The nation's capital is suddenly center court in America's loud argument over gay marriage.
Nothing new about that, except that this time the battle is being hashed out in the streets, churches and living rooms in working class wards of the city. While there is something poignant about both sides-literally-singing the same hymn ("We Shall Overcome") at its rallies, there is also something refreshing about the debate taking place in the unofficial part of Washington, D.C: In a word, it's not partisan.
That is not to say it's not a touchy issue. Gay marriage pits race and faith together in the same combustible conversation, and does so in a community in which both are sacrosanct subjects. The black Christian church predates Emancipation by more than two centuries, and served as a bulwark against the pernicious effects of slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol and drugs, AIDS, poverty, crime, police brutality and bad schools.
In the face of all that, African-American pastors and their churches have offered up faith and love of family as twin defenses. Thus they have been an institution with a message that at its core is fundamentally conservative. And at the same time, it was from the pulpits of these very same black churches that emanated the commanding voices that demanded fundamental change to the old order. Make no mistake, the moral authority and raw political power of the civil rights movement was rooted in these self-same churches. And in that sense they were a liberating, as well as a stabilizing, force.
These contradictory forces of liberalism and conservatism have coexisted, not always easily, for centuries within the church. But gay marriage has opened a chasm in the black community, in which, to paraphrase (and modernize) Lincoln who, while speaking about the North and South during the Civil War, observed that each side reads the same bible, prays to the same God, invokes His wisdom against the other - and belongs to the same political party. In the local politics of Washington, the true power brokers are predominately black, monolithically Democratic and tuned into the religious sensibilities of their constituents. Thus, the discussion taking place here over gay marriage is really a series of conversations; some within the black community and some within the Christian churches, and almost all of it within the Democratic Party. This is not altogether a bad thing. For starters, there's no Republican bogeyman, and for another, the race card is played to establish one's bona fides, not to stoke prejudice. Finally, the church-bashing rhetoric one finds in other places where this debate is taking place is muted here: Attacking the church would simply be a good way to lose the argument. And judging by the language being invoked by both sides, the stakes of this argument are high: Leaders of competing camps clearly believe that what unfolds here in unofficial Washington will be a harbinger for where this nation is heading on gay rights.
"The march towards equality is coming to this country, and you can either be a part of it or stand in the way," David Catania, one of two openly gay D.C. Council members, declared on May 5, as the council approved his pro-gay marriage measure.
"This is the Armageddon of the marriage debate," was the rejoinder offered by Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and author of a petition seeking to have the question put on the ballot for every voter in Washington. "It's a declaration of war."
On June 3, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. The sheer momentum of the issue seems inexorable, and not only to Catania. His bill simply states that marriages performed in other states shall be recognized in the District of Columbia. As a practical matter, this makes sense: The District is comprised of people who come from all 50 states. If they celebrate Mardi Gras here - and they do - shouldn't the marital status of those from other states be recognized? Yet Catania and his allies on the council weren't attempting to be practical; they were attempting to change the culture of the capital. If their bill becomes law, they stated, the obvious next step would be to offer measures making gay marriage legal in Washington.
And that's where Harry Jackson and his alliance of other black preachers came in.
"At one time, preachers were very powerful in this town as far as getting respect from elected officials like the [D.C.] Council," notes Henry A. Gaston, pastor of Johnson Memorial Baptist Church in Southeast Washington. "Today, however, it is as though they think we're asleep, but we will let them know we are fully alert."
Asserting that a majority of district residents are opposed to gay marriage, Jackson and Gaston have vowed to buck the City Council and stop Catania's proposal from becoming law. It would seem an uphill fight: First of all, there are many pastors on the other side of the issue. Secondly, Catania's bill passed the Council 12-1. But the key to understanding the politics of this controversy may be in the identity of the one, not the twelve.
The dissenting vote was cast by Marion Barry, the former mayor who may want to be the future mayor. At 73 years of age, Barry has seen it all, and done most of it himself. He's known outside the city mainly for going to prison after being nabbed in a cocaine sting, but he was a civil rights worker as a young man and an early advocate of gay rights. He is also a cagey politician with an uncanny knack for divining the grievances of black Washingtonians. Barry knows that the pastors believe they are fighting for their relevance as well as their flocks; he knows of the social conservative buried inside the bosoms of many a Democratic-voting Baptist church lady; he knows that many blacks often bristle at the comparison between civil rights for racial minorities and gay demands that their unions be fully recognized as marriages. He knows that a politician who gets too far out in front of the voters risks involuntary retirement.
"The African-American community is very conservative on this issue," Barry said recently in a radio interview. He estimated that 70 to 80 percent are opposed to gay marriage, adding that the number is higher in the religious community. "These Baptist pastors believe it's a sin," he said. "We're a democracy, as imperfect as it is...if you believe in representative democracy you listen to your constituents."
Barry recalled how, in 1971, he battled on the side of a gay teacher at McKinley Tech who wanted to keep his job. But Barry is convinced that in the minds of many, perhaps a large majority of the voters in his ward, there is a subtle, but important, distinction between sticking up for someone's right to a job and supporting church weddings for gays and lesbians.
Or, as Harry Jackson put it during a small rally he organized recently in Washington's Freedom Plaza, "There's a difference between civil rights and sacred rights. Marriage has been defined by God...so someone declaring it's a civil right is inanity."
Jackson and Barry have been denounced in some quarters as panderers to prejudice, but as Barry points out, correctly, his position is exactly the same as President Obama's. He's right about that, and he could have added to the list Hillary Clinton, Al Gore,and John Kerry, all of whom support civil unions but not marriage -- apparently believing that this is as far as politicians with national aspirations can prudently position themselves.
This lesson in realpolitik was learned the hard way by President Clinton in his first days in the White House. Back then, the gay rights issue that divided the country wasn't same-sex marriage - Lordy, did that seem an exotic concept back then - it was whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in America's armed forces.
Clinton believed, naïvely, as it turned out, that he had the perfect man in place as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This officer, whom Clinton had inherited from George H.W. Bush, was a combat veteran of Vietnam, a four-star general, and a Republican. Best of all, he was African-American, meaning that he knew prejudice when he saw it. At least, that's how Clinton saw it. But Gen. Colin Powell surprised his commander-in-chief, and not pleasantly, when they met privately in the first days of the new administration.
"Mr. President," Gen. Powell said, "we're not with you on gays in the military."
Nonplussed by the use of that pronoun "we," and unfamiliar with military culture, Clinton backpedaled a bit. Powell had spoken as an Army officer, not as a leader of the black community - at least that's what the president believed. Actually, Powell may have been speaking as both, as the nation learned last November 4, when he cast his presidential vote for Barack Obama.
The state of California has long been a trailblazer in expanding the definition of human rights and the bounds of social tolerance. Yet on November 4, 2008, the same day that California and the nation voted into office an African-American president, voters in the Golden State approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state Constitution stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Seven million Californians voted in favor of this proposition, with 6.4 million casting votes in opposition. For activists, the result was a bitter pill, and in their frustration over their defeat, gay rights advocates turned their rage on targets ranging from the Mormon Church to an unfortunate musical theater director who had contributed $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. But the hardest lesson for liberals to absorb was the unmistakable evidence from exit polls and precinct results showing that the same African-American voters who had flocked to the polls to support Obama had, while inside those self-same voting booths, turned an overwhelming thumbs-down to gay marriage.
In some ways, the battle royal over gay marriage is a fight over who has title to that one dynamic word, "marriage." California has offered same-sex couples codified protection under domestic partnerships since 2000. Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., began taking those steps in 1992, and have increased the protection of domestic partners routinely since then. Yet, on Nov. 4, 2008 the future suddenly didn't seem written in stone. What appeared to be true, even to proponents of gay marriage, was that court fiats, Democratic Party platforms and big city council rulings in themselves won't be enough to win the day. Proponents of gay marriage must change minds if they are to prevail.
In Washington, that lesson has been taken to heart not so much by the 12 City Council members who cast predictable, politically correct votes, but by progressive pastors such as the Rev. Dennis Wiley of the Covenant Baptist Church in Washington. He's out to alter hearts and minds as well as laws, knowing that without a change of heart, the laws will sow discord and mistrust of government. And he's using faith and reason in an attempt to challenge venerable assumptions within his community.
"A lot of people will say God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Have you ever heard that?" Wiley said in a recent sermon. "If God didn't make Steve, who made Steve? Somebody had to make Steve. Why would God create someone of that orientation and then not allow them to have the same kind of opportunity for love, for relationships, for a healthy life as heterosexuals enjoy?"
And so the battle of ideas is joined. Rev. Wiley believes that ultimately his community will come around. He doesn't contest that the 70 percent opposition figure in the black community cited by Marion Barry - and confirmed in California - is wrong, exactly, but he believes it is soft opposition, and is therefore susceptible to reasoned argument as well as to appeals to faith from the liberal side of the divide.
Perhaps he's right. Or maybe, as Rev. Jackson and Bishop Gaston believe, the black church will prevail by doing what it has always done, championing the cherished and long-held values of African-American families. Gaston has raised the specter of Washington's children witnessing a parade of marriages between men or between women, and he expresses concern about this effects this would have on impressionable young people still forming their sexual identities. "Children go to such ceremonies," he said recently. "Children will be influenced into homosexual lifestyle."
To that argument, Dennis Wiley has a reply. "It is a much more healthy environment for children to be taught the truth: That everybody's not alike - that people are different."
Source: New York Times
Comments |  RSS |
|
My question for these pastors are:
1) Why not have this same outrage and energy toward the unacceptable school system and school buildings in which our children must attend? The high school dropout rate?
2) Why not have this same outrage and energy towards the internal problems within the government where corruption has constantly reared its ugly head?
3) Why not have this same outrage and energy toward the high HIV rate in the District?
4) Why not have this same outrage and energy towards the Black on Black crime in the District? The problem with the Prison Industrial Complex
It is easy to fight other peoples fight and ignore our own. Homosexuality has always existed in the African American community and has never been a problem before now. These preachers who fail to preach prophetically against the systemic evils we must face on a daily basis have chosen to fight issues from a moral high ground. Our communities are falling apart and their concern is personal piety? When are we going to address the real issues destroying the African American community?
I guess some have to remain favorable to those of a different persuasion. I guess liberation is not really what Jesus wants, but pious believers who are flawless and adhere to a particular political agenda. It's time for the Black Church to address this and other issues with the love of Jesus.
Rev. Anderson:
You are missing the point: This is not about personal piety and, yes, homosexuality has always existed in the African-American community, as have adultery, fornication, alcoholism, theft and other sins. Yet, the perveyors of those other sins are not lobbying for special rights or a redefinition of marriage.
This fight is not about whether an individual homosexual should have equal rights. This is about whether or not marriage should be redefined. Currently, all males over the age of 18 have a right to marry any female over the age of 18. That is equal rights. What people don't have the right to do is redefine marriage to be other than between one man and one woman. The idea that you would even entertain this redefinition is a demonstration of how far afield many of our clergy have gone when it comes to standing up for Biblical principles.
So you assume that I stand on one side of the isle and you the other? Where did I state that? What I said was we have other fish to fry besides the one some clergy are so focused on at this point. My concern is that we ignore the issues that are destroying our communities and putting us in a more self destructive mode. What did Jesus focus on and what are we focusing on?
Homosexuality is a Piety argument just like adultery, fornication, thefts and others. The pious position never address the systemic evils that exist. It falls squarely on the individual. Both must be addressed, the sin and the system. That's why Jesus promoted the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of man.
Never did I say or raise a question about redefinition of marriage, so please let's not put words in my mouth. Be careful talking about biblical principles because the same bible says "women be quite in the church" and "slaves obey your master" both of which I totally disagree with because Paul has been read out of context!
My other concern is that clergy and lay will go beyond just disagreeing and become disagreeable. We must realize that this is not good! This could breed a ground for hatred and in this case, Satan wins. Let's not do that. Love can cover a multitude of sins and it is not our blood, but the blood of Jesus.
Gwen, some will never get it no matter what you say. The god of lies has deceived them. They have made the decision to turn their backs on the God of truth, the One who has done so much for them. The One who entered this world in the person of Jesus Christ that they may have eternal life with Him in heaven. Pray for them, for they know not what they do.
MIND Over glands
The defenders of homosexuality continue the oxymoron
contradiction of attempting to use the mind to justify the
rule of carnal glands.
Thinking Americans still don't give 'a tinkers-sham' what
homosexuals do with their body-parts. An individual or
a society which is by law and tradition committed to the
natural human hierarchy of mind over body will not, how-
ever, ever sanction glandular rule over the human mind.
Undisciplined human desire can induce distorted perception.
The disturbed personality or inverted character can be
considered to be cognitively confused. This description is
confirmed by the work of English psychoanalyst Money-
Kyrle, who indicates that it is more accurate to recognize
such a condition as the result of distorted perception.
Neurosis, psychosis, stunting of growth, etc., are all, from
this perspective, cognitive diseases contaminating not only
perception but thinking, learning, remembering, valuing, and
decision- and choice-making.
Money-Kyrle affirms that scientific truth is not attained by a
trendy self-serving fashion, confession of inadequacy,
abdication, or collective majority-vote. There is no excuse for
professional ignorance willfully maintained.
By definition, a standard that is flexible is not a standard at all.
The human mind requires a standard of comparison that is
invariable. A criterion must be greater than the value measured
in order to supply value-meaning in a predictable direction of
survival and progression. The mind thus equipped is enabled
to maintain a natural dominion over the body and its appetites.
The very survival of the body itself, therefore, depends upon this
maintained intellectual authority. See Romans.
Our posterity cannot respect what it does not perceive, and it
cannot perceive that which has been abandoned or inverted to
an appetite of physical expediency by the equivocal person.
With confidence in the laws of human nature, we can know that
in the clash between carnality and intellect, the 'man of the mind'
will always prevail.
That is nature and GOD's way and intent all along.
"No one is smarter than their criteria." selah jfb
Jim Baxter
Teacher - 30 years
pointman/follower of The Lion of Judah
Santa Maria, CA
semper fidelis
Sgt. USMC
WWII & Korean War
+ + +
I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks - you cleared up some things for me!
Thanks For This Blog, was added to my bookmarks.
Awesome Blog. I add this Post to my bookmarks.
I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.
Very Interesting Post! Thank You For Thi Post!
You certainly have some agreeable opinions and views. Your blog provides a fresh look at the subject.
Very informative post. Thanks for taking the time to share your view with us.
You certainly deserve a round of applause for your post and more specifically, your blog in general. Very high quality material.
I just book marked your blog on Digg and StumbleUpon.I enjoy reading your commentaries.
Great Blog. I add this Blog to my bookmarks.
I’ve been visiting your blog for a while now and I always find a gem in your new posts. Thanks for sharing.
I just book marked your blog on Digg and StumbleUpon.I enjoy reading your commentaries.
I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.
Thanks For This Post, was added to my bookmarks.