Constitutional Rights Despite "Disdain"

There are times, when as a columnist, I receive e-mail and/or voice mail that causes me to either look with the curiosity of "Nipper," the dog portrayed on the RCA Victor advertisements or tennis great John McEnroe as he blurts out: "You cannot be serious!"

I have a cadre of such readers who elicit those reactions. They manage only to rear their collective heads in dissent when the issue is my support for gay rights.

Even on those rare occasions when they may agree with an issue, such as last week's critique on how Mormon Elder Dallin Oaks misused the history of the Civil Rights Movement, they still made time to share their opposition to gay rights.

Several bemoan that I seemingly show "more support for gays than I do for my own people." I take that last statement to mean that there are no gay African Americans.

Didn't Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggest something similar about Iran when he spoke at Columbia University in 2007?

What struck me was one caller, in particular, admitted his "disdain" for the gay community. An interesting word choice that raises a far more interesting question: can one have disdain for a people and still support their constitutional rights?

While perhaps the immediate response for many would be "no," in our system whether one likes something personally is irrelevant in terms of their willingness to support it on constitutional grounds.

The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, along with the 13th and 15th Amendments, was one of three Reconstruction Amendments added to the Constitution.

Section one of the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The aforementioned 80 words serve as the foundation on which I base my support for same-sex marriage.

It was the belief of Thaddeus Stevens, the Floor Leader for the Republicans in the House of Representatives; the 14th Amendment would create a "perfect republic."

The 14th Amendment obviously fell short of Stevens' lofty goal, but that does not diminish its long-standing importance as a beacon that guides the nation toward its most sacred values.

Approved by Congress in 1866 and integrated as part of the Constitution in 1868, the 14th Amendment remains arguably the most crucial change since the Bill of Rights.

The 14th Amendment also added clarity to Jefferson's immortal words: "We hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal." Tragically, ratification of the 14th Amendment required the nation going to war against itself because of its inability to reconcile its original sin of slavery.

Ironically, it was the bravery of nearly 200,000 former slaves, fighting for the Union, that victory was ensured. And it was nearly 100 years later, when black Southerners and white supporters forged a unique coalition, based on their belief in the 14th Amendment that civil rights legislation was passed and signed.

Neither brought perfection, but are we not better for it?

The 14th Amendment transformed the Constitution from a document that navigated the relationship between the federal government and the states to one where members of a minority class could lay claim to the same rights, free from the tyranny of the majority.

As abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison stated, the 14th Amendment was the "transformation of four million human beings from the auction block to the ballot box." But it is unlikely the 14th Amendment would have been ratified if its passing was based on what people liked. In 1868, former slaves were still largely viewed as second-class citizens in the North as well as the South. Few would argue that blacks were universally liked when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution.

But due process and equal protection should not be treated as finite resources. Extending these rights to one group does not require that something be taken away from another group.

How one feels personally about an issue is irrelevant as it relates to the 14th Amendment. It is the peculiar greatness of America that allows one to have "disdain" for the gay community but still embrace their constitutional rights to full equality.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him [e-mail] or visit his Web site:byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[M1]

Thank you for the beautifully written article.

[Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. - Huffpost Blogger]

Bravo, Byron, for asking the right questions.

As to "disdain," of course - I have great disdain for Rush Limbo, but support his constitutional right to speak - likewise Dick Cheney.

As another commenter said, the issue isn't gay marriage but the nature of marriage. Marriage is a civil contract and as such subject to civil contract law. In a country with an established religion, that may not be the case, but it is in the US. While the state has delegated authority to perform marriage to clergy, that delegation doesn't change the civil nature of the contract, as evidenced by states such as my own Nevada which require state licensing of clergy to perform marriages - just being ordained is not enough.

Civil law is clear - no one can be denied civil rights (including the right to enter into a contract) based on discrimination as to race, gender, etc. The only exception is competence - if a person is under age or legally incompetent, then they cannot validly contract. Otherwise, gays, African-Americans, women, short people, and people with silly walks have the same rights as straight, white, tall men who walk conservatively (nod to Monty Python).

[24hourrifle]

first...as a christian,im thoroughly disgusted with and ashamed of all those insisting that they have such problems with homosexuality BECAUSE they are christians.if you know the history of how the bible was written,and what exactly it does or doesnt say about homosexuality,then you would clearly see that using it to justify your narrowminded nonsense and passive agressive bigotry is foolish.

for all the severely nuanced arguments for/against samesex marriage or homosexuality in general,it all comes down to one simple point....

either people are born with their sexual preferences or they arent.and frankly,as the brother/close friend of a number of gay people,i see absolutely no reason in the world why anyone would ever CHOOSE to live a life where they will face serious discrimination and various obstacles at every turn.

hate filled people and the evangelicals have completely hijacked my faith,and its sad and infuriating that the ted haggertys and pat robertsons have become the face of modern christianity in this country.

but just to be clear...there are millions of thoughtful­,PROGRESSI­VE,loving openminded christians in this country.and we are-slowly but surely-fighting back and making ourselves known/heard.

[rextrek]

Please - Oh Please -DO NOT Forget the Black Pastors in DC,along with Black Muslims ..who had thier HATE FEST RALLY of about 250 people....Mostly Black Minority in attendance­....saying Hateful things about Gay Americans wanting Equality via thru Marriage...USING the Buy-BULL- which was USED against them 4--50yrs ago, to enshrine anti-Inter-racial marriage..­....slaver­y,and even Civil rights.......but boy oh boy- they were out there a few days ago - SHOUTING LOUDLY about those evil Gays,and God this and God that - condemm them this and condemm them that......and getting HUGE applause from thier audience...of protestors fighting Marriage Recognition in DC......YELLING to "Let the People Vote" !!!! NEVER Putting themselves in the shoes of Gay people......Could You Imagine IF society GOT to VOTE on Black Civil RIGHTS???? WE ALL KNOW how that would turn out. Im Thoroughly Disgusted!­!!!!!!!!!!

[Liberal Angel]

That is sickening, especially to black gays. But, you CANNOT pin the hatred and vitriol gay Americans are subjected to squarly on the black community. I'm accutely aware ofthe hypocrisy in my community about gay rights vs civil rights, and the denial that they're two sides ofthe same coin. I'm accutely aware of the homophobia inthe black community. I'm also aware that in other ethnic communities, their gay members are just as accutely aware of that in their own communties. Hateful churches started in Europe, not black America. Homophobia and racism are two sides of the same coin, xenophobia. I'm NOT excusing black homophobes at all, but you can't make a blanket assertion that black people are more homophobic than everyone else.

[Policon]

I believe we are asking all the wrong questions about gay marriage. The question shouldn't be "why do we not allow gay marriage?" The question should be "why does the state give out marriage licenses to heterosexuals?" The state should not be in charge of marriage, whether straight or gay. That's the problem at it's core. Now, both sides have faults when going about their business. The anti-gay establishment, well, you know their faults. But the pro-gay side doesn't seem to realize that not only do they want a law changed, but also the very definition of what marriage is. Now, if everybody was given civil unions by the state, you know, that non-religious way of binding two people together, I don't think there would be any more disagreement about what marriage is. If a couple wants to be together, they get a civil union, which is recognized by the state, and then if they want to be married, they go to their respective religious institutions.

[vietveter]

The state control of marriage is as bad as the state control over a woman’s right to choose. There are some rights that are personal. Sexual orientation is one of them. Let the state protect those personal rights, not determine them.

[mredder4]

Mr Williams, how do DOMA and DADT survive constitutional challenges regarding the 14th Amendment? How can those laws or policies, which clearly demonstrate a bias against one group by a majority, be allowed to stand?

[S1m0n]

Can one have disdain for a people and still support their constitutional rights?

~~

Yes, of course, and we all do. I don't think much of Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, for instance, or for Nick Griffin of the UK's BNP, but I don't want to see them silenced or deprived of their vote for being offensive and obnoxious.

[research]

Yes. To the gay issue, yes it grosses me out to see guys or girls kissing, but that's my problem, and I know it.

[M1]

Yea, I get grossed out when heterosexuals kiss too.

[TexasRed1978]

As a Christian, I believe that homosexual activity is wrong, but as an American I believe in equal treatment under the law. There is absolutely no constitutional reason to deny gay couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Gay marriage should be legal, gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, gay people deserve equal treatment in the workplace, DADT should be repealled, in short, they should have the same rights as all other American citizens. Period. Anything less contradicts what America is supposed to stand for.

[AnotherTry]

As a human, I believe heterosexuality is wrong. Just look at all the trouble they cause. Can you name any other sexaul orientation responsible for so much crime and violence?

[TexasRed1978]

Perhaps I should clarify.. I in no may meant to apply that gay people are "bad" and heterosexual people are "good". I'm speaking specifically about sexual activity. I believe God sanctions sexual activity only between a married man and woman. Those are my religious beliefs, but those beleifs do not alter my beleif in the rights guaranteed to all citizens, including homosexual citizens, in our constitution.

[jade7243]

can one have disdain for a people and still support their constitutional rights?

The answer is a simple yes. We have, We do.

[Pulu74]

I see plenty of religious countries around the world, where religious law is the law.
And the idea that "Christians" want to make this a "Christian country" with "Christian laws" scares the he11 out of me.
And who decides what is God's law? A head priest?
When a religious book calls something an abomination, what will be the law against being homosexual? In other religious countries they stone them. Is that what we can also expect?
And what about us heathens? I don't believe as you do. What happens to all of us that disagree about God? Please don't tell me differences of opinion will be OK?
What about agnostics and atheists?
If a "Christian" law conflicts with the Constitution, is that part of the Constitution voided in a "Christian country"? Equality, liberty, justice? Will they be dictated by a head priest?
Abortion will be gone. What about divorce? Homosexuality will not be tolerated. Neither will us heathens who don't believe as you do.
So this argument that people think homosexuality is an abomination BECAUSE the Bible says so, really doesn't make sense logically. Because the Bible is not very kind to any who disagree with the word of God, or whatever someone says is the word of God.

[M1]

Bingo!

[Idea1013]

Interesting take on such a sensitive topic. Taking the fourteenth amendment view of the issue may lead down a more enlightened path for those who do not understand or have chosen to dislike the gay community. For instance, I dislike people who have chosen to be h@teful and ignorant, but I would never want to deny those people equal rights under the law. Perhaps they will be able to see this issue in that light, as well.

[ZenDiagram]

I would like to know what benefits society would reap by establishing a new state-sanctioned class of permanent relationship through the creation of gay "marriage."

[Liberal Angel]

Marriage isn't about the "benefit" of society. Your question is based in ignorance. There would be no new "class" of relationships, they already exist. Equality doesn't exist as defined by those who would deny it to others. We deserve to be treated with equality because we are citizens of this country. No one needs to provide you with a reason why. The reason is self-expressing. The "benefit" to society is that all citizens would be equal, and the spirit of that amendment would be honored.

[Michael Shanley]

Agreed.

[ez duz it]

Liberal Angel:

I have been noticing your comments throughout this thread and wanted to say, "Thank You!" for so strongly, fairly and reasonably advocating for equality for gay people.

[kps888]

I really doubt, first of all, if you are going to find that answer here. Second, I really doubt if there is any answer that will satisfy you. I think the replies to this topic over at RedState will be more to your liking.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Anyone deciding to wed to benefit society...see ya in divorce court

[zombie fairy]

How does it benefit from hetero marriages?

[ladyfractal]

This is NOT about the benefits of society. Society doesn't "benefit" from heterosexual marriage. INDIVIDUAL couples and any children benefit but "society" does not benefit. That said, here are some reasons;

1) Tomorrow morning I'm going to get on my bike and ride to work. If I am hit by a car and wind up in the hospital, depending upon WHERE that happens and WHICH hospital I go to, my wife (and regardless of what you think about same-sex relationships she's my wife) may or may not be able to get into my hospital room because she may or may not be considered family. If that happens here in Portland, OR it's a safe bet that most hospitals will let her in. In SF it's a sure bet. But if it's her hometown of Salt Lake City it is vanishingly improbable that she would be allowed to be in my hospital room. If, however, I were married to a man then he would be allowed in my room at any time, day or night.

2) If that bike accident were to result in my demise, she could lose the house, the car, etc. If I were married to a man he would automatically inherit all that was mine.

3) When I cover my wife on my health insurance, I have to pay taxes on that benefit. If I were married to a man that wouldn't be the case.

I could go on and on.

Cheers
LF

[caterpol]

Ever since the gov't started issuing marriage licenses (and heaping on tax benefits), marriage ceased to be a religious institution and became a purely legal contract. Which makes all antiquated religious arguments completely beside the point. All modern marriages are in fact, civil unions.

So what's the legal argument against two consenting adults marrying? As tax paying members of society who are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, why this one exception?

For sure, the entire straight community would go bonkers if we were told that the gov't would now have a say in which consenting adult they'd allow us to marry.

[lordmi]

Certainly it could be so.
Me personally do not like such couples (as minimum).I am close to that word 'disdain'.
And I am certainly supportinh their rights .
They just should have them as human being, no matter if we like them or not.
I will ALWAYS support their rights.

[lafon5891]

I must ask: why? What did homosexuality (as a whole; not just one homosexual) do to you that makes you harbor such hate and disdain for people you have never even met?

As a gay man, I have recently grown very tired and sad (and filled with queer rage) over the lack of respect for me as an individual, an American citzen, or a human being.

I rencently read an opinion piece on the FRC blog that express anger over the fact that our government spent 250,000 dollars on support for LGBT seniors. The commentator said that he could not believe the waste spending and as an aside mentioned that most gays will never make it to their gloden years due to their "lifestlye". I was appalled and found myself asking how these people sleep at night while believing this hatful nonsense.

My culture is not one of pornography or pediphilia. We do not desire to indoctrinate children. We do not want to silence Christianity. I will tell you that I do not hate you. I feel pity for you and saddness for all of you ilk.

[Liberal Angel]

Why do you hate us?

[zombie fairy]

Some people are simply never going to accept or like or agree with the LGBT community, but that doesn't automatically mean those people are against gay rights. People can separate their religious and their legal beliefs (maybe not a lot of them, but many can).

Several people in this comment thread have expressed such feelings - they personally think LGBT goes against their personal religious beliefs, but they support gay rights nonetheless - and those people are slammed for hating gays. Which leaves me scratching my head because I thought we wanted people to support gay rights.

Perhaps just getting support for rights is the best one can hope for at this time. Being liked can come later.

[LisaLisa1234]

The bottom line is that a religious argument should have no place in the discussion of the rights of American gays & lesbians to marry. This is the United States of America, not the United States of (insert your favorite religion here).

As a Christian minister and an American, I believe strongly in the freedom of religion. This can only be accomplished by a true separation of church and state. When the government bases its law on a religious argument, it takes away a portion of religious freedom; it holds the tenets of one religion higher than another. Whether or not I agree with a religion should have no bearing on Americans' rights to practice it, as long as they abide by the laws of the land. Conversely, what religious people choose to believe and follow should not determine what those laws are, based on their religion alone.

[because8we8care]

I meant to ask (see prior because8we8care post): if the US Supreme Court were to decide that a redefinition of marriage is not only not required, but prevented by the constitution, would you support it? I am willing to support are ruling against my wishes, are you?

[Liberal Angel]

You say you support our rights, but not our "effort to redifine marriage". Do think marriage has never been "redifined"? In this country, it was just a white man and white woman. Slaves couldn't get married (I guess letting them marry would be like giving a cow a wedding for those people). For more time than it's been legal, interracial marriage was illegal and outside the"definition" of marriage. Historically, marriage has been (and still remains) a business contract. A contract between adults (consenting or not) to bind families or higher social units together. A contract to insure pure bloodlines and clear inheritance rights. For most of human history, woman were (and still are insome parts of the world) property of men to be traded. There is no Biblical definition of marriage to cling to. You find all sorts of arrangements in there. Why are you against us being married? But to answeryour question, No. I would not support a ruling that continued to make me and the rest of my community second class citizens. Why should we? We're citizens of this country, why should we accept anything less?

[lafon5891]

In ancient times the only kind of meaningful relationships were homosexual in nature, as women were not educated.

Just a little over 100 years ago, here in America, divorce was a shot gun.

There is no reason to reiterate Liberal Angel's point.

Marriage has changed many times throughout history. So, please don't refer to those who fight for marriage equality as trying redinfe marriage. Be honest and just say that you don't want YOUR definition of marriage to change. Further, we're not redefining anything. It's still the same damn thing just more people are included in the exclusive club you try so hard to exclude everyone from.

Man it must be lonely in that club.

[Scalawag]

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but I didn't think that the Constitution defines marriage.

[cure077]

So, I think you are saying (really bad sentence structure) that if the US Supreme court rules that prohibiting gay marriage is against the US Constitution, that you would support it, and therefore, we (meaning gay people) should support an opposite ruling. So you, who are straight, would support us in having our rights, but we, who are gay, should support you in having them removed from us? So when the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting mixed-race marriages was against the US Constitution, I'm assuming you supported that, but would you know tell mixed-race couples that if the Supreme Court reverses that decision, that they should just accept it since you accepted the opposite decision all these years? Are you understanding the absurdity in these arguments and you make them anyway because you really have no other leg to stand on in this debate, or are you really just that ignorant?