Consider this picture carefully.  In the background, a woman weeps.  In the foreground, a solemn-faced woman holds up the Holy Bible.  Are these people standing up for civil rights?  Quite the contrary; they are protesting gay marriage.

The issues of  gay rights and gay marriage have polarized the old civil rights coalition.  Many of the white progressives who marched for racial equality as young people have recently diverted their energies into the fight for sexual justice.

Meanwhile, many of the black pastors who once issued a prophetic call for racial righteousness are making opposition to gay marriage the central focus of their preaching.

The rest of us are trying to change the subject.

Most Americans are deeply conflicted by gay marriage.  Most of us were raised to think of same sex intimacy as something too shameful to mention in polite company.  But in recent years we have been hearing from gay men and women who tell us they didn’t choose their sexual orientation, they can’t change it, and they want their humanity respected.

The strong opposition to gay marriage is much like support for the war on drugs or resistanced to criminal justice reform.  We want to live like the angels.  We want America to be a city set upon a hill, a holy nation in which people grow up, get married, and get a steady job so they can support their families.  Therefore, we are against gay sex, extra marital sex, intoxication, drug abuse, divorce, abortion, welfare, and all that falls short of what we consider the ideal.  To settle for anything less is to give up on the dream–a deal with the devil.  When people depart from our ideal vision we tell them to stop it.  Just say no.

This explains why the woman in the picture is holding up the Bible, a symbol of everything good and true and wholesome.

The champions of a holy America are currently depending on the widespread popularity of their viewpoint.  So long as a strong majority agrees with the traditional position you don’t have to argue for your position.  But when issues like gay marriage, the war on drugs and mass incarceration are debated openly the city-on-a-hill folk get clobbered every time.  The war on drugs is an attempt to repeal the law of supply and demand.  No matter how much money you invest in the project you are going to fail.  Mass incarceration makes us all less safe.  And you can’t argue with biology.  No matter what the Bible says or what we believe to be “the better way” a certain percentage of the population doesn’t fit the heterosexual mold.  Some men are drawn to men; some women are attracted to women.  It’s a fundamental law of nature.

Gay men and women are American citizens and must therefore benefit from all the constitutional protections enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If two women want to get married and form a family with two mommies and no daddy they are going to do it.  The only way to stop them is to deny the principles on which our nation was founded.

Folks opposed to “the gay lifestyle” should be free to believe and preach whatever they want, but the separation of church and state means, among other things, that public policy should not be shaped by biblical mandate.  Some make convincing arguments for gay marriage on the basis of Scripture.  Politically, these arguments are equally beside the point.  Churches shouldn’t be forced to marry gay people if they don’t want to; but the state must grant to gay Americans all the rights and priviliges granted to straight Americans.  It’s the only way we can continue to be who we are.

Once the issues are on the table it’s all over. 

In 1962, southerners were still standing foursquare for segregation; a short decade later few politicians would dare to take a public stand for state-sanctioned inequality.  Policies could still be racist in intention and effect but no one could admit as much.

So it is with the gay marriage debate.  The moment it begins in earnest it will be over.  It is very close to beginning in earnest.

This explains why it is so difficult to arrange a public conversation on issues like gay marriage, the war on drugs, or mass incarceration: everybody knows who the winners would be so we stifle debate in the interest of social stability.

Bring up any of these hot potatoes in a mainstream organization like a church or the Rotary and all hell breaks loose.  When I tell mainstream pastors that I would like to speak to their parishioners about criminal justice reform I can see the fear in their eyes.  They don’t want to debate the issue with me; they just want me to go away.  They may even agree with me, or fear that they would if they give the matter much thought.  So they choose to forecloswe on open debate.  If the can appears to contain worms it will not be opened.

It is sad to see people who have sacrificed so much to the cause of civil rights denying civil rights to others.  The irony is obvious to everyone but the folks holding the Bibles.

Why are black Americans so opposed to gay rights?  Because it’s a subject that, until recently, was considered off limits.  But simply by protesting gay rights, black Christians elevate the issue and open themselves to contrary voices.  The righteousness of segregation was obvious to white southerners until somebody called it sin. 

So it will be with the gay rights debate.  As soon as the back-and-forth begins the outcome is foreordained.  Unless, that is, we decide to toss the principle of equality overboard.

This Washington Post article article talks about the recent decision of the Washington DC Council to recognize gay marriages solemnized in other states.  Only one person on the council opposed the measure: Marion Barry.  He has no personal beef with gay marriage–but his constituents do.  Barry, like most Americans, wants to go slow on this one.  But once the issue is raised to the level of open public debate you can’t go slow; you turn thumbs-up or thumbs-down.  That’s why so many churches and denominations are currently being rent assunder by the gay rights issue.

Uproar in D.C. as Same-Sex Marriage Gains

By Tim Craig

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The D.C. Council overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, in a vote that followed a sharp exchange between an openly gay member and a civil rights champion and set off shouts of reproach from local ministers.

The council passed the measure by a vote of 12 to 1. During the debate, council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) accused Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who cast the dissenting vote, of having taken a “bigoted” position.

After the vote, enraged African American ministers stormed the hallway outside the council chambers and vowed that they will work to oust the members who supported the bill, which was sponsored by Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). They caused such an uproar that security officers and D.C. police were called in to clear the hallway.

Yesterday’s action could be a precursor to a debate later this year over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the city. “There is no turning back,” said Catania, who plans to introduce a broader gay marriage bill in a few months.

Barry, who said he supports gay rights and civil unions, warned after the vote that the District could erupt if the council does not proceed slowly on same-sex marriage.

“All hell is going to break lose,” Barry said. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.”

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has said he will sign the bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The council’s action puts the matter before Congress, which under the Home Rule Charter has 30 days to review District legislation. The bill could present the House and Senate with their biggest test on the same-sex marriage issue since Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

At least one GOP member said yesterday that he will try to block the bill from becoming law.

“Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the ranking Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees the District. “It’s not something I can let go softly into the night. . . . I recognize the Democrats are in the majority, but I represent the majority of Americans on this issue.”

Several council members and gay rights advocates are hopeful that the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will be able to stop congressional intervention.

“I do not believe that a serious attempt to overturn the council bill will be made or will be successful,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who praised the council’s decision.

But the emotional debate that took place yesterday at the Wilson Building suggests that the issue could be divisive in a city with a long history of racial tension in politics.

Barry, a prominent figure during the civil rights movement, said that he “agonized” over whether to oppose the bill but that he decided to stand with the “ministers who stand on the moral compass of God.”

“I am representing my constituents,” said Barry, who later told reporters that “98 percent of my constituents are black, and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents.”

Civic activist Philip Pannell, who is openly gay and lives in Ward 8, called Barry’s remarks offensive. “He of all people, coming out of the civil rights movement, should understand the need to fight for the rights of all minorities to be protected,” Pannell said.

Catania and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) are the two openly gay members of the council, and Catania made it clear that he took offense at Barry’s stance.

“This issue is whether or not our colleagues, on a personal level, view me and Jim Graham as your equals,” Catania said, “if we are permitted the same rights and responsibilities and obligations as our colleagues. So this is personal. This is acknowledging our families as much as we acknowledge yours.”

Barry, visibly upset, fired back that he has been a supporter of gay rights since the 1970s.

“I understand this is personal to you and Mr. Graham. I understand because I have been discriminated against,” Barry said. “. . . I resent Mr. Catania saying either you are a bigot or against bigotry, as though this particular legislation represents all of that.”

Catania replied: “Your position is bigoted. I don’t think you are.”

The tenor of the debate was equally heated outside the council chamber.

“We need a new council. They are destroying our youth,” a same-sex marriage opponent, Paul Trantham of Southeast Washington, shouted in the hallway during the ruckus. “Every minister who fears God should be here. This is disrespectful to the nation’s capital. There is nothing equal about same-sex marriage.”

This week, more than 100 black ministers signed a letter to Fenty opposing the measure.

Council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) accused some of the black ministers of questioning her religious commitment and threatening to unseat council members who supported the bill. “The ministers have really upset me to a point they have questioned my Christianity, they have questioned my morality,” Alexander said.

The Archdiocese of Washington issued a statement criticizing yesterday’s vote as showing “a lack of understanding of the true meaning of marriage.”

Outside the Wilson Building, Steven Gorman of Crestwood in Northwest Washington stood quietly holding a “marriage equality” sign. “I’ve been out for 25 years, and I’ve been battling for 25 years,” said Gorman, who married his partner last summer in California. “This is not over, but we are winning.”

Staff writers Hamil R. Harris and Paul Kane contributed to this report.