MEAThe often discriminatory and myopic views of some evangelicals and the rallying cries for progress and equality from the LGBTQ community and their straight allies have led us to this pivotal point in our nation’s history.

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the ripple effect will inevitably shape policy and society for generations to come. And as a cisgender, heterosexual Black woman, I could not be more thrilled. The federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 are malignant tumors choking society’s evolution and it is past time that we pull them out at the root.

In a society where “no homo” and “pause” are considered homophobic-lite, and, in the words of Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, “sexual rednecks” attempt to restrict the LGBTQ to permanent underclass status, the hijacking of the law to legislate morality has paved the way for reductive and disingenuous dialogue. Biased rhetoric framed around Christianity — and the arrogant assumption that this country’s moral compass should be guided by subjective religious scriptures — have clouded the concrete facts.

This is not about who one prays to in the morning or sleeps with at night, it’s about the simple fact that as tax-paying citizens of this country, the LGBTQ community has the unalienable right to marry.


And they have the right to call it marriage.


And the Christian church does not, or rather should not, dictate national policy.


No disability, ethnicity, gender, creed or sexual orientation should create a barrier between tax-paying citizens of this country and equality. If the LGBTQ community is “allowed” to die oversees for this country, then they damn sure have the right to be married in it.

In response to Attorney Charles Cooper arguing against marriage equality in the state of California, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a simple question that encapsulates the core of debate:

Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make — denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

Cooper, clearly struggling with whether or not to continue his erroneous argument or admit that he actually did understand the law, crumbled beneath the question.

“Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”

“If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one benefit?” Sotomayor then asked.

Why, indeed. The answer is subjective morality of the religious class and that has no place in an individual’s rights and freedom.

See exchange below:

The place is here and the time is now for the end of sanctimonious, self-righteous, condescending bullsh*t masquerading as morality. Discrimination in any form must no longer be protected by bigoted, legal (mis) interpretations. Just as miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional, just as Black people had to legally be declared completely human and not 3/5ths, this country is experiencing history in the making. It might not be your fight, but it is a legitimate, necessary fight that is one step closer to being won.

In the words of the revolutionary Huey P. Newton:

“Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor.

Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

No, they are not enemies of the people; they are the people. We. The. People. And justice for any of us, is justice for all of us.

It is time.


Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

  • afrosaxon1

    I’m not sure that that’s a fair analysis. I think you’ll find some of the segments of the community that are into the celebrities, reality stars etc are probably more likely to be pro gay marriage. The highly religious segments of the black community that disagree with gay marriage tend to also be anti the clubbing/celebrity/ party atmosphere,etc.

    Also this statement, “I find it,interesting that the black community, which is one of the MOST morally bankrupt communities when it comes to the basics of life” I simply cannot accept. Frankly, I think the white community could be seen as equally if not more morally bankrupt, but the socio-economic power they have means that their moral bankruptcy plays out in a different way. Every community has their flaws.

  • afrosaxon1

    “It is a dangerous game to play my pain and struggles are not like your pain and struggles.”
    With all due respect, this is hugely simplifying the differences between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement. For example, white women and black women have both faced sexism. It’s extremely fair to say that white women have not had the double drama of racism AND sexism that black women have had to face and therefore no, my pain and struggle is not like that of a white woman, and I’d be ridiculous to think it is. There might be similarities, but it’s a very different ballgame. That’s what people are saying about gay people and black people. May be similarities, but it’s a whole different ballgame.

  • talaktochoba

    sorry, but your PC bleating couldn’t possibly be more wrong;

    first, removing the spiritual from the equation, we are all here because of the union of the original man and the original woman–NOT because of ANY product of two males or two females–therefore, the biological imperative is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN;

    that biological imperative was given blessing by all major religious writings, and it is ALWAYS that blessing which is sought at weddings, which can only be given in recognition of the biological imperative aforementioned all religions thereby bless;

    scientists for centuries have concluded the biological imperative is engineered toward eliminating extinction–i.e., reproduction…now what separates us from the remaining animal kingdom is our cognitive brains, which allow us to impart a quota lot emotion amplifying the biological imperative;

    although all proper unions cannot possibly provide issue, that in no way negates their conformity with the biological imperative–thus any attempts at union which attempt to dismiss that biological imperative are by definition inaccurate and wasteful, as they point toward what would inevitably be extinction;

    in other words, no male can provide to another male what a female can in a relatio ship, nor can any female provide what a male can to another female–any two females who think they can raise a boy into a man will find to their regret they are sadly and completely mistaken, and vice versa;

    thus religion only supports the biological imperative–not define it–and celebrate its legitimacy in some form of monogamy to thereby ensure the greatest possible procreation as a barrier to extinction;

    thus almost every known religion celebrates humankind as either fashioned by and/or made in the image of an omnipotent presence, beginning and kept in continuance as issue of the very first MAN AND WOMAN;

    now should two of the same sex wish to form some union they have every right, but in no way, shape manner or form can it possibly be considered anything even remotely resembling a marriage, as it fails the biological test, the extinction potential test, the historical test and thus the religious test;

    any law that seeks to contrevene this natural order merely multi lately either invites hermaphrodism (like seahorses) or extinction–in other words, eventually enough unions contrary to the original one will mean for the human species to survive, one subset will have to contain the biology of both sexes to reproduce, or simply face extinction;

    in short, one sex will simply not be necessary–any volunteers of either sex to go extinct?

    i didn’t think so;

    so please, stop trying to convince everyone your union is “legitimate” as a real marriage between a man and a woman, okeh?

    yes, LGBTs have INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, but getting married is not one of them: that is not a right but a privelege earned by meeting the proper qualifications, just like any other privelege–and that means a union consisting of that of the original union–ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN;

  • Bangel

    I pray that the Supreme Court makes the right decision and defends traditional marriage.

More in doma, marriage equality, opinion, Prop 8