CQ POLITICS NEWS
July 16, 2009 – 12:39 a.m.
Gay Marriage: What Would King Do?
By Tracie Powell, CQ Guest Columnist
The president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has been speaking out in support of gay marriage. If you expect one of the country’s oldest equal rights organizations to stand behind one of its chapter presidentsm though, you’d be wrong.
The SCLC wants the Rev. Eric P. Lee fired.
National leaders recently summoned Lee to appear at the group’s Atlanta headquarters to explain his stance. If he failed to show, they said, he would be suspended and removed from his position, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Lee, an African American pastor who has headed the Los Angeles SCLC for the past two years, was an outspoken critic of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California. Voters approved it in last November’s election, but the issue isn’t going away in California or any other place, as states are confronted with court cases and ballot initiatives.
Iowa’s state Supreme Court recently legalized same-sex marriage, while lawmakers in West Virginia are considering whether to ban it. This week, former President Bill Clinton — who signed the law (PL 104-199) that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage — said that he now supports gay marriage. And on Wednesday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, indirectly raised the issue during Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Back in California, Lee continues to advocate in support of such unions.
It’s this kind of advocacy that is raising the ire of fellow clergy at the SCLC. Founded in 1957 in the wake of the Montgomery bus boycott, the organization took a neutral stance on Proposition 8.
Lee now finds himself fighting for more than just marriage equality: He’s also taking on what he views as the hypocrisy of the church (especially black churches) and discrimination, as well as a continued blurring of the line between church and state, he said.
“Any time you deny one group of people the rights and privileges that other groups enjoy, it is fundamentally and unequivocally a denial of their civil rights. That makes it a justice issue,” Lee said in a telephone interview from California. “Because of black people’s history of being oppressed and discriminated against in this country, and because of our legacy of fighting against those things, we have earned the right to be the moral authority on justice issues. In fact, we are obligated to speak out.”
Martin Luther King Jr., along with a number of other civil rights trailblazers, created the SCLC as a powerful force to end segregation non-violently and as a vehicle to help gain equal rights for all Americans.
But in recent years, the civil rights group has been beset with high turnover in its leadership, inter-organizational squabbles, and financial troubles (to read more click here and here).
Perhaps the more pressing issue facing the venerable civil rights organization though, is whether it has lost its way.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University. thinks so.
“Simply put, a national civil rights organization that takes a ‘neutral position’ on an issue of basic civil rights does not deserve to exist,” she writes in an online blog. “Whatever the personal beliefs and prejudices of individual leaders of the SCLC, the organization’s mission as a ‘nonprofit, non-sectarian, interfaith advocacy organization that is committed to non-violent action to achieve social, economic, and political justice’ requires that it stand forcefully against efforts to impose second class citizenship on an entire group simply because of identity.
“In my view, the failure of the SCLC as a national organization to defend the dignity and equality of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families disqualifies it as a civil rights organization,” Harris-Lacewell said.
In his 1963 “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” King took the occasion to respond to critics — white clergymen — who saw him as an outside agitator whose work to desegregate the South they deemed “unwise and untimely.”
In the letter King quoted St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” and explained the difference between just and unjust laws. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
“An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.”
King had more to say on the topic, but the passage brings me back to the paradox in which Lee finds himself, and to a certain extent, the rest of us too.
Can you personally be against homosexuality, and still fight against discrimination?
Maybe we have to ask ourselves “WWKD . . . ” — What Would King Do?
Lee thinks he knows the answer.
Many African Americans — many Americans period — either express indifference or outright hostility toward homosexual relationships. Lee used to fall into the latter group. Fifteen years ago, he said, he thought AIDS was “God’s punishment for being gay or lesbian.” But after he started working with the SCLC, he said he learned the greater meaning behind the more famous words from King’s letter: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
That’s why Lee says he fights.
Even if it means losing his job.
Tracie Powell is a former American Political Science Association congressional fellow and writes regularly on politics and policy.
Comments
Kudos to Rev Lee. And kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting civil marriage. Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA. This summer I'm busy officiating for many couples who are coming to CT to wed because they aren't allowed (?) to do so in their own home states just yet. Marriage licenses are issued by town halls not church halls; and in America we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, too. So move on folks. Kudos to Rev Lee. MLK would be very proud of you.
Amen. As an American of African Descent I am saddened by Other people of color who just don't see the parallels from a civil rights stand point. Seems almost like a "I got mine so forget everyone else" mentality, which means we are not even close to free. Most Civil rights orgs have been slacking, wedded to antiquated methods and ideologies of a bygone black or white era and seem to refuse to broaden their scope or fine tune to the subtleties of our day and age. Plus they just plain miss certain communities, I'll use the First Nations as an example. How many of these groups are helping Native Americans and in what ways? I know of a few and that is not enough. We need Change all the way round.
"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." - i think therein lies the problem. everyone with a strong opinion (or even a mild one) has a radically different view of the law of God which doesn't always align with the principles of freedom that liberalism was based on. Look at the examples set by those wife-cheating non-resigning C-Street Family republicans who saw fit to call for Clinton's resignation years earlier. Segregation and slavery were "endorsed" by one reading of scriptures just as Wahabbi Islam endorses global terrorism. I suppose it's sad that a group synonymous with mid-20th century civil rights has seen fit to put limits on where those rights end and who is eligible, but perhaps they've outlived their usefulness in the grand battle for "justice for all." Perhaps now some other group will pick up the baton and interpret the scriptures in a way the average god-fearing American can understand and that doesn't impinge on the freedoms we Americans should always stand for. Better to use good Christians to fight bad Christians than to go completely secular.
Rev. Eric P. Lee much respect for standing on principles, the most evident and evidently sacrificed on the alter of statism is the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. " It does not say excepting certain races or it depends on a persons sexual orintation. A man/woman does not hold these rights from the collective or for the collective but against the collective.
Personally, I couldn't care less if a homosexual couple wants to get married. Its none of my business, HOWEVER, I also don't care if one faith or another is against it either, they can simply refuse to allow their adherants to perform or participate in the ceremony. Civil Rights have nothing to do with religious organizations and the left, who are constantly whining and crying about the imaginary separation between church and state, need to follow their own dictates and stop trying to shove civil laws down the throats of religious organizations. If Lee works for the SCLC, then he needs to follow their rules and shut the hell up. His alternative is to move on and join some other organization that suits his tastes.
Why is it that organized "christianity" always believes it has the right to define what is essentially a spiritual relationship that is a fundamental religious belief? I am a Christian with Taoist underpinnings and in MY faith believes one adult should be able to committ to another adult through the legal arrangement of marriage, not civil unions which are less than marriage but MARRIAGE! What of my government supporting or respecting MY religious beliefs? The constant denial of equal right to gays makes them the new blacks and will become an ever deviding force in this country. The answer will ONLY be found through this avenue: The federal government should repeal the defence of marriage act and replace it with a civil union law. This law would not recognize any marriages any where buit would require all couples regardless of gender to file as a civil union in order to reap the taxation, survivorship, social security, etc. benefits. Leave marriage to the churches. If your church performs same sex marriages, great, if it does not, so be it. In this manner, seperation of church and state is preserved as our founding fathers forsaw it and equality is restored for all Americans.
The black church is laggin on many issues. Many have ignored the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the black community,especially in cases of women. We haven't done a good job speaking out about the state of the black family and its brokenness. Many churches should shine the spotlight issues in their own front yard like fighting injustice and inequality in the pulpit for starters...many black churches won't even allow women to bring the Word, even though the pews are filled with nothing BUT women..... We aren't confronting the violence in the hood that plagues our children and threatens our seniors... The black church and the civil rights movement are are dying out fast! But yet we have time to devote to telling folks what THEY shouldn't be doing... Uh huh...OKAY! I've always said, what doesn't affect myself or my household, doesn't affect me at all. If I'm thinking about what others do in their bedrooms, I'm not doing too good of a job minding my own business.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but i really don't have an issue with a religious and or private organization discriminating against another group. People need to stand up for what they believe in, even if what they believe is unpopular.
So.... The oppressed, when given their first opportunity, become the oppressor. Y'all must be proud of yourselves.
It is a shame. And yes... it speaks to the hypocrisy of the Church in general but particularly of the Black church. There's a history of "preaching" one thing while behaving totally at odds with so call teachings. The whole idea of pastors being revered and showered with gifts, provided with finer homes and cars than the parishioners turned me off long ago. And to have them knowingly accept that gays play a significant role in most Black churches (what choir do YOU know that doesn't have either a gay leader or at least a member or two... or three? *smile*) Yet still seek to deny their fellow parishioners the same rights to an EQUAL and equally fulfilling life, based on sexual preference is ridiculous. I'd hope Dr. King would be ashamed.
Americans are not all Christians (or Jews) and we should not legislate from the Bible. To be a "good Christian" one needs to follow the teachings ... FOR THEMSELVES! I am not a Christian... i'm an American, and should be able to expect equal treatment under the law. I will defend anyone's right to say or believe whatever they want but i draw the line at them restricting MY rights because of THEIR beliefs.
The gene pool is the source of adaptations to existing conditions and circumstances using random selection, it produces individuals who can create innovations and new directions for humanity which if functional become institutionalized. But suppose twenty or thirty per cent of human populations do not contribute to the gene pool because they are involved in gay marriages, this will limit the gene pool in performing this function, this will severely limit the gene pool in performing this function, no more Martin Luther Kings, no Madame 'Teresa, no more great souls like Gandhi. Does everyone understand where I am going with this? No one has thought out the logical consequence of this, even equity is not functional in all situations, suppose everyone could deposit a contribution to a sperm and ova bank, this would still not be natural selection one of the pillars of evolution. To allow gay marriages is to destroy the natural order, not the religious order or the political order, but the natural order that substantially contributes to ecological equilibrium on this planet. This could be as dangerous as global warming, as has been indicated by the destruction of past empires when hedonism reigned characterized by sodomy and homosexuality. What is popular is not always what is right or functional.
Harris-Lacewell said.: "Simply put, a national civil rights organization that takes a 'neutral position' on an issue of basic civil rights does not deserve to exist," ... "In my view, the failure of the SCLC as a national organization to defend the dignity and equality of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families disqualifies it as a civil rights organization," I can't put it any better than that. Blacks and Latino/as need to get out from the delusion that civil rights pertain only to us, or that other groups don't have grievances that we need to align to. Besides aren't there black gays? Are there not Latino/a gays and lesbians? We need to wake the hell up and recognize that injustice to any group, is an injustice to ALL groups.
I agree with Lee, and others from his generation who seek to be prophetic and speak truth to power. However, it's my belief that if MLK were alive, this issue would be the one to put his words back then to shame. I can't help but to think that the stigma attatched to homosexuality as perceived by the Black church is too tight a noose (pun intended) to break. There was a rally here in Memphis TN. a few months ago of Black preachers. W0ho under the influence of a Republican city councilman, protested legislation that would have protected members of the LGBT community from job discrimination. The measure was voted on and it did pass much to their dismay. Somehow I can't help but to think that unlike the garbage workers of the city back then who fought for equal pay, MLK may not have shown his face.
honestly, I think if Dr King were alive today , I'm not really sure how he would call this one. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman...however, I know in some countries, the man can have several wives. And while I believe marriage is man-woman based, I really do not care one way or another if gays are legally allowed to marry, have civil unions or whatever the hell they want to call it. I think our goverment has bigger fish to fry....and this ain't one of the fish, in my opinion.
US may have been founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but that linkage is not codified in our constitution and thus shouldn't be the basis of whether gay marriage is a right. I think the problem with marriage is that there is a dual meaning in our society - a legal/propert one and a religious one. The quicker we can separate that the clearer this issue will be and the sooner gay marriage (and straight marriage) can be properly characterized as part of the "pursuit of happiness" rather than be seen as an affront to anyone's personal religious beliefs. Miss California opining on whether her faith allows her to view gay marriages and straight marriages as equal should carry no more weight in our society and politics than her plan for world peace.
What would Martin Luther King do? Why not look to the words of the person who would know best? Quoting a passage from her late husband's writing, Coretta Scott King reaffirmed her stance on gay and lesbian rights Tuesday at a luncheon celebrating the 25 anniversary of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay rights organization. "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18. "For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.
For me, this entire topic is not an issue of beliefs, it is an issue of law. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, this issue of gay marriage is about the law, and what the law does and or should state in this regard. What people should be discussing is not how they feel about homosexuality, but whether specifically under the construct of law should it be legal or illegal. Not based on personal beliefs or feelings, but on the legal ramifications and judicial precedences involved in such. I mean hell, murder is a sin in the bible as well (a pretty bad one at that) but last time I checked murderers were still allowed to get married. So are theives and all other manner of "sinners". Why, because it isn't a moral issue, it is a LEGAL issue and that is how it should be viewed. Sadly it isn't.
here's part of an article from Melissa Harris Lacewell that may clear up the "What would King do" part: ----------------------------------- SCLC and Marriage Equality http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/451285/sclc_and_marriage_equality or http://tinyurl.com/nxqwrt The SCLC seems to also have forgotten the complexity of its history. They behave as though they don't remember that the architect of 1963 March on Washington was Bayard Rustin, an openly gay black man whose fierce pacifism and commitment to non-violence is the very basis of King's strategy. Without Rustin there is no March on Washington, no sustained nonviolent movement in the South, and therefore no 1964 Civil Rights Act and no 1965 Voting Rights Act. Bayard Rustin in all his gay, brilliant, brave, blackness is a cornerstone of the SCLC. Virulent opposition to marriage equality defames the memory of their own son. This is not only about empathy; it is about self-knowledge. LGBT communities and black communities are not separate constituencies. They are overlapping communities full of our own brothers, sisters, daughters, friends, preachers, and choir directors. To oppose equality of any kind for LGBT individuals is to oppose equality for black people. They are us, we are them. Empathy reminds us of that basic truth. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail to express his grave disappointment in his fellow clergy because they failed to support the struggle for equal rights and human dignity. But even King failed in the issue of fairness and equality for gay men and lesbians. King ultimately caved to the anti-gay impulse of his day and distanced himself from Rustin; shunning the man who'd trained and supported him. But the SCLC can do better than that today. They can finally fulfill King's demand for justice and bring to fruition the broadest vision of beloved community. ------------------------
OK, I finally got the chance to read the entire article. As I recall, Dr King never put out anything that contradicted the Bible. In fact he would quote scripture to back up his points. This quote from the article may give a clue to where he would have stood on gay marriage: "In the letter King quoted St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all" and explained the difference between just and unjust laws. "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." There are many places in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Can you point to passages that would defend gay marriage?
Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man will reap what he sows. God's Word will stand. You make your choice. The only things we created are things that we used created materials to make. I never saw a car create itself or a road make itself or a piano make itself or music write or play itself, yet observing this vast universe we can't "logically" get a grip that it was created and we were too. Therein lies the problem, we can't get a grip so there must not be one. Every society has laws to be governed and lived by. So does mankind. There is a penalty for breaking laws, if one does not know the law, whose fault is it? You still broke it. We do have a remedy, Jesus the Christ. All sin is sin and He paid for it All. One has to acknowledge that to receive the benefit. He is a Deliverer. Now if you don't think you need to be delivered. Do what you know.
Well what would MLK say? Would he slam the bible on the table and say no way, no gay? Or would he say at what point do we say a man is a man, he has to have the SAME rights as all men? It saddens me when I hear people use the lord to condemn a group of people as if the lord gave us the ability to take the lords place. We are not God! We have never been God! Can we please stop acting as if we are! Great perspective on this article!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: