I grew up in the midst of the civil rights era. In general, my parents got along very well – I only heard them argue a couple of times. One of those times involved civil rights.
To set the background, you should know that my dad grew up on an oil lease in northeastern Oklahoma in what I would presume was a fairly hand-to-mouth existence. I have pictures of him dressed pretty much like Huck Finn, and I got the idea that he caught the family dinner a few times from the local ponds. His mom cooked in a restaurant for the oil rig workers. His dad worked for Gulf Oil in a middle management position.
My mom, on the other hand, had a more middle class life in southwestern Oklahoma, complete with black servants. I suspect that different experience led to the different response they each had to the civil rights movement. I only caught a part of their argument, but it had a profound effect on me. I remember my mom saying “Why can’t they just wait?” But my dad’s response was what stuck with me through the years: “They’ve been waiting for 300 years. How much longer do you want them to wait?”
How much longer do you want them to wait? And wait for what – for the simple recognition that “they” have the same rights as “us”? In the wake of the SCOTUS decision on marriage, we’ve all read and heard comments on civil rights. In the wake of the church shootings in Charleston, we’ve all read and heard comments on civil rights. It is simply beyond my comprehension how anyone could argue that “they” do not have the same rights as “us”.
What about religious liberty and free speech? Surely, some argue, “Christians” shouldn’t be forced to condone a lifestyle they find sinful. Interestingly, Christianity is far from monolithic in our society and there are plenty of Christian denominations which have no trouble with gay marriage. But some literalist branches of Christianity point to the Bible and note that homosexuality is a “sin”, leading to their opposition to gay marriage. Of course, many things in the Bible are listed as “sins” which nobody in their right mind would regard as worthy of nationwide sanction. Do you wear cloth with different kinds of fibers? Well, you shouldn’t – and there should be a national prohibition against such activity. Do you work on the Sabbath? Again, you shouldn’t, and there should be a national prohibition against that kind of thing. You get the point; why pick on homosexuality as the behavior which should be opposed at all costs?
Some would counter that one should “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I wonder if such persons have really thought through the implications of such an argument. Folks who hold such a position are passing judgement; those “sinners’ just can’t seem to control themselves and so they need our “help” to point them in the “right” direction. They should deny who they are, because we feel they are sinning. And make no mistake, by casting LBGT’s as sinners, we are asking them to deny who they are based on our selective reading of one holy text. Oh but we’re all sinners, you say. Sure enough, which makes judgmental behavior all the more suspect.
What about free speech? This has cropped up most in regard to the confederate flag, but it also has been raised as an objection to the gay marriage ruling. In either case, the main flaw with that argument is that our right to free expression has not been changed. If you oppose gay marriage, don’t perform one. If you feel you should be able to fly the confederate “stars and bars” – have at it! On the other hand, if you run a bakery and a gay couple comes to you to buy a wedding cake, on what basis would you deny them your business? It’s against your religious principles! I’ll bet smoking dope is against your religious principles as well, but you still sell to dopers, whether you know it or not. What about lying – how does that fit with your religious principles? I’ll bet you’re opposed to that as well, which means you shouldn’t be selling anyone a wedding cake. If you run a business, you automatically run the risk of doing business with folks who do things you don’t like. Why pick on this particular thing as a basis for denying services? And make no mistake, the very same “principles” were involved in the denial of service to black Americans.
Ah, but black Americans can’t choose to be black, so it’s different! Nope, sorry – it’s not different. Skin color is very malleable but it does indeed have a genetic basis and people can’t really choose what color their skin is or their ethnicity. Likewise, people who are LBGT can’t “choose” their lifestyle. The scientific evidence is convincing – sexual preference has a strong genetic component. Most folks who are gay know it very early in their development, before puberty and sexual activity ever happens. That’s why when we pass judgement and “love the sinner, hate the sin” we’re asking them to deny who they are. And that’s just plain wrong.
