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.

Period.

And they have the right to call it marriage.

Period.

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

Period.

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.

  • Shayne

    so why did you read this article and take the time to right that then?
    since theres so many other issues in the world

    0
  • http://gravatar.com/nocdib nocdib

    As someone mentioned earlier there is a difference between martginalization and oppression. The insidious aspect of the gay rights agenda is that when they cite statistics on oppression the victims are usually LGBTQ people of color and paint the entire LGBTQ community as being oppressed. The gay-bashing, police violence, disease rates, etc. are endemic to the black/brown members of the community, not the white. They’ll piggy-back on the minority struggle when it suits them but just remember, a gay white person is still white and once they have marriage equality they will have everything that comes with white privilege. See if they remember you once they’ve “arrived.”

    0
    • Alita for All People

      well, this is just all kinds of false.
      Heterosexuality is a privilege, point blank period. no matter what color you are.
      not saying that straight black people are completely accepted. but there is more than one type of privilege.
      Being able to hold hands with your partner in public without being harassed is a PRIVILEGE
      the over 1,100 rights that married people get and people in “civil unions” don’t get is a PRIVILEGE
      there is no color assigned to that. whether you are gay and black or gay and white those are over 1000 rights that you don’t have.
      people don’t get fired from their jobs for being straight.
      in 29 states if you are discharged for being gay you can’t even fight it because its perfectly legal
      (you can absolutely fight being fired for being black though)

      0
  • http://www.facebook.com/devon.thomas.144 DeVon Thomas

    It appears people love to muddy the waters. I read some of these comments, and it was just sad. Separate but equal can’t exist under any form. PERIOD. The NAACP gets it that it should support equality for all people, not just the inequalities dealing with the black struggle which still exist. Every inequality movement has some similarities and differences, but each one we should work at overcoming. History has shown us that change only comes when it is forced where it isn’t wanted. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

    0
  • 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;

    0
  • Bangel

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

    0
More in doma, marriage equality, Prop 8
Close