Anti-Gay (but not homophobic?)…

So, perusing my friends’ facebook pages while I should be working, I came across this reposted gem.

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?***

***Not that I should be terribly surprised that the UT Independent Collegian (the college paper at the University of Toledo, where I used to attend school and now will be part-time lecturing) is printing homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-working class, anti-any religion but Christian malarkey. This is the same Collegian that, a few years ago, had a 12-page anti-abortion insert courtesy of our local anti-abortion clinic aka Heartbeat of Toledo–you know, the place that allows you to “explore all of your options” as long as it doesn’t include abortion.

Anyways…….

If the overall argument of the piece was that he found the two men using the term “black” offensive (he chooses to identify differently, or whatever), or he felt that the two men were glossing over the importance and disgusting legacy or racism, or if he felt that the overall tone of their discussion indicated that they were racist…then discussing why he didn’t approve of this type of language would be an appropriate discussion to have. Or, if he was discussing how homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, classism, etc… are different forms of oppression, despite being interconnected, then o.k. I would probably get it as well.

But no, instead he is talking about some of the same-old divisive bullshit anyone familiar w/the struggle for LGBT rights has heard a million times: blacks (also, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, etc…) are opposed to gay marriage. This is problematic for two reasons: (1) it implies that all, or at least most POC are opposed to equal rights for LGBT persons, and (2) LGBT rights are not rights for POC generally.

To address the first point: While yes, POC are more likely to be opposed to gay marriage than whites–the majority of people who have voted against gay marriage initiatives are WHITE. Yes, white, since whites not only vote in higher percentages but comprise the numerical majority. It also overlooks how the contributions of gay POC (highlighted recently by Julian Bond in his speech at the Equality March where he referred to the LGBT movement as the “civil rights movement for the new millennium”) in the fight for LGBT equality. The myth of black homophobia has been rebutted here on feministing among other places, so obviously this guy isn’t up on his feminist blogs. Again, can’t say I am surprised.

With regards to the second point, being LGBT isn’t some form of “white disease.” Rather, it is a sexual preference, gender identity, sexual orientation that encompasses all people–regardless or age, ability status, race, class or myriad other factors. Homophobia is a black issue (an issue for people in general) because gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, intersex, transgender and questioning blacks are dually experiencing racism and homophobia. Likewise, the LGBT movement (the same should be said for the women’s movement, the disability rights movement, the anti-war movement and any movement that claims to push for social justice) needs to consider anti-racist actions and platforms as a necessary part of any equal rights and/or liberation paradigm. Not to get all old-school leftist, but “An injury to One” really, really, really, really is “an injury to all!”

Another point, and this is one that constantly comes up in the course of my teachings, is the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage. Of course, as a Marxist-feminist, I really do.not.give.a.fuck. whether or not something is constitutional–I base my decisions on something else entirely. However, the author says:

“I do believe in equal rights, but marriage Mr. Toth is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution. If u spent half the time researching your position instead of attacking me you would understand that. Homosexuals should receive equal rights because they are AMERICANS, not because they are gay. Until our Constitution addresses marriage, then it will forever be a state issue and will never be an “equal right.”

And then goes on to say:

“If 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states want to pass an Amendment to the Constitution allowing same sex marriage, I would oppose it, but it would make all state laws null and void. Until that day, same sex marriage will be confined to New England where it belongs (and Iowa too I guess).”

I am sorry homphobe “Mr. Carter” (since, I guess adding “Mr.” in front of someones name automatically makes it respectful even if what you are saying is pure asshattery)…you can not be in favor of EQUAL RIGHTS & be opposed to providing ALL PEOPLE EQUAL RIGHTS under the law with regards to marriage rights. No, the Constitution does not address marriage (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise), but does this somehow mean that because something is not in the U.S. Constitution it is automatically something that should not be extended to all individuals? Not to mention that laws are constantly changing and evolving based upon changing societal conditions and activism (such as all of the admendments to give anyone besides white, male property-owners any rights/recognition under U.S. law).

Earlier in the article, Carter stated:

“I will always contend that marriage should stay between a man and a woman. There is a stark contrast between discrimination and protection of sacred values and traditions…”

Yes I guess there is–the “sacred tradition” of denying people rights because you think two dudes kissing is icky unconstitutional. Get over it.

Further, he gets into the whole “children need a mother and a father, two parent household” anti-feminist mumbojumbo. As someone who is obviously positing himself (in both the article and the comments) as some sort of “legal scholar,” he should know that marriage is also a civil, legal institution that is in no way connected with any given religious institution. Hence, why heterosexual marriages that are non-denominational and/or performed at a courthouse w/out the approval of any religious institution are still legally recognized by the U.S. in ALL FIFTY STATES. Beyond irking me when people claim that somehow their knowledge of the law makes them the supreme voice of reason in all circumstances, this whole “marriage is only a religious institution” line is getting pretty old.

As if all of this anti-gay rhetoric wasn’t enough, Carter concludes his article in this way:

“The gay community has a potential ally in the Black community but they have to pursue that relationship in a compassionate and constructive way. The only way to win us over is to appeal to us as humans and citizens of this great country, and not as just African Americans.”

While the gay community does indeed have an ally in other oppressed communities–they certainly do not have an ally in Carter, who makes it clear that he will always oppose equal rights under the law for LGBT people.

Why is it that people are too afraid (or something I am not sure what) to call out homophobia like this when it happens? Being against gay marriage, or gay adoption, or gay teachers, or being “grossed out” by gay clubs, or denying transgender people the right to go into the restrooms of the other people in the gender in which they identify, or creating “womyn-born-womyn only” spaces (yep, Michigan I am totes talking to you!) means you are homophobic, transphobic, and against equal rights. PERIOD.

I can’t wait to get back to this glorious institution to teach in the fall.

cross-posted at my blog.

Disclaimer: This post was written by a Feministing Community user and does not necessarily reflect the views of any Feministing columnist, editor, or executive director.

Join the Conversation