Elev8 ran across an interesting article from a theologian yesterday. Mr. Michael L. Brown wrote an essay that is making the rounds. Take a look at what Mr. Brown says and tell us what do you think.
Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all. Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do. Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.
Here is what Mr Brown’s essay says:
Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008, issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?
Make sure to like this on your Facebook page and continue the discussion!
There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early civil rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of The Frederick Douglass Foundation.
For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.
1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?
Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.