It's a much discussed topic. And most people fall neatly into two camps: those who think that, obviously, the movement for homosexual rights is an integral (and unfulfilled) part of the Civil Rights movement, and those who think that it very clearly is not.
What of those who think that the quest for homosexual rights is not to be associated with the Civil Rights movement? I suspect that many who associate the Civil Rights movement with the pursuit of rights for members of certain ethnic groups are reluctant to include a class of people that they believe have chosen their lifestyle, rather than being "dealt their hand," so to speak, as African Americans have. Further, it seems that many feel (particularly African-Americans) that homosexuality is a sin, and are hesitant to include amongst themselves such people, (it was widely speculated that the overwhelming amount of support by the Black community in California for Prop 8 was due to religious beliefs.)
I'd like to address these issues, and present the case for why I think that the fight for homosexual rights is a part of the Civil Rights movement.*
Many seem to believe, as I mentioned before, that homosexuality is chosen, that it is a "lifestyle" choice. This seems to me incorrect. Who would willingly choose to be tormented, harassed, and bullied? Scientific studies have shown that homosexually may in fact be linked to genetics, and many gay individuals assert that they do not elect to be gay. I suspect, in fact, that many homosexuals choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, even though they are unhappy with it. If homosexuality is not (in most cases) chosen, then it is like one's ethnicity or gender, which individuals similarly do not choose. Homosexuals no more choose to be gay than blacks choose to be black, or disabled people choose to be crippled. As homosexuals are systematically discriminated against, for something they could not and did not choose, it seems as though homosexual rights to ought to be classed under Civil Rights.
It may be pointed out that as I have alluded in the previous paragraph, homosexuals can choose to hide their sexual orientation, something that African-Americans may not do, and that this fact accounts for why it should not be considered a part of the Civil Rights movement. This strikes me as an ill-conceived argument that shows a considerable misunderstanding of homosexuality and civil rights. Why should anyone elect to hide who and what they are for fear of persecution? I can think of African-Americans who could "pass." Consider the anecdote of the young women in the film "Imitation of Life," who in the movie very successfully did pass as white. The fact that she even had to resort to such behavior to live well is indicative of the failure of the American system to protect all individuals equally under the law. People should not have to "choose" to look and act and believe like other people to avoid discrimination. It is true, perhaps, that homosexuals could deny their inner instincts and live a heterosexual lifestyle. But just because people can "pass" and get away with it, doesn't mean that this should even be a viable option.
And consider what happens when people fail to conform to social norms. Look at the men of Morehouse who are being openly targeted for their desire to wear women's dress. Consider the routine discrimination suffered by members of the transgendered community. And more recently, consider the suicides of the teenagers and college-aged men and women, some of whom were not openly gay, but violated social norms for their gender. No one should be dictated to how to act. And choosing to go against this norm should not result in punishment or being ostracized. Yet it does. Just as choosing to adhere to black social norms yields discrimination in the work force (e.g., wearing dreads, braids, etc.).
Most importantly, let us consider the purpose and aims of the Civil Rights movement: it was about more than just equality under the law, it was also about the fundamental issues of freedom, respect, dignity, and economic and social equality.
Do homosexuals have freedom? Arguably, no. In many states homosexual couples are not permitted to adopt. They aren't free to dress the way they choose; to love who they choose; to live where they choose, (without the fear of persecution).
Are they respected? Do they have dignity? Again, no. In a day and age where children are bullied so badly that suicide seems like the only option, it is clear that the choices that individuals make for themselves are not respected, and that people are not treated with dignity.
Are they equal, socially and economically? Clearly the answer is no. Homosexuals are, in many states, still denied even the access to civil partnerships. I remember reading a story about a lesbian couple in Florida, one member of the partnership fell ill and was hospitalized and was comatose. Her partner was not permitted to come visit her in the hospital for some silly legal reason. If I remember correctly, the children they had together were unable to visit either. Many heterosexual couples wonder why it is so important for gay people to be able to get married. But consider the economic and legal benefits. Insurance, power of attorney, etcetera; nearly unattainable without marriage.
If the definition of the Civil Rights movement that I posted above is accurate, then in every way, the quest for homosexual rights is an integral part of the Civil Rights movement.
The only difference that I can see between the Civil Rights Movement as it pertains to African Americans and the fight that homosexuals are fighting now, is that the denial of rights to African Americans was far more direct. I don't think that the homosexual community will ever be subjects to attacks as direct as, for example, the Chicago race riots. (But then again, consider individual cases like Matthew Shepherd.) But that's because we have gotten better at discrimination, we're craftier now. What homosexuals endure is closet discrimination: it's discrimination that is hidden in word and action, that looks innocent and undirected (consider the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy." It doesn't prohibit homosexuals from serving in the army, it just strongly encourages all members not to disclose their sexual orientation). And that's in some ways worse; it's more difficult to attack. It's like fighting in the dark, or reaching out at an enemy that you can't see.
Civil rights do not belong just to blacks, or women, or children; they belong to all people, by virtue of the fact that we are people. I ask, now, what degree of suffering must a population endure in order for it to be considered a part of the Civil Rights movement? When did the idea of Civil Rights become so selfish, so short-sighted?
Let me close by saying this. No one, not anyone, no government or legal system, no President or Dictator, has ever possessed the ability to give someone rights. We have always had rights. They have always belonged to us, as African Americans, as women, as homosexuals. The most that any government can do is recognize those rights. The homosexual community is standing up and taking back what has been denied them, what was wrongfully refused them. And I applaud you all.
*Note that I may fundamentally misunderstand the debate and the reasons that people might have for not considering homosexual rights a part of the Civil Rights movement.
Link to Dan Savage's 'It Gets Better' YouTube Channel:
www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject
I could not agree with you more. This is why you're my wife. love you.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting about such an important topic :) These are exactly the tough questions that need to be asked today!
ReplyDeleteI think your argument would be stronger if you were to take a look at the specifics of the Civil Rights Acts, given that you're essentially making a legal argument. A lot of the specific titles really aren't applicable to this issue - you're more appealing to the spirit than the letter of the law. Perhaps instead you could argue that "sexual orientation" should be added to the list of protected classes - that was argued in the California Prop 8 trial though I don't think in his opinion he designated LGBT as such), and thus it would require any law singling out LGBT as requiring prima facie strict scrutiny. Judge Walker said clearly that Prop 8 would never meet such a standard. That would clear up a lot of problems, even though it the Civil Rights Act has nothing to say about marriage.
ReplyDelete