The United States is undoubtedly going through very turbulent times. The current economic situation is being compared to the Great Depression, and there are serious threats to national security. On top of this, there is great social turmoil over issues such as gay rights. Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by California voters, has overturned the state’s Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage. The opposition of the amendment has been infuriated by the statute’s passing and has organized large protests throughout the country demanding equal rights for the gay community. The election results showed that 70 percent of blacks voted against gay marriage, which the opposition has viewed as a betrayal by the black community. As the proposition’s detractors see it, gays are working to achieve equal rights just as blacks did in the Civil Rights Movement. In my opinion, the black and the gay Civil Rights Movements are completely different and we cannot associate one with the other, as the opposition has been trying to do. Jasmyne A. Cannick points out that “the civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community.” The use of religion in each movement marks their inexorable differences and the impossibility of ever combining the two movements. In the Civil Rights Movement, as David Chappell in his book titled A Stone of Hope illustrates, black churches were the driving force behind the movement and its success was partly due to its religious base. On the other hand, opposers of Proposition 8 have severely criticized religion and protested in front of Christian churches because, in their view, the passing of the amendment undermines the separation of church and state. Cannick correctly states, “To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle [for the gay community].” The opposition and the gay community needs to find other ways to gain support for their cause because trying to associate their conviction with the Civil Rights Movement has not and will not pay off.
Chappell, David. A Stone of Hope. 1. Chapell Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press , 2004.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Prop 8 comes at a really interesting time in American history—and one that is really inconvenient for its opponents. Obama's candidacy unquestionably increased voting enthusiasm and turnout among blacks. Unfortunately for Prop 8's opposition, despite their liberal leanings as a group, African Americans have also traditionally been some of the strongest opponents of gay rights.
As far as the Civil Rights movement comparison, I think Eduardo does a really nice job of highlighting the reasons why that comparison shouldn't be made. Religion simply does not play the same role it did in the Civil Rights movement. As Chappell argues in Stone of Hope, the Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded without the backing of religion. The Gay Rights movement, in contrast, seems to be making strides (the passage of Prop 8 excluded, obviously) without the kind of religious support African Americans had.
Even though the movements can't be compared the way some would like them to be, I do think that there's an intriguing historical interaction between the two. After all, just a few decades ago, nobody would have ever thought that African Americans would be such a powerful voting bloc. Though Obama is undoubtedly pleased with his support from African Americans, Prop 8's opposition must be a bit disappointed in the "betrayal" by the African American community, as Eduardo notes.
This author has failed to consider the viewpoint of gay rights activists. The comparison between civil rights and gay rights can be seen if you look at the issue in secular terms. Why shouldn't black people be allowed to attend the same schools as white people? Why shouldn't they be able to drink from the same water fountain? Black people and white people are both citizens of the United States, so all citizens should have equal rights. Gay rights activists would reiterate that they are citizens, too. Gay people should therefore have the same rights as heterosexual people.
But eduardo's short-sided thought process illustrates the main problem in this debate. Supporters of Prop 8 are not looking at the issue in secular terms. Supporters of the proposition are instead overwhelmingly viewing gay marriage as a moral issue. If gay people are allowed to marry, then the state would be sanctioning the "immoral" act of homosexual sexual intercourse.
In the 1950s it was still illegal in some states for black people to marry white people. It was considered immoral to engage in interracial sex.
There is a convincing arguement drawing the parallels between the Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement.
More recent analysis of the vote in favor of 8 shows that the measure would have passed regardless of the African American vote.
I think "KB" does not understand the gist of what I am talking about in my post. At no point do I discuss my opinion of Proposition 8. The post talks about the failed assimilation between the gay and the black Civil Rights Movement. Both movements are looking for the government to ensure certain rights, but because they have different approaches to religion it is unreasonable to unite one with the other. KB proposes a secular analysis of the the issues involved, but, in my opinion and that of the article presented, we cannot talk about the black Civil Rights Movement without taking into account the religious base of the movement. I would deeply recommend KB to read the book "A Stone of Hope." In it the author states that "opponents of religion might be surprised to find religion shoring up the modern liberal program at a time when liberals often felt incapable of shifting themselves." (Chappell 180)
I would like to state once again that I have not presented at any point my position on the gay marriage issue and I do not wish to. KB's comment implies that I do. I understand her point that we should look at the issue in secular terms, but in the case of the black Civil Rights movement it is impossible. The author that I quoted is a black lesbian, and acknowledges the impossibility of separating the two. I think we should all too.
Reading both the post and comments, specifically KB's comment, I have come to see another problem with the comparison between the black and gay Civil Rights movements. I agree that the different reaction to religion does set the two movements apart, but I also see their goals as somewhat different. As KB points out, blacks were precluded from attending the best schools and public areas and were not given numerous other rights. They fought to obtain rights that have absolutely no religious connotation and used religion to keep them inspired. The gay Civil Rights participants on the other hand are fighting to obtain something that does have some sort of religious connotation and react to religion in a more negative manner. For both movements religion is present but plays an almost completely opposite role.
The Civil Rights movement undoubtable had ties to the black church, but the movement and the church that supported it can be separated.
A church cannot say to the state that members of its faith will not follow the laws. If a state yielded to religion, the state would not only be preferencing a religion, but allowing that faith to dictate the laws.
The Civil Rights movement instead took a secular approach and appealed to legal reasoning and logic, including rights already on the books, to make its case. The Civil Rights movement can be separated from its religious support.
Similarly the Gay Rights movement can be compared. In fact, the opposition to gay rights is overwhelmingly backed by religious organizations. As was the case with the Civil Rights movement, opponents to gay rights cannot impose their religious morals on society. Religion cannot be allowed to dictate state action. Opponents must find a secular reason to deny homosexuals rights just as supporters of African American rights used secular reasoning as justification for the legislative successes of the Civil Rights movement.
The author of this post would do well to read multiple viewpoints of the issue. Scott Idelman's brief essay on "Why the State Must Subordinate Religion" may help clarify the posts for him.
Read Scott Appleby, "The Ambivalence of the Sacred" about the use of the newly religious by political actors and the depth of religious experience among those involved in religious rightS movements. We should remember that the black church was the place where leaders for the African American community were minted during both de jure and de facto segregation. There's no comparable institution in America, religious or secular.
I would first like to say that you are right, the Gay Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are different and for some it is even offensive to assert that they are similar- but that doesn’t mean that they are not complementary. In discussing this issue with my black girlfriend, she frequently reminds me that people know her blackness while they guess about her sexuality and that becomes important in the terms of discrimination. You are also right in the assertion that the Civil Rights Movement grew out of the black church, but we must recognize that the black church was the only space available for the black community to unite and begin their struggle together. In the gay rights movement, it is certain sects of the church tearing them/us apart. Having that being said, KB is absolutely right in the assertion regarding tangible affects- the idea that one group is being disallowed to enjoy the benefits allotted to others despite both groups holding the same citizen status is wrong and in placing the Gay Rights Movement juxtaposed to the Civil Rights Movement, a beacon of hope is provided that our society can recognize their injustices and begin taking steps to correct them. Both struggles are difficult and both are intrinsically different, but together they fight a similar battle to end oppression of “minorities”. I recognize that this is where the whole black vote in CA enters for its debut as the part that messes with my argument and the truth is- I don’t know. I do not know where the conservative attitude within the black church came from and to me it doesn’t make sense to banish a group fighting a battle of exclusion that your community once experienced in other forms. Yes they are different, that doesn’t make them separate. Maybe that’s the first step- convince the black church and together you can fight.
Post a Comment