It Is Not A Matter of If, But Only A Matter of When

It is remarkable that it took only one day for our beautiful country to show its greatest potential and its greatest challenge. And that day was Tuesday. In the morning, I was inspired by the President's nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court. Yet, in the afternoon I was deeply saddened by the decision made by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8.

It pains me that we have come to a point in this country where we use the ballot box to address the civil rights of our people. If President Johnson had to take a vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed. If Congress took a vote in 1920, women may still not have the right to vote today. And if President Lincoln went to the polls, blacks would definitely have endured many more years of slavery. We trusted our government to make the right decision and protect the minority, and yesterday we, as a nation, failed.

Unfortunately, most of the arguments against these monumental advancements of our country's history have been deeply rooted in religion; and in my opinion the misuse of religion. Let's remove religion from this discussion, and focus on the greatest gift religion has given all of us, the ability to love. And as an African-American, I urge my own people to take a deep look at our own struggles and not wish them upon anyone else. Simply, civil rights for all is about being connected as humans, united, tolerant, loving and brave.

We have come such a long way in this country. Let's us not stop now. Vermont and Maine have done the right thing by legalizing same sex marriage, and I am extremely supportive of my own Governor, David Paterson, to follow suit in New York.

In my heart, I know that marriage equality for every human being isn't a question of if, but only a matter of when. I ask those who feel that giving freedom to others somehow binds you, to please take a good look at what you are standing behind.  It is only through opening your hearts will you be able to see that by promoting freedom for all, you are unchaining yourself.  I guess I'm an optimist. I have faith in people and our government ultimately to do the right thing. And to my brothers and sisters in California, I'm there with you every step of the way until that day comes...

Comments

[StevenevetS]

This is a beautiful, refreshing piece, Mr. Simmons.
Thank you for it.

I stand with you and all people who are still awaiting their civil rights.

[chaya]

I worry, Mr. Simmons, that you are too optimistic about humans' ability to evolve. Nevertheless, this statement of yours...."I ask those who feel that giving freedom to others somehow binds you, to please take a good look at what you are standing behind"...was one of the wisest that I have read.

[TrueCatholic]

Marriage is a Holy Sacrament that a man and woman enter to procreate. To be a co-creator with God in this most sacred act and bring forth children. A man with a man or a woman with a woman is contrary to this natural moral law. And if you have this breakdown within society what won't be allowed 2 or 3 or more party" unions" ?Already some are calling for this and other abominations like adult/minor "relationships". God help us .

[ruth606]

You know what? I'm Catholic too and I want you to stop this crazy talk, you're making the rest of us look like lunatics. This is the United States of America, where people have the freedom to pursue whatever religion they desire, or none at all for that matter. None of my dear (gay!) friends will be pounding down the doors at the local rectory, demanding that they be given Holy Sacrament of Marriage. They want to be married according to their OWN beliefs, in ceremonies that suit THEIR lifestyles.

Don't forget, it wasn't very long ago that Catholics faced discrimination in this country, it wasn't okay then and it's not okay now.

This is what I suggest: Butt out of their lives, worry about your own, start having some respect for the principles this nation was founded upon.

[mercury613]

I wish more Catholics and Christians were like you.

[thirdclasscitizen]

We as gay people are not arguing the bible! we are arguing the U.S. Consitution! Why is that so hard for your people to understand? Please let us be judged on judgement day, not by people that are not qualified to do the judging! you are not God, and God will speak to each and everyone of us individually, until then it is not your place to force whatever you believe or feel in your heart on everyone that disagrees! Mr. Simmons is absolutely correct, this is a Civil Rights Issue and the very same bible you use to protect or support your judgement about this issue and project your hate while claiming that it comes from the mouth of God because you can cite a verse and chapter somewhere, is the very same bible that was used to justify slavery! I am becoming a little worried about this bible and the people that take it to extremes.

[jesusofcalifornia]

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

[wonketteRAWKS]

With all due respect, I am tired of hearing not if, but when. Now, we have a democrat in the WH. Now, the dems have a majority in Congress. Now, the dems have a majority in the Senate. And their complete and utter silence on this screams of second class citizens and discrimination.

[Ohioan730]

I understand Christians have the right to believe, but at what point do they consider that the bible was written 2000 years ago and at one time in history people also believed Zeus dragged the sun across the horizon everyday in a chariot.

At what point do people read the story of Isaac, bound up and nearly sacrificed by his father over a hallucination and a disembodied voice that no one else hears?

At what point do people in the modern world look back and say "That guy must have been schizophrenic to hear voices and talk to bushes..."

I have NEVER fallen for any of that stuff and I'm getting a more than a bit tired of people who keep insisting that the invisible space god is going to rain down fury on a person after their life functions have ceased in something completely unproven and ridiculous as the concept of the afterlife. Why do I have to tolerate people controlling my life over something I don't even think exists and I never did believe in God? Atheists are sometimes just born that way like the LGBTs are born the way they are. I'm not even gay and I am totally fed up with Christians.

[regellner]

A civil rights matter cannot be determined at the ballot box. Civil rights are not for anyone to give or to take.

Following is an article of interest:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d27-Prop-8-court-decision-denies-civil-rights


Raymond Gellner – Charlotte Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner

[Countcyber]

If we remove the government's sanctioning of religion, the only thing a marriage becomes is a contract between adults who make certain commitments to each other in exchange for certain privileges. You promise to be sexually exclusive, you can come in and make decisions for your spouse when they are incapacitated. You agree to pool incomes, you can inherit your spouse's property, or be covered by their health insurance.

That said, if two men or two women can marry, I think we have to rethink polygamy. Why can't a man marry two or three or four women? Why can't a woman have two husbands? Without the religious grounds for the current marriage rules, the government should have no business deciding who or how many people can marry. Laws against polygamy should be repealed at the same time that gay marriage laws are enacted.

[chaya]

Your entire argument is based on your hypothesis that marriage is the result of "the government's sanctioning of religion." It is therefore false--since government does no such thing (and never has).

[BeninOakland]

This meme gets so tiresome. Here's the proper way to ask the question. If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry two or three? Nothing to do iwth gay marriage.

If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry his sister? She's a woman. nothing to do with gay marriage.

If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry a 10 year old girl? She will be a woman.nothing to do with gay marriage.

If you are so hot for polygamy, practiced, as far as I can tell, 99.99% by heterosexuals, then join a movement. we gay people arenot advocating it. It is a separate issue that must be argued on its own merits. We're not doing it.

[AdamX]

It is interesting that you do not realize that before the Civil War, there was no legal marriage. It was, at first, instituted as a way to control liberated slaves and their involvement with whites.

Government should NOT be involved when it comes to marriage, which is a religious RITE, not a constitutional RIGHT. All unions should be honored by the government when it comes time to hand out the benefits. The RITE of marriage, however, has NOTHING to do with government - it has to do with religion.

Why it is that pro gay-marriage fanatics fail to recognize this is beyond me. And, why a person that was persecuted and enslaved would think that government licensure of marriage - ANY marriage, would be a good thing.

Sadly, I do think this gay marriage "thing" will happen. Instead of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, more will be denied - the exact opposite of how things should be. You should be free to do what you want! There should be NO legal "marriage". Only civil unions. You pro gay-marriage folks are truly wrong.

[zeotrope]

Adam, Adam, Adam ...... marriage was around long before the civil war. Get your facts straight; you sound foolish.

[hrairss]

Mr Simmons, I hope you'll read this.

After reading your opening line, I had to check if this piece was current or from the week of (Tuesday) November 4th. On that Tuesday, too, we were heartbroken. After months of campaigning for Obama, raising money and being terrified of what would happen if he didn't win, we were not able to enjoy this victory because as a gay couple who had gotten legally married 5 days before, we no longer knew our status. More painfully, citizens of our state had taken an active step to tell us we were less than most.

Following the passage of Prop 8, I began getting tons of emails about how "unacceptable" it was for gays to be denied marriage, how "angry" people were and how we should take to the streets with the thousands of others who did so. My "husband" and I did not. We thought it was too little too late from too many who didn't say or do much to help defeat Prop 8 WHEN IT MATTERED.

Which brings me to your piece here. PLEASE, I urge you, to put this article into video, put it up on YouTube, buy air time and advertise it leading up to the next fight to legalize gay marriage - wherever it may be. I truly believe that if this argument was made back in October, from leaders such as yourself, Prop 8 would not have had a chance.

Let's not repeat that mistake.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

"Let's remove religion from this discussion, and focus on the greatest gift religion has given all of us, the ability to love"


I have the ability to love despite being atheist.

Religion is not a pre-requisite for love

[zeotrope]

Well said. I am sure people loved each other before they invented religion.

[Shawn Fraine]

Agreed.

[NanDarien]

"It pains me that we have come to a point in this country where we use the ballot box to address the civil rights of our people." Thank you for pointing this out. California's (or any state's) use of so-called "direct democracy propositions" is merely mob rule and reflects cowardice on the part of any state's legislature.

[katielady]

succinctly and eloquently put... many Americans, indeed, people all over the world believe this to be true.

[bannorhill]

It may be eloquent but it is factually incorrect. Defining marriage as something other than between a man and a woman is NOT a right. Government has the right to define what is and what is not a marriage. That is the right of government. See and read Smelt v Orange Co.

[LillianB]

When I was a kid, my grandma (my hero) always told me "people are people, treat everyone like you want them to treat you". I never heard her raise her voice. She was the mildest and kindest of creatures. She still had the autorithy of a Queen in the Middle Ages. Always got things the way she wanted them, everyone always wanted to please her. This one sentence, ”people are people...” was the only she ever used to correct anyone. It was all she needed. We kids, and all of the neighborhood’s kids, grew up to be humanists. I thank my Gran for that, and if I am ever in doubt about what to do - if I ever face a moral dilemma - I use her rule to make up my mind on it.

My grandma is 90 years old now. I am lucky, I still have her. She’s ailing, and I am afraid I won’t for long. But I often wish all other human beings born to earth had parents or grandparents like her. World would be free of discrimination. Today, when I call her, I’ll tell her just that. I know it’ll make her happy, and I know what she’ll respond .”I’m nowhere near that important”. To me, she is.

[GardenerNorCal]

My grandma was like that also. I am glad you appreciate her.

[lejoueur]

I don't think anyones civil rights are being denied hence the federal government should not get involved (whether for or against gay marriage). And even if we decided to hanlde this issue at the federal level, there is a process. Either through a US constitutional amendment or a supreme court ruling clarifying the issue of whether marriage is a civil right which is being denied to a segment of the population.

Under these circumstances, I think the best outcome is what is currently going on i.e. people voicing the opinions at the state level and changing their state constitutions as they see fit.

[EminemsRevenge]

As Martin Luther King said---Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice EVERYWHERE---and there is no way in hell THIS should be a constitutional amendment, just as the Thirteenth Amendment should be considered one of the most SHAMEFUL acts in American history...imagine having to make a LAW that in effect states that WE are human beings!

[The Political Moose]

I agree same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a human rights issue.
A civil right is a right given and protected by a government, thus these rights may be restricted if there is dire state interest: national security, keeping guns out of a felon’s hands, protecting children. In all of these cases the government is able to restrict civil liberties; the interest of society outweighs the interest of the individual.
A human right is much more sacred. Marrying the person of your choice is on the same par autonomy. Surely you would not be for a marriage screening process or birth licenses. And if you slept through 19th century American history, hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to prove, once and for all, no state has the power to restrict basic human liberty.

[grdavis1019]

It's just a matter of time. It's a civil rights issue. I can't wait for it to happen so I can watch Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly's heads explode. LOL

[rainbowrecruiter]

or they could get married....

[DanielDJS]

The last sentence of grdavis1019's post sums up exactly what all of the rioting and protesting is all about, the goal of pissing off those who disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexual men and women. The marriage issue has absolutely nothing to do with equal rights, civil unions grant all of the same rights as they should, no one should be denied the same rights. But, as grdavis1019 so eloquently put it, it is about "watching heads explode". It's pretty sad and childish when you think about it, it's not about gays having what they want to have, it's about gays dream of taking away and desecrating what they don't want others to have anymore.

[NanDarien]

Really? Not a civil rights issue? So when my gay tax dollars are used, in part, to pay social security survivor benefits to a heterosexual surviving spouse, then that isn't the federal government's endorsement of straight marriage only? Of course, it is. And, more to the point, it's unfair taxation of gay people. Would you be in favor of legislation reimbursing gay people for all the tax dollars we've paid that will never go to our surviving spouses because we aren't allowed to have spouses? Or is it just my money you're after? Marriage is a civil ceremony, not only and in some cases not ever a religious one.

[zakwouldhave]

Right on Russell! Thanks for saying what needs to be said. The African American community as a whole has been pretty close minded on gay issues over the years.
To me its also an economic and health issue. Gay people who continue to feel alienated by their own government and fellow citizens will often choose to act out out of desperation. Give gays the rights they deserve and I believe they will feel like full citizens and will act more responsibl­y......mar­ried people who have the same opportunities to serve their country and to feel accepted in society tend to be more responsible, right?