"Marriage is not a right." Bishop Harry Jackson of Beltsville's New Hope Christian Church voice his own interpretation of civil rights.
We wrote before of the fact that an astonishing 70% of black Californians voted for Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. We also wrote before that when we extrapolate the California results and apply them to the District, a similar city ballot question would pass if one considers income, education, or race.*
Just a few weeks ago, to our surprise, the city council unanimously passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That very same day, the Vermont legislature stole much of the media thunder by overriding the governor’s veto and legalizing same-sex marriage in the Green Mountain State. Nonetheless, it was a bold move for Washington, a city whose every decision can be vetoed by a Congress looking to make a statement. The issue of marriage is usually portrayed in the media as a religious-secular struggle and another side of the issue rarely discussed: race.
The relationship between race and opinion on same-sex marriage— a relationship so quietly whispered it dare not speak its name!— has come out of the closet in DC, a city that votes overwhelmingly Democrat and is also 56% black.
Several area churches (all predominantly black and some of them suburban) spent part of Tuesday protesting the city council’s recent decision and lined up outside the Wilson Building on Freedom Plaza to voice their displeasure. (See the Post’s video of the event)
Bishop Harry Jackson (pictured above) of the New Hope Christian Church— which is outside the District— recently penned his own opinion on the matter in Newsweek lamenting his own “robbery” at the city council meeting by those dastardly “equality vigilantes”!
I felt robbed and disenfranchised as I observed “equality vigilantes” setting up an unjust concept of civil rights.
Mr. Jackson seems to have his own peculiar interpretation of civil rights. In the Post video above, he states:
Marriage is not a right. Brothers and sisters can’t get married. People who are related can’t get married. You can’t marry a three-year-old. There are parameters that are for the benefit of the society about marriage.
Wrong. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. To deny a civil right on account of sex (that is, to disqualify a woman from marrying another woman solely because she is a woman) requires a compelling state interest. Some states have decided there is such an interest, some have found there is not. Nonetheless, in American jurisprudence marriage is a civil right.
Mr. Jackson, who, as the Post’s Marc Fisher has noted, has strong connections to the national conservative movement, continues, “I’d rather be politically courageous than politically correct.” That’s a noble sentiment, for sure, but it is certainly possible to be selfishly courageous, too.
Lynne Breece, a District resident and a bystander at the event, offered some hope that not everyone shares Mr. Jackson’s views:
As a black woman, I know a lot about discrimination on both ends, and I know what it feels like. And for us, of all people, black ministers to use the pulpit to oppress another minority and then to cloak that bigotry using the bible! This happened to black people!
Indeed, though Dr. Martin Luther King cited scripture to demand equality, Jim Crow supporters and defenders of slavery never hesitated to quote the good book either.
Councilman Marion Barry, who didn’t show up to vote on the bill, but who previously promised to vote for same-sex marriage, managed to make it to the rally and profess his new-found opposition. Why the change of heart? Barry provided a great gem of a quotation:
I am a politician who is moral.
Even with Barry’s opposition, the rest of the council and the mayor have all voiced support for eventual same-sex marriage licensing in the city. Messrs. Barry and Jackson notwithstanding, justice and fairness shall overcome someday.
* A majority of California’s urban voters voted against Prop. 8. Since DC is technically 100% urban, a similar proposition would be defeated by this measure. Admittedly, extrapolating from the results of the California electorate is difficult since California is much more diverse than DC on several important points. California includes liberal cities, conservative cities, liberal suburbs, conservative suburbs, and plenty of rural areas. Nonetheless, there are no public opinion polls for District residents on the matter of same-sex marriage, leaving us only to offer these educated guesses.
9 Responses
Leave a Reply
Washington's Security Theater
How the fear of terrorism limits public access and wrecks Washington's elegance.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for this article, but please be advised that reports issued since the November 2008 election have said that the actual level of support for Prop 8 among African American voters was actually more like 58% which is only slightly higher than some other ethnic and racial groups: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL. A voter’s party identification, age and religiosity all played a bigger role in determining their vote on Prop 8.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
This is just unbelievable. I am African-American and I am disgusted. I have long felt (and loudly proclaimed) that the black church is one of the reasons black people have not progressed (actually, I feel that way about organized religion in general, but that’s another story)…This is ridiculous, not to mention stupid (for example, see comments by both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Barry).
April 30th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Concerned reader, let’s hope that is the case. The article you mention bases the 58% number on polling data from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties only. Admittedly, these counties closer resemble Washington politically and socially. Even still, Bishop Jackson in his speeches subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) deploys the race card, which still carries a lot of weight in Washington (e.g. Marion Barry’s numerous reelections, the 1987 defeat of ballot question on bottle and can deposits).
Though new polling data today suggest rising public support for same-sex marriage, Mr. Jackson brings another angle to it not considered elsewhere.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The NGLTF did a more thorough study debunking the myth of African Americans leading Prop 8 to defeat:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf
This open hostility toward African Americans is completely unwarranted, and it forgets that there are African American members of the LGBTQ community. What “race card” are you referring to, and how does it pertain to Marion Berry being reelected multiple times? The bottle and can deposit issue was about economics, not race. What is it even doing in this column? The majority of the lower income residents of DC would have been penalized by the measure. It is also the reason that low income resident in parts of the city oppose the grocery bag tax. BTW, if you wanted to sit down and talk to some people who voted for Marion Berry, they will tell you it has nothing to do with being black (are you really suggesting that Black people voted for Berry because he was black?), it is because Berry doled out gov’t jobs to everyone and their mother. He also ran a Summer Job program that was popular among DC youth.
Your post ignores the support of the NAACP and leaders like, among others, Julian Bond, John Lewis, the late Coretta Scott King, the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Peter Gomes, and the Rev. William Sinkford.
Furthermore, this post demonstrates that virtually no lessons have been learned from losing the Prop 8 fight. The right didn’t beat us. We lost. They out spent us. They had an on the ground operation of 100,000 volunteers that was a close second to the Obama campaign’s ground game. With all of that, the ballot measure went down by 4.6 points. We (the LGBTQ community) didn’t even talk to African Americans until two weeks before the election, and all the post mortems show that African American seniors were afraid there would be long lines on election day and mailed in absentee ballots. At that point, the only side who had been to see them, been to their churches, and asked for their vote was the “Yes” on Prop 8 side. Our side did nothing and lost by 4.6 points. Imagine if we had run a real campaign.
Now, we are looking at marriage equality in DC, and the scapegoating has already begun. Yes, there are African American’s who don’t support marriage equality, but instead of rehashing erroneous data, finger pointing and posting pictures of scary black men, what outreach efforts are going on to find support and build coalitions? In a five point race, if we got 2% of the vote from registered black voters we would win.
Your take on race in DC is myopic, and I pray it is in the minority. Otherwise, DC will go the way of California, but not because of people like Bishop Jackson. We will lose because of this type of Karl Rove politics that makes a conscious choice to look for ways to rally support through fear mongering instead of rallying support around our commonalities. For those who would ask, “Why do we have to go to them?” 1) Because we need them. 2) African Americans are a part of this community, and, when you exploit racial divisions, you throw us to the wolves; and 3)aren’t you tired of the only people showing up to support us and our issues being other LGBTQ people?
May 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Ed,
I’d hardly call it hostility. In fact, it’s quite heartening to hear Lynne Breece, quoted in the column, astutely point out the history of biblical citations being used to justify oppression.
Though there are many black ministers in Washington who support marriage equality, they are not the problem. People like Mr. Jackson are the problem to advancing equality, and it’s only fair that we expose him and his specious claims.
Furthermore, race and class are very closely aligned in DC, the former often serving as cover when people really mean the latter. Washington has a shamefully stratified class structure that correlates with race because lower-middle and lower-class whites left decades ago and a large number of upper- and middle-class blacks left as well. It would be myopic to pretend that this stratification doesn’t exist.
By the way, I oppose the bag tax, too, because it is an unfair regressive tax, but it’s no secret that the bottle bill from the 1980s was defeated by the subtext of race. Marc Fisher provided some clear evidence: “The [opposition] ads listed pro-deposit groups such as the Citizens Association of Georgetown and the Capitol Hill Gardening Club next to anti-deposit groups such as the NAACP and Operation PUSH.” Of course race is the subtext if you construct a dichotomy with the NAACP and PUSH on one side and with mostly-white Georgetown and Capitol Hill on the other!
And yes, I am suggesting that Barry got a lot of votes from the race card, as he used to portray himself quite vocally standing up against the white establishment. When he himself became the establishment, he blamed Congress. It is truly impossible to claim that a man who has used so much divisive racial rhetoric has not benefited from the race card. Of course he has.
Though I agree with you that voter outreach should involve all parts of the electorate (that is the democratic ideal), in the truly ideal situation, matters of civil rights should not even go to the electorate. Contentious civil rights rarely pass by popular vote, otherwise they wouldn’t be contentious.
Mr. Jackson and his supporters (including many in the nationwide conservative movement) are using racial solidarity to justify discrimination and there is no doubt about it.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
You miss the point entirely. Who is your intended audience? You say nothing about the white conservatives who have spear headed virtually ever anti-gay measure in the nation. You say that civil rights should not be put up for a vote, but when was that position adopted? Because white people have repeatedly put our rights on the ballot, and we’ve sat by quietly and let one measure after another pass. But there is no mention of that in your post. You accuse others of playing the race card, but you position Marion Berry and Black ministers as the bad guys. You acknowledge that Marc Fisher reported that Bishop Washington is backed by the religious right. Have you looked into that idea? Done a Google search? Have you researched the lead Fisher gave you? For nearly 10 years, while the LGBTQ community has been asleep at the wheel, the right wing has been coming into the Black community and infiltrating our churches. Now, instead of them having to do the dirty work, the Black clergy is set up to do it. It is causing a rift in the Black community. It is splitting the backbone of our community and the only thing “politically astute” white gays see is that the face of the opposition to marriage equality is Black and religious. Then we get posts like this. There is no mention of the revered African Americans who have been and continue to be our strongest allies. Before Coretta Scott King died, she talked about the white gays and lesbians who marched with her to defend her rights when they didn’t even have a movement to protect their own. You pay attention to political has beens like Marion Berry and ignore the new generation of Black leaders like Benjamin Jealous, the current CEO of the NAACP, who has been active in overturning Prop 8.
You are dead wrong. The right is pitting Blacks against gays, and you are falling for it. What do you know about racial solidarity in the Black community? Have you consulted any Black people are or you going on what you think you know? As I read it, your idea of “racial solidarity” among Black people translates to all Blacks put race before everything else and share a brain. If that is what you think, which of course you will deny as it’s not politically correct to think that way, you should really just stop now.
Your implications about Marion Berry are so wrong,and the fact that you insist that you are right demonstrates that your talk about talking other communities doesn’t mean any thing. You think you are right, and you are dug in to battle the Blacks. But guess what? While you are fighting the Blacks, the right is geared up to pass more constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. So the civil rights you think you have will be gone forever. You don’t have your eye on the right ball. Marion Berry may have said divisive things about white people, but where are the white people who are doing outreach to prove him wrong? First you say that Black people vote for politicians who play the “race card,” whatever that is. Then you admit that the Georgetown and Capitol Hill crowds are trying to force something on the rest of the city, something you admit is a regressive tax, but who is standing up for the economic interests of Ward 8? If the city is so split, then who is going to give voice to the poor, Black residents of DC? You oppose the bag tax, but seem to think of Ward 8 residents as stupid, easily duped people who vote for the first guy who yells “Kill whitey!” That’s the only thing that matters to them.
So, again, who is your audience? Did you think about one of your gay, Black friends when you wrote this? As an upper-middle class, gay Black man living in DC who has a lot of upper -middle class and wealthy Black neighbors and friends who live in DC your take on this whole issue is so outrageously on sided it scares me. If you are a “well-informed” white, gay male my future as a gay man is screwed. My future as a Black man is going to be spent healing the rift in my community caused by white conservatives and exacerbated my white gays.
If you want to talk about race, enter the conversation admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about and you are operating on the views of a person who has had little, if any, real exposure to the diversity of thought and opinions in the Black community. And let me be 100% clear. I do not think you are racist. I don’t know you. But you do not know what you are talking about, and you are putting your ignorance and bias on display. If you want to talk, I am more than willing, but you have to be willing to keep an open mind and not assume everything you think you know is fact. It’s just not.
BISHOP Jackson, the man has a title. I disagree with everything he says, but my Black family raised me to be respectful even in disagreeing with people. Please please please believe me when I say that you notion of “using racial solidarity to justify discrimination” is wholly manufactured, and it’s not even good spin.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 am
It’s hostile because it perpetuates negative stereotypes and does more to divide people than to bring them together. Are you seriously saying the Lynne Breece, quote is “heartening”? You should read some of my columns about easily placated I think the LGBTQ community has become. Is there a moderately educated person alive who doesn’t know that the Bible has been used to “justify oppression”? You call that “astute”? I think you like the quote because it’s a puzzle piece to fit into the picture you are trying to create.
If I sound angry, it’s because I am, but it’s not directed at you personally. I am just so tired of posts like this that operate under the impression that there are no gay Black people. When you talk about pitting one interest against another, we are the greatest asset you have to win this battle. Gay Black people have heterosexual Black families. Instead of falling for the trap the right has set for you, why not rely on your community and members of your community to help win the battle. Try something new. We already know how the old stuff works. We lose.
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Ed,
Oh, where to begin.
The post is directed at the Washington region, since we too often just assume that we live in such a tolerant area, where the bigotry was merely imported for the past eight years from Texas and other places. It’s important to know that some of our own failings are largely local in the making and that what happens in Kansas (and even California!) can happen in our allegedly enlightened city, too.
Yeah, this is a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation. If one wants to read about the Church of L.D.S. or Focus on the Family, there are hundreds of articles published on the matter— it’s well-documented; DC’s unique situation is not well documented. Furthermore, one cannot easily blame white evangelical Republicans for the controversy in DC since that particular demographic barely even exists in the city and thus has limited political influence at the polls here. The District’s marriage issue is unique from the situations in other states for this and numerous other reasons. Though national movements may want to use the District to set an example, with the exception of Congressional meddling, same-sex marriage in Washington is a matter up to the mayor, city council and city residents.
Personally, I adopted this view many years ago when I read about Jefferson’s worry of the paradox of the tyranny of the majority. That is, can a simple majority limit Constitutional rights for whatever reason? Ideally not, because all people are entitled to at least some degree of human dignity no matter the passing sentiments of the public.
As much as I or Jefferson would like to claim credit for the idea, it probably goes back even farther to John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise on Government qualified the legitimacy of democratic rule stating that there are moral constraints even on a democracy. Basic human rights, he argued, are God’s to give and thus only God’s to take. Basic civil rights are personal rights— each individual’s to have and no one else’s to take.
Because I think it’s obvious to a gay audience how wrong that is. To say that the LGBT community “sat by quietly and let one measure after another pass” is absurd. There have been very active campaigns against these ballot measures. Now the matter is coming to the most heavily Democratic and most liberal jurisdiction in American that is able to define its own marriage law (typically a state-wide matter) and there appears to be some vocal opposition from some very influential community leaders. It’s only fair I call them out.
No, I position Marion Barry and Bishop Jackson as the bad guys, even though there were several other area minister in attendance, too. I even quoted a black city resident who disagrees with them and who can see right through their rhetoric. I hardly portray the issue as monolithic and one-sided. As for playing the race card, it is quite obvious Bishop Jackson is doing that. Here’s what he told the Washington Post: “It’s a race and a class struggle on this. If 51 percent of the people in D.C. are African American and you have a unanimous vote by the city council on this, somebody’s not listening to the people.”
Of course Mr. Jackson is playing the race card!
It’s condescending to assume that these clergymen are children who can’t think for themselves. They bear the ultimate responsibility for their own actions and views even if it is some political machine that asks them to oppose civil rights. We should refuse to let Mr. Jackson and Mr. Barry off the hook; they know exactly what they’re doing.
Of course, because Marion Barry is actually on the city council and has power to write and block laws! Mr. Jackson is an influential community leader and DC resident, so he’s a perfectly legitimate target of criticism. He is the problem, not Ben Jealous.
Ha! I never miss a chance to prove him wrong.
Ward 8 handily elected Marion Barry as its councilman and he actually co-sponsored the bag tax legislation, which, as we both agree, is not in the best interest of his constituents. He supports a regressive tax, he thinks that he shouldn’t have to pay taxes to fund services that support the city’s poor, and during his mayoralty he oversaw a city government rife with civil rights abuses and the greatest travesty of them all: the precious little he did to halt the slide of the city’s public schools system, thereby denying poorer children a good chance to get out of poverty.
And yet he was able to blame Congress for all the city’s problems and get re-elected numerous times anyway. With his never-ending litany of abuses and criminality, why would anybody vote for him for any reason other than identity politics?
This is a straw-man argument. My post quotes opposing views within the black community; it’s hardly one-sided. Also, having “a lot of upper -middle class and wealthy Black neighbors and friends who live in DC” would hardly give one an accurate view of public opinion of a city where an astonishing number of residents live at or below the poverty line. (I believe Hillary Clinton referred to it as “elite opinion”.)
Exactly, that’s the problem. Due to his position, he carries a lot of influence in the city since he preaches to large groups of people every Sunday. It’s perfectly fair that I single out public figures who have a good deal of influence in the city.
Again, that’s what Mr. Jackson is trying to do, as he said of the marriage issue, “It’s a race and a class struggle on this. If 51 percent of the people in D.C. are African American and you have a unanimous vote by the city council on this, somebody’s not listening to the people.” He’s trying to spin up opposition on account of race. There’s no question as to what he’s doing. It’s perfectly fair to expose what he’s doing.
This post was meant as an observation of a local rally against civil rights, not a political piece “to bring people together.” I’ve leave that to the activists.
Yup. I only wish more people shared such opinions. There’s no need to disparage her because she sees what a majority of voters in other states can’t see.
Yes, it is clearly directed at me personally, hence the use of “You miss the point entirely,” “You accuse others of playing the race card, but you position Marion Berry and Black ministers as the bad guys,” “You pay attention to political has beens…,” “You are dead wrong,” “What do you know about racial solidarity…,” “Have you consulted any Black people are or you going on what you think you know?” “Your implications about Marion Berry are so wrong,and the fact that you insist that you are right demonstrates that your talk about talking other communities doesn’t mean any thing,” “…your take on this whole issue is so outrageously on sided it scares me,” “You think you are right,” “If that is what you think, which of course you will deny…,” “…you should really just stop now.”
That’s pretty personal.
I never wrote that.
Well, judging by barrage of these vitriolic comments, people will think that criticizing Bishop Jackson or Marion Barry when they advocate injustice is tantamount to racism. However, I will never cease to call out those actively work to bring discrimination to my city.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I offered you another solution. Build cross-cultural alliances with members of the African American community who support equality for the LGBTQ community. But clearly, you are allowed to remain resolute in your opinions of African Americans and ignore your own hypocrisy as well my offer to talk and suggestions to reach out to African American.
So be it. But you can’t say I didn’t try.