I think you are right on. It's this homophobia that drives the “down low” phenomenon. However we know that as long as Blacks are so tied to the church and the church is against this it will be near impossible to separate the feelings on the too.
Very similar to abortion.
Comment by Carlus Henry on 7 November 2008:
This is going to be the counter argument.
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not believe that there is a such thing as a homosexual marriage. To me, it is an oxymoron.
With that being said, I do believe in the rights of everyone. I believe that homosexuals should be given the same rights and privileges of all citizens. I am under the impression that 'civil unions' give homosexuals these rights.
I do not live in California, but I definitely supported Proposition 8 and other measures like it. Sure there is a separation between church and state, but at the same time, Proposition 8 would have stepped on a lot of rights of church organizations. For example, in Mass. where there are same sex marriages, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to shut it's doors because they refused to let homosexual “married” couples to adopt from their organization. They gladly refer the couple to a different organization that allowed such arrangements - however that was not good enough. After they were taken to court, they were eventually forced to shut their doors. I don't believe that this is right, at all. What about all of the other Christian outreach programs that stand in danger of losing their tax exemption status due to their beliefs - schools, camps…etc? That is not right.
Another thing that I don't believe is right is that our public school systems, will be forced to teach that marriage is valid between homosexuals, and anyone who disagrees with that stance is equal to a “bigot”. Imagine that…a school system that I pay for with my taxes, has a right to teach my children, that I am a bigot. That our church teaches bigotry and hate? No thank you.
I love my homosexual brothers and sisters. I also hold marriage as a sacred institution given to us by God. I will protect the rights of homosexuals as well as the sacredness of marraige.
God Bless,
Comment by elle on 7 November 2008:
I am under the impression that 'civil unions' give homosexuals these rights.
Ah, a separate, but equal institution. Those work so well!
Comment by gib on 7 November 2008:
here is where I could use information. I don't remember being taught about any kind of marriage in school. Are you aware of where, at what age, and in what context marriage is being taught at all, let alone gay marriage? And, I am also curious, how do we teach a child acceptance and try to shield them from all the places and persons for whom that will be required. The research on this topic and child development is clear. Children are very resilient. When you teach them: “mommy and daddy are together, but some kids have mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy. It is different than you and most of your friends. Sometimes people won't like it, because it is different from what we see all the time. As for this family, we believe everyone deserves respect and kindness.” the notion that children will be “protected” because gays can't marry pretends gays are going to stop being in public as couples, other students in their class are going to stop having gay parents and gays are just going to disappear. So, instead of taking that teaching moment to build future Obamas and Nancy Pelosis and Al Gores and Deval Patricks, we'll build more Sarah Palins and Donnie McClurkins who tolerate us, at best, or “war” against us. Again, choice. War or peace?
Comment by RMBlkmn on 9 November 2008:
We all need to get involved in our local areas if we want to affect change. You start with yourself, your family, your community, and the ripple must move out from there. We all want those rights that are denied to us, but all of us will not come out to fight for them. TAKE A STAND!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Carlus Henry on 9 November 2008:
Gib,
Marriage is not taught in school because it is a given. Everyone knows that marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Now, where it will be taught is when the laws change to make it defined as otherwise. They will discuss it during history and civics. They will talk about how there was once a time when a certain group of people fought against homosexual marriages because they thought that marriage was something sacred between a man and a woman - those subhuman neanderthals.
I agree that homosexuals and homosexual unions are going to be a part of this culture. I just don't believe that I should be fighting a school system, that I fund, in order to teach my children to be morally unacceptable, as well as give the schools the right to call me and my other Christian Pro Marriage brothers and sisters bigots.
Comment by Carlus Henry on 9 November 2008:
I understand your argument Elle. But I don't think that racism is on the same level as homosexual marriage. If you want to look at it purely from a legal standpoint, then yes, homosexual marriage is equal to marriage. It provides the same rights and privileges as married couples, including access to health care and other benefits.
Marriage is a natural and sacred institution. It is natural because it naturally produces life. Only a man and a woman can come together and create life. It is a sacred institution because it was given to us by God. It is a covenant, a vow that husbands and wives make before witnesses and with God. I think that it is pretty clear that God isn't in the homosexual marriage business, and therefore neither should we be.
Do you know that there has never been any civilization that has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage? Throughout all of history, there has not been one culture that has done so. Even during the Roman era, when people were doing all kinds of crazy things, they didn't believe that marriage could ever be considered anything other than between a man and a woman.
I really don't understand what is going on in our society, but I pray that we will all see that there are some things that we used to hold sacred…marriage being one of them.
God Bless…
Comment by Carlus Henry on 9 November 2008:
Here are a couple of reasons…
1.) Though many children are raised in a single parent home, we would all probably agree that the best environment for a child would be to have both a mother and a father - I know that I wish I would have. Don't future children deserve it too?
2.) There will be an attack on institutions today that have the ability to operate in a discretionary manner. Many of these institutions rely on the tax exemption status, which will be denied if they do not uphold the state law. For example:
Catholic Adoption Agency in Massachutes
Methodist Church and Gay Marriage Lawsuit Battle
…these are from states that recognize a same sex marriage.
These are just a couple that I can think of.
Comment by d1standing on 9 November 2008:
I was sad to see that Proposition 8 was adopted. This is especially the case because the day that Obama won and democrats increased their majority in congress was like Christmas for me. I looked forward to the largest state in the country leading the charge for gay rights in hope that other states would soon follow suit. I empathize with the brothers and sisters who still feel that our “whole self” will never be fully understood and definitely not respected or appreciated.
I am a gay black male and at times I have felt uneasy about calling gay relationships marriages. My opinion is that we all should be afforded equal protection under the law and should be allowed to live freely in our own pursuit of happiness. What I mean by this is that gay couples should be giving full rights as straight couples. We need a term that is unique for people who are gay and on any official document it could be used interchangeably (legally binding and respected) with the term marriage. This is an area where I differ (use of the term marriage) from some of my gay brothers and sisters. **I know my argument will get me into trouble with those who say that separate terms can not mean equal treatment…I just have not thought it out that far yet.** My reason for this does not come from any religious principles, but I really think that in order for gay relationships to work we need our own term. The term marriage is for straights; however, the right to have a legally sanctioned relationship with a significant other does not belong to straights.
I always thought State/U.S. constitutions laid out what we were entitled to and it was the role of judges and justices to determine what these entitlements mean. To explicitly include what would otherwise amount to hate by banning gay marriages in any constitution adulterates the document and excludes a whole segment of people. Further, I thought that constitutions were documents that execute the role government and the protection clauses were to protect people from the government. My point is that banning gay marriage has nothing to with government and all to do with church. I hope that we will someday get the church out of government. Constitutions are contracts between the government and the people.
Comment by d1standing on 9 November 2008:
I was sad to see that Proposition 8 was adopted. This is especially the case because the day that Obama won and democrats increased their majority in congress was like Christmas for me. I looked forward to the largest state in the country leading the charge for gay rights in hope that other states would soon follow suit.
I am a gay black male and at times I have felt uneasy about calling gay relationships marriages. My opinion is that we all should be afforded equal protection under the law and should be allowed to live freely in our own pursuit of happiness. What I mean by this is that gay couples should be giving full rights as straight couples. We need a term that is unique for people who are gay and on any official document it could be used interchangeably (legally binding and respected) with the term marriage. This is an area where I differ (use of the term marriage) from some of my gay brothers and sisters. **I know my argument will get me into trouble with those who say that separate terms can not mean equal treatment…I just have not thought it out that far yet.** My reason for this does not come from any religious principles, but I really think that in order for gay relationships to work we need our own term. The term marriage is for straights; however, the right to have a legally sanctioned relationship with a significant other does not belong to straights.
I always thought State/U.S. constitutions laid out what we were entitled to and it was the role of judges and justices to determine what these entitlements mean. To explicitly include what would otherwise amount to hate by banning gay marriages in any constitution adulterates the document and excludes a whole segment of people. Further, I thought that constitutions were documents that execute the role government and the protection clauses were to protect people from the government. My point is that banning gay marriage has nothing to with government and all to do with church. I hope that we will someday get the church out of government. Constitutions are contracts between the government and the people.
Comment by kiet on 9 November 2008:
Today I participated in my first march/rally ever in LA to oppose the passing of prop 8. I was glad to be there and represent, but part of me questioned what I was really doing. I don't believe in gay marriage and I don't believe in straight marriage. What right does the government have in anyone's views of what marriage should be? The idea of a perfect marriage is as diverse as the many cultures and races that make up this country and we should be respectful of that. That said, we still need laws to help us take care of legal matters. Who get's the baby in a separation, who inherits the money of the deceased, who has the right to make medical decisions for a sick loved one? The government's involvement in the union of people should be purely to aide in resolving legal matters. The idea of a civil union should be applied to all couples. Separation of church and state is always discussed when speaking of gay marriage, but it should be discussed when speaking of marriage in general. When I attended that rally today, I was chanting for marriage, yet what I really wanted was civil unions for ALL couples. But since the government has already defined marriage into laws, then everyone should be deserving of those laws. And that is why I marched. Equal rights must be granted to everyone.
Comment by kate reder on 10 November 2008:
a story worth mentioning: my boyfriend's boss was driving his kid to school. there was a woman standing on the median with a sign that read “don't take away my right to marry the woman i love.” the kid asked his dad what that was in reference to, and his dad explained porp 8. the kid thought before asking: “why does anyone get to vote about who that woman marries?” wisdom from the mouth of babes.
Comment by hinchey on 10 November 2008:
So if we can agree that Marriage is a sacred institution and that a Church should have the ultimate authority to decide which members of their congregation get to participate in that ritual, then GREAT. We seem to forget that there are churches and denominations at perform gay marriages all the time. BUT…
If we can agree that all gays and lesbians should be given legal rights akin to marriage and it would be discriminatory not to do so, then why don't we just change the vernacular.
Anyone who wants to have rights, benefits and responsibility under the law will be recognized as a civil union. Those who want that union recognized by their church can get married at the altar. So if ANYONE wants the Government to recognized the partnership….CIVIL UNIONS…gay or straight.
If you want a marriage…then go to your pastor and ask them to marry you.
But let us be clear…you will no receive government benefit if you are only “married” in a church. You must go through the process of a civil union.
In a nutshell. let us revoke the power of any church to perform any ceremony that has any civil or governmental benefit.
If the Southern Baptist congregation decides that I am going to hell for who I love then so be it. I can go to another church. But when it is the government making that decision is a whole different matter…it is SUPPOSED to be a government for ALL of the people…it is ludicrous that I should go to another country.
Bottom line, one single denomination does not get the right to decide to parse out the benefits of citizenship.
Comment by MR.Rex on 10 November 2008:
This is nothing but an attack on the Christian faith and its church. To the gays, the church is the biggest obstacle to acceptance in society. They have come to realize that their lifestyle will never be accepted by the church, so instead, they are determined to destroy the sacred institutions within the church.
What I found even more irksome is that gays are an extreme minority in this country, maybe 3-5 % of the population, where has all of this influence come from? There should be a time when the wishes of the majority out paces the “needs” of the minority. We should not be redifining an institution that is thousands of years old to satisfy a few thousand couples that want to marry.
I am very happy about the results of prop 8. Based on the outcome, the only way it can be overturned is if the US Supreme court decides to define gays as a protected class, which would change the legal landscape of this country. With so many confused people walking around being gay on tuesday and Straight on Friday, I am confident that homosexuals will not get be classified in the same league as women, racial groups or the disabled–all things that don't change.
Comment by gib on 11 November 2008:
So for you, Mr.Rex, you feel personally attacked, at least in terms of your faith. and since you are a part of the “majority” on this issue, you feel the minority should take a back seat.
Your faith, and the institution of marriage as it pertains to you, your church and perhaps your family isn't affected by someone else's marriage. gays marry in MA, CT, Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands and i am not aware of anything, anyone, or any church being destroyed.
Comment by jh on 11 November 2008:
I'm a white heterosexual female and described by most of my friends as one of the most conservative indivduals they know. Even I recognize the prejudices our society has against the gay and lesbian community. As a lifetime resident of Florida, I'm saddened by the outcomes of Amend. 2.
As for the the act of redefining an institution that is thousands of years old to satisfy a few thousand couples that want to marry - this so called institution has redefined itself many times in the course of history, what makes passing this amendment any different?
I'd like to quote the original author: “what happened to the separation of church and state? Why is this not applicable to the legal definition of marriage? “
Also, I would like to see where you get your statistics from as far as 3-5% of the population. I have a feeling that those numbers are quite larger than what you would have imagined.
Finally, I agee that there are individuals (a very minimal number though) out there who claim their sexuality based on what they think is hip and cool. However for the majority, it's not a choice. It's who they are.
These individuals are hard working, tax paying citizens of this country. Why are we denying them the same rights as heterosexual couples? This isn't really a debate of if they deserve it, they do - they earned it the moment they became citizens of the country.