I was among those waiting with baited breath late into the night on Friday for the New York State Senate to vote on historic legislation legalizing same-sex marriage (hereinafter referred to as “gay marriage”). It eventually voted 33-29 to pass the bill.
In so doing, New York became only the sixth state in the Union (plus the District of Columbia) to accord gays this basic civil right. But this did not stop gay-rights activists from projecting (in typical if-we-can-make-it-here-we-can-make-it-anywhere fashion) that:
New York sends the message that marriage equality across the country is a question of when, not if.
(Fred Sainz, vice president Human Rights Campaign, Associated Press, June 25, 2011)
Their enthusiasm and confidence are understandable of course. But, even though I am as encouraged as any heterosexual can possibly be, I am less sanguine about the long-term impact of this legislation – not only nationally, but even within New York State.
After all, I’m acutely mindful that, after the California Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that similar legislation in that state was constitutional, gay-rights activists made similar projections about its impact. Yet less than a year later Californians shocked the nation by voting “YES” on Proposition 8 – an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. This nullified the court’s earlier ruling.
More to the point, this act of interposition and nullification in California was only the latest by an unholy alliance of right-wing political groups and mainstream religious organizations that, to date, has conspired to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in 31 states: The political groups assert that gay marriages would destroy traditional family values – as if the pandemic of divorce among heterosexual couples hasn’t already done that; while the religious organizations assert that the Bible declares homosexuality itself a sin – as if it does not declare adultery, even pre-marital sex, a sin as well.
Anyway, notwithstanding this impressive streak of victories, this alliance has always had its sights on getting Congress to approve a constitutional amendment that would extend this ban nationwide.
Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage.
(Matt Daniels, Alliance for Marriage, Associated Press, November 3, 2004)
So, with all due respect to the folks who were marching like newly plumed peacocks in yesterday’s gay pride parade in New York City, making it there does not mean that gay can make it anywhere….
In fact gay-rights activists would be wise to focus their efforts on federal legislation too; since, just as it was with civil rights for blacks, it will take presidential leadership and an act of Congress to settle this matter.
Which brings me to the ironic role President Obama and religious minorities are playing:
Obama maintains that he favors full civil rights for gays, but not their fundamental right to marry. And he deflects from the contradiction, if not hypocrisy, inherent in this by assuring gays that his position is “evolving”.
This, of course, is a not so subtle hint that he will become fully evolved (i.e., a champion of gay marriage) as soon as he wins re-election and no longer has to curry favor with religious bigots – even in the purportedly liberal Democratic Party – for votes.
Subjecting the civil rights of gays to political expediency in this fashion is clearly unconscionable. But I appreciate the precedent Lyndon Johnson set by evolving into a champion of black civil rights only when it became politically expedient for him to do so (i.e., in the face of increasing racial unrest after he became president). Indeed, Obama might be guided by the fact that, despite his dubious political evolution, Johnson is roundly celebrated today – no more so than among blacks – for his leadership in securing the passage of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
As for the role religious minorities are playing, what I wrote in my commentary on the passage of California’s Proposition 8 is instructive:
[T]he dark little secret is that far too many blacks (and Hispanics) are every bit as homophobic as right-wing Christian zealots… Polling data indicated that blacks and Hispanics – who normally vote Democratic Party values (which includes gay rights) – voted with Republicans to pass Proposition 8 by a relatively slim margin of 52-48 percent.
Therefore, if Democratic Party organizers had spent more time helping blacks and Hispanics get over their homophobia instead of pretending it does not exist, I have no doubt that Proposition 8 would have been defeated by a relatively comfortable margin.
(California court upholds Proposition 8, The iPINIONS Journal, May 28, 2009)
Actually, as the son of a preacher man, I know all too well the religious dogma that compels so many blacks to deny the obvious empathy (and solidarity) they should have when it comes to gay civil rights. (Incidentally, one of the reasons I know Obama’s opposition to gay marriage is more political than religious is that he worshiped for decades at one of the few black churches in America that not only embraced gays but advocated for their civil rights, namely, the Trinity United Church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright; yes, that one.)
Unfortunately, disabusing self-righteous blacks of their homophobia these days might prove almost as difficult as disabusing self-righteous whites of their racism during the dark days of Jim Crow.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a self-evident truth that not allowing gays to marry is an even greater violation of the fundamental civil/equal rights all citizens should enjoy than not allowing blacks to vote. This is why I ended my very first commentary supporting gay civil rights over six years ago as follows:
What is ironic and, frankly, disappointing about this row [over the ordination of gay bishops] is that blacks are using the same perverse religious and cultural rationalizations to discriminate against gays that whites used to discriminate against blacks not so long ago.
(Non-white Bishops oppose ordination of gays, The iPINIONS Journal, March 8, 2005)
In the meantime, though, I am delighted that, in to addition Massachusetts (2004), Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2010), and Washington, DC (2010), same-sex couples will now be able to head to the Big Apple to get married after the new law takes effect next month – on July 24.
Related commentaries:
California court upholds Proposition 8
Non-white Bishops oppose ordination of gays