Jon Kennedy's 'Postcards from
Jonal entry 1078 | November 19 2008
Election analysts say that the California electorate's voting on November 4 to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman only, can be linked directly to the record turnout of black voters who rallied to support Barack Obama. This is ironic, as Obama specifically opposed the initiative and was quoted widely on that point in "No on Proposition 8" campaign ads. (Though he also went on recordin the final debate with John McCain, in factas opposing a redefinition of marriage to include unions within the same sex, he was simultaneously opposed to defining it in the traditonal sense in California's constitution.) The election analysts say that more than two thirds of black California voters69 percentsupported Proposition 8 to end gay marriage, and this wide margin was enough to pass the initiative by a 52-48 percent victory overall.
Though it may be lost on most liberals, blacks by a wide margin have long understood that "gay" does not define a minority, and only minorities whose identifying characteristics are apparent to all should receive special treatment in the laws. This includes especially the "special right" gays are now pushing to marry people who by nature are not "marriable" by any existing definition of "marriage" in world history. American society has already all but licensed sodomy, but the gay movement won't be satisfied with anything less than the license.
I don't think I've seen an argument by any columnist, pundit, or think tank theoretician, conservative or liberal, making this point"gay" must not be accepted as a definition of a legal "minority"but I've been raising it in articles since at least the early 1970s. Even then it was already apparent to anyone able to see what Jesus refers to as the weather forecast (see Matthew 16:2-3) that the gay movement would continue to gain ground and make demands like a right to be ordained to ministry in liberal churches. The gay movement in its infancy then, even though often denying that its members wanted to marry, was asking the public to see them as a minority deserving of special rights, like blacks, American Indians, Asians, and Hispanics.
But "gay" does not come with defining physical characteristics. Homosexuality is a matter of mental "wiring," and whether it actually exists in any particular individual is, when pushed to the bottom line, a matter of one person's opinion. The person wanting to proudly proclaim a sexual relationship with someone with the same kind of plumbing may, or may not, be a homosexual. Absent the finding of an as-yet-elusive "gay gene," there's no way to prove it. So how can it qualify a body of civil rights laws? And if people's opinions about themselves are sufficient to define a minority, why not special minority rights for conspiracy theorists, victims of alien abductions, and the sizeable "minority" who've died, started walking toward the light, and returned to tell the rest of us about it?
In the early 1970s I designed and taught courses on Movements and Minorities in the Mass Media and Movements and Minorities in the Movies. The gay movement (but not as a minority) was included in the course description and the classes benefitted homosexual participants by giving opportunities to analyze their movement's treatment in television, newspapers, magazines, and films. Christian students (another movement), blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Jewish students were similarly represented. I think there's no doubt that homosexuals have often been discriminated against, made to feel inferior, held to standards of behavior often ignored for the rest of the population, and scapegoated. But redefining marriage as anything other than the conjugal union or one man and one woman remedies none of that, and punishes the rest of the world for the sins of some, in some periods. The "social crimes" against homosexuals have already been addressed and remedied. Now they're trying to leverage their "pride" as a cudgel to beat the rest of us with.