"BLACKLASH?: "All Prejudices Are Mot Equal but That Doesn't mMean There's No Comparison Between the Predicaments of Gays and Blacks"
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
"The New Yorker"


"For some veterans of the civil-rights era, it's a matter of stolen prestige. 'It is a misappropriation for members of the gay leadership to identify the April 25 march on Washington with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 mobilization,' one such veteran, the Reverend Dennis G. Kuby, wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the Times on the day of the march. Four days later, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearings on the issues of gays in the military, Lieutenant General Calvin Waller, United States Army (retired), was more vociferous. General Waller, who, as General Norman Schwarzkopf's second-in-command, was the highest-ranking black officer in the Gulf War's theatre of operations, contemptuously dismissed any linkage between the gay-rights and civil-rights movements. 'I had no choice regarding my race when I was delivered from my mother's womb,' General Waller said. 'To compare my service in America's armed forces with the integration of avowed homosexuals is personally offensive to me.' This sentiment -- that gays are pretenders to the throne of disadvantage that properly belongs to black Americans, that their relation to the rhetoric of civil rights is one of unearned opportunism -- is surprisingly widespread. 'The backlash is on the streets among blacks and black pastors who do not want to be aligned with homosexuals,' the Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, crowed to the Times in the aftermath of the march.

"That the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People endorsed the April 25th march made the insult all the deeper for those who disparage the gay-rights movement as the politics of imposture -- Liberace in Rosa Parks drag. 'Gays are not subject to water hoses or police dogs, denied access to lunch counters or prevented from voting,' the Reverend Mr. Kuby asserted. On the contrary, 'most gays are perceived as well educated, socially mobile and financially comfortable.' Even some of those sympathetic to gay rights are unhappy with the models of oppression and victimhood which they take to be enshrined in the civil-rights discourse that many gay advocates have adopted. For those blacks and whites who viewed last month's march on Washington with skepticism, to be gay is merely an inconvenience; to be black is to inherit a legacy of hardship and inequity. For them, there's no comparison. But the reason the national conversation on the subject has reached an impasse isn't that there's simply no comparison; it's that there's no *simple* comparison.

"Prejudices, of course, don't exist in the abstract; they all come with distinctive and distinguishing historical peculiarities. In short, they have content as well as form. Underplaying the differences blinds us to the signature traits of other forms of social hatred. Indeed, in judging other prejudices by the one you know best you may fail to recognize those other prejudices *as* prejudices.

"To take a quick and fairly obvious example, it has been observed that while anti-black racism charges its object with inferiority, anti-Semitism charges its object with iniquity. The racist believes that blacks are incapable of running anything by themselves. The anti-Semite believes (in one popular bit of folklore) that thirteen rabbis rule the world.

"How do gays fit into this scheme? Uneasily. Take that hard- ridden analogy between blacks and gays. Much of the ongoing debate over gay rights has fixated, and foundered, on the vexed distinction between "status" and "behavior." The paradox here can be formulated as follows: Most people think of racial identity as a matter of (racial) status, but they respond to it as behavior. Most people think of sexual identity as a matter of (sexual) behavior, but they respond to it as status. Accordingly, people who fear and dislike blacks are typically preoccupied with the threat that they think blacks' aggressive behavior poses to them. Hence they're inclined to make exceptions for the kindly, "civilized" blacks: that's why "The Cosby Show" could be so popular among white South Africans. By contrast, the repugnance that many people feel toward gays concerns, in the first instance, the status ascribed to them. Disapproval of a sexual practice is transmuted into the demonization of a sexual species.

"In other respects, too, anti-gay propaganda sounds less like anti-black rhetoric than like classical anti-Jewish rhetoric: both evoke the image of the small, cliquish minority that nevertheless commands disproportionate and sinister worldly influence. More broadly, attitudes toward homosexuals are bound up with sexism and the attitudes toward gender that feminism, with impressive, though only partial, success, asks us to re-examine.

"That doesn't mean that the race analogy is without merit, or that there are no relevant points of comparison. Just as blacks have historically been represented as sexually uncontrollable beasts, ready to pounce on an unwilling victim with little provocation, a similar vision of the predatory homosexual has been insinuated, often quite subtly, into the defense of the ban on gays in the military.

"But can gays really claim anything like the 'victim status' inherited by black Americans? 'They admit to holding positions at the highest levels of power in education, government, business and entertainment,' Martin Mawyer, the president of the Christian Action Network, complains, 'yet in the same breath, they claim to be suffering discrimination in employment.' Actually, the question itself is a sand trap. First, why should oppression, however it's measured, be a prerequisite for legal protection? Surely there's a consensus that it would be wrongful, and unlawful, for someone to discriminate against Unitarians in housing or employment, however secure American Unitarians were as a group. Granted, no one can legislate affection or approval. But the simple fact that people enjoy legal protection from religious discrimination neither confers nor requires victimization. Why is the case of sexual orientation any different?

"Second, trying to establish a pecking order of oppression is generally a waste of time: that's something we learned from a long-standing dialogue in the feminist movement. People figured out that you could speak of the subordination of women without claiming, absurdly, that every woman (Margaret Thatcher, say) was subordinate to every man. Now, the single greatest predictor of people's economic success is the economic and educational level of their parents. Since gays, like women, seem to be evenly distributed among classes and races, the compounding effect of transgenerational poverty, which is the largest factor in the relative deprivation of black America, simply doesn't apply. Much of black suffering stems from historical racism; most gay suffering stems from contemporary hatred. It's also the case that the marketing surveys showing that gays have a higher than average income and education level are generally designed to impress potential advertisers in gay publications; quite possibly, the surveys reveal the characteristics only of gays who are willing to identify themselves as such in a questionnaire. Few people would be surprised to learn that secretiveness on this matter varies inversely with education and income level.

"What makes the race analogy complicated is that gays, as demographic composites, do indeed "have it better" than blacks -- and yet in many ways contemporary homophobia is more virulent than contemporary racism. According to one monitoring group, one in four gay men has been physically assaulted as a result of his perceived sexual orientation; about fifty percent have been threatened with violence. (For lesbians, the incidence is lower but still disturbing.) A moral consensus now exists in this country that discriminating against blacks as teachers, priests, or tenants is simply wrong. (That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.) For much of the country, however, the moral legitimacy of homosexuals, as homosexuals, remains much in question. When Bill Crews, for the past nine years the mayor of the well-scrubbed hamlet of Melbourne, Iowa, returned home after the April 25th march, at which he had publicly disclosed his homosexuality for the first time, he found "Melbourne Hates Gays" and "No @#$%&" spray-painted on his house. What makes the closet so crowded is that gays are, as a rule, still socialized -- usually by their nearest and dearest -- into shame.

"Mainstream religious figures -- ranging from Catholic archbishops to orthodox rabbis -- continue to enjoin us to 'hate the sin': it has been a long time since anyone respectable urged us to, as it were, hate the skin. Jimmy Swaggart, on the other hand, could assure his millions of followers that the Bible says homosexuals are 'worthy of death' and get away with it. Similar access to mass media is not available to those who voice equivalent attitudes toward blacks. In short, measured by their position in society, gays on the average seem privileged relative to blacks; measured by the acceptance of hostile attitudes toward them, gays are worse off than blacks. So are they as "oppressed"? The question presupposes a measuring rod that does not and cannot exist.

"To complicate matters further, disapproval of homosexuality has been a characteristic of much of the black-nationalist ideology that has reappeared in the aftermath of the civil- rights era. 'Homosexuality is a deviation from Afrocentric thought, because it makes the person evaluate his own physical needs above the teachings of national consciousness,' writes Dr. Molefi Kete Asante, of Temple University, who directs the black-studies program there, one of the country's largest. Asante believes that 'we can no longer allow our social lives to be controlled by European decadence,' and argues that "the redemptive power of Afrocentricity" provides hope of a cure for those so afflicted, through (the formulation has a regrettably fascist ring) "the submergence of their own wills into the collective will of our people."

"In the end, the plaintive rhetoric of the Reverend Mr. Kuby and those civil-rights veterans who share his sense of unease is notable for a small but significant omission: any reference to those blacks who are also gay. And in this immediate context one particular black gay man comes to mind. Actually it's curious that those who feel that the example of the 1963 march on Washington has been misappropriated seem to have forgotten about him, since it was he, after all, who organized that heroic march. His name, of course, was Bayard Rustin, and it's quite likely that if he had been alive he would have attended the march on Washington thirty years later.

"By a poignant historical irony, it was in no small part because of his homosexuality -- and the fear that it would be used to discredit the mobilization -- that Rustin was prevented from being named director of the 1963 march; the title went to A. Philip Randolph, and he accepted it only on the condition that he could then deputize Rustin to do the arduous work of co-ordinating the mass protest. Rustin accepted the terms readily. In 1963, it was necessary to choose which of two unreasoning prejudices to resist, and Rustin chose without bitterness or recrimination. Thirty years later, people marched so his successors wouldn't have to make that costly choice."
_____


"Similarities Between Race and Sexual Orientation"

--"Both race and sexual orientation are a basis for minority group status in U.S. culture. Social scientists have proposed many different definitions and criteria for minority groups, recognizing that not all groups fit all criteria. The most important feature is that a minority group's members must manifest one or more characteristics that society uses as a basis for discrimination, despite the irrelevance of those characteristics to the setting in which discrimination occurs. Race and sexual orientation each constitute a master status.
Once known, the fact that a person is a homosexual or a member of a racial minority group is regarded by members of the majority group (heterosexuals, Whites) as one of the most important pieces of information about her or him. Consequently, once a man or woman is labeled by heterosexuals as a homosexual, all of her or his behaviors — regardless of whether they are related to sexual orientation — are likely to be interpreted in light of her or his sexual orientation. Similarly, once a person's non-White race or ethnicity is known by a White, all other information about the individual — even information that is totally unrelated to race — is likely to be interpreted differently than if the person were White.

--"Members of racial and sexual minorities are the targets of prejudice. Anti-Black attitudes were widespread in the U.S. military when President Truman ordered an end to racial discrimination in the armed forces in 1948. Societal norms supported strict social and residential segregation of Whites and Negroes. Although Whites' attitudes toward Blacks have changed in the past half-century, both in civilian life and the military, racial prejudice is still widespread in U.S. society. Similarly, substantial numbers of heterosexual Americans express negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.

--"For both groups, prejudice leads to differential treatment at the hands of the majority. Despite extensive efforts to counteract the effects of racism, African Americans today experience differential treatment because of their race. Compared to Whites, Blacks are economically and socially disadvantaged. Indeed, despite the DOD's considerable efforts to promote racial equality, African Americans are still less likely than Whites to be promoted. Prejudice also causes gay people to receive differential treatment. Various studies have shown that significant numbers of gay men and lesbians experience discrimination and violence.

--"New military personnel policies concerning race and sexual orientation have both faced considerable opposition. Prior to President Truman's Executive Order, opinion in the armed services generally supported segregation policies. This opinion reflected the era's prevailing stereotypes and prejudices. For example, a 1937 report from senior officers at the U.S. Army War College provided a litany of characterizations of Black soldiers that now are recognized as stereotypes:

"'As an individual the Negro is docile, tractable, lighthearted, care free and good natured. If unjustly treated he is likely to become surly and stubborn, though this is usually a temporary phase. He is careless, shiftless, irresponsible and secretive. He resents censure and is best handled with praise and by ridicule. He is unmoral, untruthful, and his sense of right doing is relatively inferior.' (quoted in Ambrose, 1972, p. 177).

"As in debates about a new policy concerning sexual orientation, discussions of racial integration of the military in the 1940s often included dire predictions based on then-widespread prejudices. The report of a 1942 General Board commissioned to consider the integration of African Americans in the Navy, for example, concluded that "the enlistment of negroes [sic] for unlimited general service is inadvisable." It offered the following rationale:

"'Enlistment for general service implies that the individual may be sent anywhere — to any ship or station where he is needed. Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun's crew, they form a closely knit, highly coordinated team. How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun's crew should be of another race? How many would accept such conditions, if required to do so, without resentment and just as a matter of course? The General Board believes that the answer is 'Few, if any,' and further believes that if the issue were forced, there would be a lowering of contentment, teamwork and discipline in the service.' (Navy General Board, 1942, p. 1)

"In a 1948 Gallup Poll of 3000 American adults, 63% of those surveyed favored racial segregation of the military whereas only 26% supported integration. President Truman was strongly criticized for his Executive Order, and the attacks were often accompanied by dire predictions about the weakening of the U.S. armed forces and national security. Senator Richard B. Russell, for example, spoke against the policy on the Senate floor, offering predictions that are remarkably similar to some of those made in the recent debates about allowing gay people to serve openly in the military:

"' . . . [T]he mandatory intermingling of the races throughout the services will be a terrific blow to the efficiency and fighting power of the armed services....It is sure to increase the numbers of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases. It will increase the rate of crime committed by servicemen.' (Quoted in Binkin et al., 1982, p. 26)"
_____


"Why Persecuting Homosexuals Is All the Rage in the Developing World"
by Damian Thompson
31 January 2014

"Is homophobia the new anti-colonialism? It’s an odd question to ask, but an important one. In dozens of countries, the persecution of homosexuals has acquired a new ferocity. Anti-gay sentiment is turning into a cause that unites non-Western societies divided by religion, ethnicity and history.

"This is bad news, obviously, for gay people who find themselves dragged in front of magistrates, bullied out of their jobs, spat at in the street or executed. It’s also jolly embarrassing for Western governments, who don’t want to say anything that might jeopardise trade relations – and also for liberals, who hate to point the finger at the developing world.

"The one example of persecution that’s attracted a lot of attention is Russia’s new ban on 'gay propaganda.' No one in the West likes Putin’s regime, which you can criticise without risking charges of racism. As we speak, Olympic athletes and gay activists are planning protests at the Sochi games. But when it comes to the Middle East, Africa and south Asia, any Westerner who sticks up for gay rights is inviting accusations of racism, neo-colonialism and Islamophobia.

"I’ve been looking at the map, and I reckon you could walk from Angola to Burma without setting foot on land where homosexual activity is legal – except for a sliver of Iraq, which had decriminalisation imposed on it in 2003 but which is one of the most dangerous places on earth for gays.

"The taboo against same-sex activity is getting stronger, not weaker. The spread of Islamism is a factor: it’s no coincidence that homosexuality is legal in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank but not in Hamas-controlled Gaza. However, Christians and Hindus are implicated, too.

"In Nigeria, Anglican clergy helped pass into law the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which bans even displays of affection between homosexuals. In Uganda, parliament has passed a bill that calls on citizens to report homosexuals to the authorities. India has just recriminalised gay sex.

"Why this resurgence of homophobia? Most anti-gay countries, with the exception of India, are economically stagnant – and resentful of the prosperous, decadent West. (Note that China, preoccupied by money, can’t be bothered to climb aboard the anti-gay bandwagon.)

"Until recently, anti-colonialism united these countries; but, with so few colonies left, that cause has been struggling. Then along came same-sex marriage, which Western LGBT activists want to see legalised everywhere.

"Suddenly conservative societies have a new bogeyman, a neo-imperialist assault on their ancient way of life. And how interesting that Russia should choose this moment to target its own sexual minorities. Just as the Soviet Union once led the anti-colonial movement, so now Putin is portraying himself as the champion of “traditional values”.

"Gay marriage still divides public opinion in American and Europe, but the concept itself has become very familiar to us very quickly. Also, since young Westerners are overwhelmingly in favour, gay campaigners feel assured of final victory. No one seems to care about the price of that victory, which is being paid by homosexual people in conservative societies. And it will continue to be paid, long after same-sex marriage becomes a comfortable feature of life here.

"The LGBT lobby found it ludicrously easy to change the law in Britain – thanks, unexpectedly, to the Tories. Now let’s see it rise to the much less fashionable challenge of wiping out vicious legislation in the developing world."
_____


"Refuting Anti-Gay Rights Arguments"
Josh Sager

"Back in the era of slavery, there were several definitions of marriage. Marriage between white Americans was similar to what we now consider marriage today (although with fewer rights for the woman and less of a possibility for divorce), but marriage for the other races was radically different. Marriages between slaves, when permitted, were annullable through distance (ex. when one of them was sold) and had no legal value. Marriages between white Americans and free black Americans weren’t legal under the law at all. Eventually, slavery was abolished, and interracial marriage was legalized, but it is still important to note that marriage was changed radically within the lifespan of our relatively young civilization."
_____


Finally, Bringing It Close to Home: The LDS Church Attack on Gay Marriage is the Same as Its Attack on Black Civil Rights

Historian D. Michael Quinn draws striking and disturbing historical parallels between the Mormon Church's official oppositon to Gay civil rights and the Mormon Church's official opposition to African-American civil rights:

"From Anti-Black to Anti-Gay

"Just as President Gordon B. Hinckley . . . said that same-sex marriage has no legitimate claim as a 'civil right' in Utah or anywhere else, previous First Presidencies also stated that African-Americans had no legitimate right to unrestricted access to marriage, nor to unrestricted blood transfusions, nor to rent a room in the LDS Church's hotel, nor to reside in Utah's white neighborhoods, nor to live near the Los Angeles Temple, nor to be in a hospital bed next to a white patient. Just as the First Presidency previously condemned interracial marriages as abnormal, it has recently condemned same-sex marriages as abnormal. The LDS Church's opposition to gay rights is consistent with its historical opposition to African-American rights.

"Even when a General Authority publicly apologized in September 2000 for 'the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism,' he claimed that the LDS leadership had an admirable history of race relations. Elder Alexander B. Morrison said: 'How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.' This was a, by now, familiar smoke-screen for the previous behavior of Mormon prophets, seers, and revelators.

"LDS headquarters has never apologized for the legalization of Negro slavery by Brigham Young in pioneer Utah, nor for the official LDS encouragement to lynch Negro males, nor for the racial segregation policies of the First Presidency until 1963, nor for Ezra Taft Benson's 1967 endorsement of a book which implied that decapitating black males was a 'White Alternative.'

"Furthermore, although the Utah press reported hundreds of 'hate' attacks annually against gays and lesbians, the First Presidency in 1992 orchestrated the defeat of proposals to include 'sexual orientation' as a protected category in Utah's law against hate crimes.

"The First Presidency from 1976 onward has also repeatedly published Apostle Boyd K. Packer's talk praising a Mormon missionary for beating up his homosexual companion. This official Church pamphlet, titled 'To Young Men Only,' encourages teenage boys to assault any males 'who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts.' Yet, President Hinckley (who was a senior apostle in 1976) expresse[d] bewilderment regarding the literally thousands of violent attacks against gay males in Utah during the decades since the First Presidency began publishing Apostle Packer's talk. This endorsement of gay bashing continues to be printed in pamphlet form and is currently distributed by LDS headquarters. From 1976 to the present, local LDS leaders have been encouraged to give this pamphlet to young males in their teens and twenties, those most likely to commit hate crimes against gays and lesbians.

"Because it has officially promoted this endorsement of violence against homosexuals for 25 years, I believe the First Presidency has been morally responsible whenever LDS young men have attacked or killed homosexuals from 1976 to the present. This includes the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998. . . .

"LDS headquarters has never promoted a similar distribution of statements opposing violence toward homosexuals.Recent public statements by LDS leaders against gay-bashing have the appearance of a smoke-screen to conceal the ongoing private endorsement of gay bashing in Apostle Packer's pamphlet. Moreover, by repeatedly issuing this pamphlet and other homophobic statements since the beginning of the anti-ERA campaign in 1975, the Mormon Church has encouraged a climate of revulsion which fills most LDS families. Therefore, I believe the First Presidency has also been morally responsible whenever Mormon parents have rejected their children for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

"Even when the LDS Church's 'Ensign' magazine published a statement in 1997 advising parents not 'to disown' their homosexual children, the General Authority merely noted that such tactics 'do not help.' Public-relations statements of such timidity have little hope of undoing the spiritual damage to families caused by decades of stridently homophobic indoctrination by LDS headquarters.

"For example, in its official editorial against allowing Utah's high schools to have clubs for gay and lesbian students, the 'Deseret News' commented in 1996: 'It is still appalling that more than half the identified hate crimes in Utah are aimed at homosexuals.' Again, this has the appearance of a smoke-screen to conceal the anti-gay agenda of LDS headquarters. Four years earlier, the same newspaper had successfully persuaded Utah's legislature not to include gays and lesbians in the state law against hate crimes.

"Moreover, the 1996 editorial then adopted the very attitude which propels these hate crimes it professed to regret: '[H]omosexual activities and practices are an abomination, not just some "alternative lifestyle" no better or worse than others.' Echoing the role of LDS headquarters in preventing Utah from giving homosexuals legal protection from hate crimes, the 'Deseret News' in June 2000 regretted that Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch was 'unable to stop hate-crime legislation' in Congress.

"There is yet another example of the LDS Church's official homophobia, which subverts its public platitudes about loving those who regard themselves as gay or lesbian. Since 1998, Church headquarters has instructed all local LDS leaders to put notations on the membership record of every Mormon who receives Church discipline for homosexual behavior. Applicable even to teenagers, this ecclesiastical stigma will follow young men and women into every LDS congregation for the rest of their lives.

"For persons who believe that these various actions of the LDS First Presidency were God's will for suppressing minorities, I suggest they rethink a passage in The Book of Mormon: 'For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile' (2 Nephi 26:33). . . .

"LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley . . . dismissed Mormonism's earlier race-based policies as 'those little tricks of history' which are irrelevant now. However, his 25 years of promoting political campaigns against the possibility of gay rights is one more example of the LDS hierarchy's discrimination against minorities who are not its 'kind of people.'

"Furthermore, [First Presidency] Counselor [J. Reuben] Clark told the General Conference of April 1940 that the First Presidency 'is not infallible in our judgment, and we err.' He also instructed LDS educators in 1954 that 'even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.' I believe this applies to the statements and actions of several 'living prophets' and First Presidencies in restricting the civil rights of African-Americans and other minorities. According to LDS doctrine, the statements and actions of the Church's president can be wrong, even sinful, and historically the LDS First Presidency has often been profoundly wrong with regard to the civil rights of American minorities.

"In fact, when an end came to the various tyrannies of the majority against racial groups in America, LDS policies changed as well. What various 'living prophets' had defined as God's doctrine turned out to be a Mormon social policy which reflected the majority's world view. I submit that the same applies to the LDS Church's campaign against any law which benefits or protects gays and lesbians. . . .


"The Sincerity of Prejudice and Civil Discrimination

"LDS leaders have repeatedly opposed civil rights for Blacks and Gays while denying that such action is 'anti-Negro' or 'racist,' 'anti-gay' or 'homophobic.' The previous quotes show that First Presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark, for one, defended wholesale restrictions against the civil rights of African-Americans. Nevertheless, at the same time, he regarded himself as compassionate toward Blacks.

"In this paper, I have tried to acknowledge the sincere beliefs and fears of those who oppose same-sex marriage. However, an 'Appeal to Sincerity' is legitimate only when attempting to understand the personal motivation for various behaviors. Sincerity cannot logically be invoked to assess the legitimacy or ethical value of those behaviors.

"The past and present are filled with actions which most of us condemn, despite the fact that their perpetrators claimed they acted out of their sincere beliefs in a religion, or race, or social class, or country. If we regard slavery as wrong, the sincerity of slave-owners is irrelevant to the issue, even when the slave-owners were our revered national leaders, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. If denial of rights and protections for African-Americans was wrong, the sincerity of the oppressors is irrelevant to the issue, even if we otherwise admire the oppressors as religious leaders. Likewise, the sincerity of the heterosexual majority's anxieties and fears is not an ethical justification for denying rights and protections to the homosexual minority. . . .

"While most gays and lesbians believe we counted for 10 percent of the vote, many homophobes claim that no more than one percent of humanity has homosexual feelings. Therefore, LDS leaders and their religious allies in the political sphere must acknowledge that about a third of California's heterosexual electorate voted against their [pro-defense of Marriage Act] campaign of fear, social hysteria, prejudice, and minority exclusion. This is nearly three times higher than the percentage of white Southerners who opposed segregation in the decades before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet minority rights eventually triumphed there.

"In view of the fears, prejudices, and hatreds which existed both then and now, American society's sense of fairness is far greater today than it was 50 years ago. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 when Romer v. Evans invalidated the LDS church's behind-the-scenes victory against civil rights for gays and lesbians in Colorado, 'a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.'

"This Colorado case had nothing to do with marriage. LDS leaders and their allies were attempting to invalidate those laws which protected gays and lesbians from hate crimes, as well as from civil discrimination in housing and employment. Gays and lesbians are the glaring exception to President Hinckley's public-relations statement to the LDS General Conference in 1995: 'We must be willing to defend the rights of others who may become the victims of bigotry.' With regard to homosexuals, this is a slogan which LDS headquarters tries to subvert in every possible way. . . .

"For example, after President Hinckley's statement, Mormon leadership successfully opposed adding sexual orientation to Salt Lake City's anti-discrimination ordinance. This is understandable in light of reports that LDS headquarters actively discriminates against gays and lesbians in employment. With no claim of due process, this discrimination extends to completely secular jobs and requires no proof of 'inappropriate' sexual behavior.

". . . [W]hen the Joseph Smith Memorial Building opened in 1993 as added office-space for the LDS bureaucracy at headquarters, this multi-story building had two fine-dining restaurants for the general public. The human resources director instructed the manager of these Church-owned restaurants not to hire as waiters any males who 'seem gay.' Similar to visual profiling for racial discrimination, LDS headquarters apparently denies employment on the basis of stereotypical views about masculine appearance and homosexual characteristics, or stereotypical views about feminine appearance and lesbian characteristics. . . . [T]his has nothing to do with 'morality' or the actual sexual behavior of persons who are subjected to this discrimination. In fact, completely heterosexual persons may also be misidentified as lesbian or gay on the basis of speech or appearance, and then suffer employment discrimination in Utah,162 This contributes to the climate of fear, which is why anti-discrimination laws are necessary.

"The climate of homophobic antagonism in Mormon-dominated Utah creates constant anxiety for many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons. It is historically similar to being a Christian in pagan Rome, a Protestant Huguenot in Catholic-dominated France, a Quaker in Puritan Massachusetts, a Black in Klan-dominated Mississippi, a Jew in Nazi Germany, a Catholic in Protestant-dominated Belfast, a Muslim in Hindu-dominated Kashmir or a Hindu in Muslim-dominated Islamabad. Its familiarity makes this pattern even more tragic in cultures which claim divine approval for exerting social oppression against their minorities.

"Just as Catholics, Protestants and Mormons once claimed righteousness and God's blessing in denying basic rights to African-Americans and Asian-Americans, they are now claiming righteousness and God's blessing for denying basic rights to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons. It takes a peculiar kind of blindness to currently affirm that the majority's historical discrimination against despised racial minorities was ethically and civilly wrong, yet argue that it is now ethically and civilly right to discriminate against the despised minority of homosexuals and transgender persons.


"'The Right of Each Individual to Be Free'

"Ironically, through its General Authorities, its lesson manuals and its Church-owned newspaper, LDS headquarters has condemned other churches and religious leaders for limiting freedom or civil rights. During the entire 20th century, the LDS Church has criticized leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, of Iran's Shiite Islam, and of the Russian Orthodox Church for limiting the civil rights of various minorities.

"'The attitude of any organization toward this principle of freedom is a pretty good index to its nearness to the teachings of Christ or to those of the evil one.' --David O. McKay

"As David O. McKay instructed the General Conference of April 1950: ]This principle of free agency and the right of each individual to be free[,] not only to think but also to act within bounds that grant to every one else the same privilege, are sometimes violated even by churches that claim to teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The attitude of any organization toward this principle of freedom is a pretty good index to its nearness to the teachings of Christ or to those of the evil one.'

"Should the LDS Church and its leaders be exempt from McKay's standard to guarantee freedom and civil rights? . . . McKay's public statement here actually contradicted both his private statements as well as his actions as an executive in the racially-segregated Hotel Utah.

"However, McKay's equivocation has a parallel that is faith-promoting. When slave-owner Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal,' this also did not describe the reality of his own life and culture.165 Yet, later Americans and U.S. presidents found inspiration in Jefferson's idealized statement, and they struggled to change their culture in order to achieve the reality of full civil rights for all its minorities. That struggle continues today. Likewise, President McKay stated an ideal in 1950 that can continue to inspire LDS members and leaders to change their culture in order to grant full civil rights to all its minorities.

"Some will claim that the historical parallel of legal discrimination against race and religion has nothing to do with today's legal restrictions against social protections and marriage options for gays and lesbians. Such denial seems intended to privilege the current campaign in two ways: First, by denying that homosexuals constitute a minority as legitimate as the minorities of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion; and second, by denying that legal limitations on this embattled group's social opportunities involve 'prejudice,' or 'discrimination,' or 'denial of rights.'

"By contrast, various authors have regarded prejudiced discrimination as the unifying characteristic of America's negative responses toward minorities of race, of ethnic group, of physical disability, of religion, and even of Masonic affiliation.166 To exclude sexual orientation from the category of embattled minorities is itself a sign of heterosexism and homophobia.

"Thus, the African-American documentary, 'All God's Children,' has stated: 'African Americans were accused of seeking "special rights" during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Now, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people are accused of seeking 'special rights.' Both populations are simply seeking equal justice under the law.'

"With supporting statements by African-American Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Cecil L. Murray, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and theologian Cornel West against discrimination based on sexual orientation, the documentary adds: 'These systems of oppression are all cut from the same cloth of dominance and power over others.' . . .

"To deny any minority the full access to marriage is to deny the Declaration of Independence statement that the purpose of government is 'to secure' the right of all its citizens to 'the pursuit of Happiness.' As with the pre-1967 limits on the marriage rights of racial minorities, it also violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment provision for 'equal protection of the laws' when Congress or any state has denied marriage rights to lesbians and gay males.

"Nevertheless, to me, the fact that 39% of Californians voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in March 2000 is FAITH-promoting. I can only HOPE that Congress and the Supreme Court will again guarantee a minority the rights which America's majority refuses to confer. In the meantime, I applaud the CHARITY which individual states (like Vermont) have begun to demonstrate in guaranteeing the civil rights of gays and lesbians. As the Apostle Paul wrote, 'The greatest of these is charity.' (I Cor. 13:13).

"This is a civil manifestation of the religious perspective expressed in the 'Anglican Theological Review': 'When marriage is properly understood--as Martin Bucer argued over four centuries ago--as being primarily for companionship, not for procreation or parenting or 'the avoidance of fornication,' then its grace is operative equally for all couples who wish to enter into a covenanted relationship, whether they are a man and a woman, two women, or two men.'

"'The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics' has also commented: 'It is particularly disturbing to find churches which intensify the homosexual's sense of loneliness and isolation by their judgmental attitudes.' While not endorsing ministerial ceremonies for same-sex couples, this ethical dictionary was emphatic about the denial of civil rights to homosexuals: 'Whenever men and women are victimized because of their sexual orientation, whether formally in the law courts or less formally. . .the Christian duty is clearly to stand alongside the oppressed minority in their struggle for justice.'

"As a gay male and Christian, I hope this kind of religious ethic will eventually triumph for America's minority of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons."

(D. Michael Quinn, "Prelude to the National 'Defense of Marriage' Campaign: Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities," originally published in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," 33:3, pp. 1-52)

*********


CONCLUSION

To deny the commonalities of suffering, persecution and oppression shared by both the Black and Gay communities over time is to deny historical parallels where they certainly exist and to minimize the mutual experience of pain, prejudice, torture, murder and denial of basic human dignity that has afflicted both of these undeservedly targeted groups.

Bigotry is bigotry. Hate is hate. Disdain is disdain. Denial of human and civil rights is denial of human and civil rights.

Being Black or being Gay, it doesn't matter. Both are members of historically despised and savagely mistreated minority groups that have drunk from the same bitter cup of group-identity abuse and dehumanization.

Get over the destructive and inhumane idea that there is no rejuvenating bond in acknowleding the real and meaningful legacies of suffering shared by these two classes of unique, yet conjoined, human beings. To insist on defining, then imposing, unnecessary barriers and differences serves only to divide rather than to unite. Blacks and Gays have walked the walk and talked the talk, both together and in their own ways. Participate in the conversation, Join the march. Help the cause. Recognize the collective humanity of it all. Geezus. And get a life--hopefully one that's meaningfully connected to, and shared with, others.

(related RfM link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1549959)



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2015 02:06PM by steve benson.