As a church-attending Christian and a straight, married black man who lives in Washington, D.C., I have absolutely no qualms about extending full marriage rights to gay couples. I will cheer when it happens in my city.
I struggle to comprehend why folks who share my slice of the demographic pie seem to take is personally when two men or two women want to marry and live as a couple. I mean, it's not like they're taking something away from any a straight couple.
Here, in Washington, the city council is expected to pass legislation that will legalize marriage for same-sex couples. The bill seems assured of passage because 10 of the 13 city council members have signed on as supporters, and Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign it into law if it passes. And, from all I've been able to learn, congressional opposition will be tepid as the 30-day review period ticks down.
Under the proposed legislation, the district would end the existing domestic partnership law and expand all rights and responsibilities associated with marriage to cover same-sex couples. Another provision of the bill wipes away gender-specific language from the city code, assuring that married gay and lesbian couples are guaranteed to be treated the same under city law as married heterosexuals.
Yet, the road to marriage equality for gays and lesbians remains twisted by opposition from--of all places--black church leaders. Notably, Bishop Harry Jackson of the suburban Maryland Hope Christian Church has been the most outspoken and visible black minister leading the fight against spreading civil rights to all corners of the nation's capital.
Jackson argues that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will - somehow, inexplicable to me - cause damage to straight people's marital bliss. He argues that the divorce rate in the District is already high and allowing gay couples to marry will add to the soaring numbers of divorces. That, of course, makes absolutely no sense.
But the opportunity to build a godly empire by preaching against homosexuality has proven irresistible and potentially profitable. Jackson's High Impact Leadership Coalition, the antigay rights group, moves in far-right circles of the Republican Party. It's a façade for a misguided holy crusade and supported by white evangelicals who have little else in common with black, working-class people in Washington.
Bishop Jackson isn't alone among backward-thinking religious leaders, either. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatened to end social services in Washington if the proposed same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.
For sure, some very religious people fall on their swords of faith to justify treating gays and lesbians in a discriminatory manner. Marriage, they say, can only be godly if its benefits and obligations are reserved only for a man and a woman.
The wise thing about the D.C. bill is that it doesn't force a church or minister to perform a marriage if it conflicts with their theology. But it allows for those open-minded people of faith to do so. The legislation is civil, not aimed at changing anything that happens inside the practice of faith. Nor would the law grant gay or lesbian couples any special rights--only protect the exercise of the same rights enjoyed by other citizens. In fact, it may prove to be a fiscal blessing to the city.
What's so wrong about all that?
On the racial tip, it seems that the folks who ought to be first in line on this matter of civil right protections should be black ministers. It's not like black gays and lesbians aren't fixtures in black churches across the city. And they're not deeply closeted, either. Everyone knows what these black religious leaders seem so intent on keeping secret: Homosexuality exists among black people.
Less than half a century ago, the black clergy was on the side of unpopular rights and societal progress. If not for the courage and outspokenness of black preachers from southern pulpits, speaking of love and fairness for all of God's children, racist white theologians might have continued unchallenged to use biblical scriptures to justify unfair treatment of black Americans.
A civil right for one is a civil rights for all. As Georgia Congressman John Lewis has said on many occasions, "I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation."
In a disappointingly similar situation, black churches across Washington and the nation were slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic almost a generation ago, fearing any pulpit talk would lead to airing the congregation's dirty laundry. Meanwhile, as pastors preached and choirs sang, church folks got sick and died. Only after enlightened black religious leaders opened their eyes and stopped condemning were they able to create ministries that helped--not hurt--the people in need.
So pray tell me, how is this any different?
Some - indeed, many progressive black ministers - agree that biblical pronouncements of grace should trump mean-spirited, hell-fire denunciations of gays and lesbians.
As the Rev. Dennis Wiley of Covenant Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. and the co-chairman of the DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality, preaches: "My support of full marriage equality for the District of Columbia is rooted not only in my passion for social justice, but also for morality and moral truth. I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of love, not hate."
That's the pew where I sit and belong. My faith is strong and my love of humanity is sacrosanct. That's why I completely fail to comprehend how the exchange of vows between a loving couple--be it a man and a woman or two men or two women--changes anything of importance in my life.
No, all it does is move the city I live in one step closer to being fairer to all of its citizens.
Cross-posted from Race-Talk.
It's sad, however, that Mr. Fulwood has resorted to the same compare-and-contrast tactics as the White folks typically at the forefront of this debate.
The Civil Rights Movement was the Civil Rights Movement.
Apartheid was Apartheid.
Marriage Equality IS Marriage Equality.
All have spiritual and historical linkages -- but this need to constantly co-opt is simply inaccurate, divisive and, worst of all, lazy!
The LGBT movement has 40 glorious post-Stonewall years -- and decades if not centuries prior -- to draw upon for its own liberation struggle ideology.
It might be time to start embracing it.
He was against gay people because they are just different from him - (probably homophobic).
But, I told him why I think it's wrong for hospitals to not let loved ones visit in the hospital, if it's to see someone they love. He didn't make the connection at first and hadn't realized that if you're not a spouse or a child, they won't let you in to visit, like in the intensive care unit.
Things like this are why it's a civil issue, a right for everyone. If they love each other, they should be able to get married, and enjoy the societal benefits of being married.
And, remember, it's not a sin if it doesn't hurt yourself or anyone else.
You can talk all day about your interpretation that the Bible is about love, because for every person who interprets it that way there are others on the opposite side of this debate (with just as much biblical knowledge) that disagree.
Their is nothing noble about faith.
Furthermore, some of the most important scriptures in the New Testament can and have been interpreted in ways that lift up those who are otherwise scorned. For example, the call to love our neighbors as ourselves and to remember the good Samaritan who Jesus labeled as "good" precisely because he was kind to someone who was not of his group. Or how about "judge not lest you be judged?" There are many Christians whose openness and acceptance of others is rooted in their reading of the very Bible that you would have them toss aside.
I maintain my position that there is nothing noble about this statement, be good to others simply out of either fear of eternal damnation or hope for eternal reward is morally bankrupt. Let me also point out that this argument of good verses in the New Testament and good deeds by Christians adds nothing to this argument for many reasons. You can find similar teachings in almost all religions including many that existed long before Christianity, and on top of that because you choose to isolate the good verses says nothing of the overall interpretation of the Bible or its actual truth or merit. And you also can not prove that people who claim that their "openness and acceptance of others is rooted in their reading of Bible" would not exhibit the same behavior if the Bible was never taught to them. Basically I believe in the goodness of people on their own merits, whereas you are saying people are good only because of the Bible. Because I say yes toss aside the Bible and take ownership of your own goodness, because they deserve the credit.
The blogger stands for a religion that for the most part stands against homosexuals, he does this in spite of his own personal feelings to the contrary. So even if he wants to join the fight against the religious intolerance that is preventing marriage equality, that still does not absolve him from the role he plays in providing cover for those religious people who are intolerant.
Personally I think they're really afriad that gay couples will show a lower divorce rate than their church going straight brethren and make them all look bad.
The various religious groups can still ignore civil marriages if they choose. Who cares?
Is this true?
No marriage law, anywhere, does such a thing - not gay marriage and not straight marriage. All churches have total discretion to determine whom they're willing to provide a church wedding for. Total, that is, except for the churches which want to perform marriages for thier gay members. They're not allowed to do so in most of the US.
But our Constitution doesn't allow that, and this should have become a non-issue decades ago, but for the spinlessness of politicians.
When you remove the religion, the argument against dissipates like smoke.
He, like all of them, is incapable of seeing the difference between policy supported by both religious and secular reasons, and policy that is motivated largely or solely by the desire to enforce the outcomes of accepted religious dogma.
That is the big difference.
Example: If you were asked to VOTE that it is ILLEGAL to be in a same sex relationship (not marriage) what would you vote and how is YOUR CHOICE - ANY DIFFERENT than asking someone who doesn't believe in same sex marriage it to vote for it. And what makes your belief better than someone elses?
You couldn't be more wore wrong. Your statement is curiously insidious. Black people are not a monolith. You call for harmony, I have to wonder if you have even dialogued with a substantial amount of black people.
It's religion. Period. Studies have shown that religion is the number one driving factor for rejecting gay related legislation, followed by education and age.
I can't say I've dialogued with a 'substantial' number of black people, but I have dealt harmoniously with minorities all my adult life, and have recognized common issues that they have to deal with. I try my best to not add to those issues.
I certainly don't disagree that religion is the main culprit in this issue, however. I'm just not 100% certain it's the only culprit.
It's easy to judge in others what you judge about yourself, and it's a good mental distraction from the unthinkable truth of that judgment being true about yourself. Jesus said, "do not judge," and "love your neighbor as yourself." So whatever else is in the bible, it's not more important than that.