The Trojan Horse for Advancing Homosexual Marriage
The Use of African-American Oppression to Further the Homosexual Cause Must Come to an End, by Gwen Richardson

The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving, a Black woman, and her husband, Richard, a White man, had married nine years earlier in the District of Columbia. However, upon moving to Virginia, the couple challenged the state's laws and wanted their marriage to be recognized as legal.

The Loving case has no similarity whatsoever to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality, since skin color is morally neutral. This was a marriage between a man and a woman and the key issue was that, because Blacks had been denied full citizenship rights for more than 300 years, including the right to vote, many laws had to be challenged or changed. Yet, the use of legal cases, laws and the legacy of African Americans is the Trojan horse gay activists and their supporters have used to promote their political agenda.

Nearly every historical example used by gay activists to demonstrate why gay marriage should be legalized is based upon African-American oppression. Blacks were forced to settle for "separate but equal" schools; therefore, two men should be able to marry each other. Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus; therefore, gay couples should be able to adopt children. Blacks were denied access to public accommodations; thus, we should take the unprecedented step of redefining marriage and mandating that a homosexual relationship is the equivalent of a traditional, nuclear family. One wonders what arguments gay activists would use if the legacy of Black oppression was not at their disposal.

The comparisons would be laughable if their promotion had not achieved some level of success. Yet, liberals and some moderates have bought into the idea that taking a moral position regarding homosexuality is tantamount to discrimination and that, if gay marriage is legalized nationwide, there will be no societal impact from such a radical shift in America's moral standards. And for anyone who claims there is no difference between the histories of Blacks and homosexuals, they need only reference the recent case in Philadelphia where a white woman falsely accused two black men of abducting her and her 9-year-old daughter. As in so many cases in the past, a generic black man was falsely accused of a crime so the real culprit could escape detection by the authorities.

How has the use of Black oppression as a foil for gay marriage gone unchallenged for so long? There are a number of reasons.

First, many Americans are either uninformed or in denial regarding the nearly 400-year history of brutality and degradation African-Americans have experienced. In public school textbooks, slavery is mentioned in a few brief paragraphs with very little detail, discussions of Reconstruction and Jim Crow are given short shrift, and present-day discrimination is virtually ignored.

Black History Month has been reduced to a recitation of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and a listing of the "first black" inventors and achievers. The truly ugly side of our nation's history as it relates to African Americans is simply unspoken. Certainly, the unique, horrific legacy of African Americans is too painful for some to recall and discuss, but to pretend that it is the equivalent of an individual aberrant sexual attraction is not only inaccurate, it is insulting.

Indeed, promoting homosexuality would certainly not have been part of our historic civil rights agenda since operating with a degree of unquestionable moral character was a major qualification for any leadership role in the movement. Although Rosa Parks is widely considered to be the mother of the Civil Rights Movement, she was not the first Black woman who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, city bus.

Another young Black woman, Claudette Colvin, was arrested before Parks. However, Parks had an unblemished reputation, a respectable trade as a seamstress and was secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. Colvin, conversely, was a pregnant high school student who had used profanity when she was arrested for disobeying bus segregation laws. Colvin was not considered to be of adequate moral character to be the national symbol of the Montgomery bus boycott.

Some gay activists point to Bayard Rustin, a gay African-American who was a little known, but important participant in the Civil Rights Movement, as evidence that Movement leaders had an interest in the gay cause. However, since Rustin was also a Communist, his presence was a constant cause of anxiety for Movement leaders, the majority of whom were pastors. Because of Rustin's dedication to civil rights, King and other Movement leaders chose to maintain Rustin's involvement, but there was always concern that his presence would completely derail the cause.

The use of Black oppression by gay activists has also gone unchallenged because, unfortunately, many of our African-American political leaders have been compromised. Public records from the Federal Election Commission indicate that 80 percent of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have received campaign contributions from the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC), the largest, best-financed and most powerful gay political action committee in America. Between the election cycles of 2000 and 2008, CBC members collectively received more than $430,000 in cash contributions from HRC. This money would not be donated if these politicians were not expected to support and advance the PAC's agenda. There is an old Jewish saying: "He who pays has the say."

In one bizarre instance, a Black Congressman attended a gathering of Black clergy in Virginia and asked that the ministers vote against a 2006 referendum that would ban gay marriage. The ministers were obviously stunned and offended and one of them asked the Congressman: "Do you go to the meetings of gay groups and ask them to support our agenda?" The Congressman sheepishly answered, "No," a clear indication of where his loyalties lay. Sadly, there is no comparable Black PAC to lobby for and protect the African-American community's interests and legacy.

Finally, many of the public faces of those opposing gay marriage are symbolically vulnerable to gay activists' charges of racism and bigotry. Most of the individuals who are taking a public stand against gay marriage are either white males or Christian conservatives. During the Civil Rights Movement, many Christian conservatives were opposed to equal rights for African Americans, a fact of which gay activists are keenly aware. Sensing this vulnerability, gay activists have cleverly used this as a way of neutralizing evangelical Christians when it comes to the issue of homosexuality being sanctioned by the government.

The goal of the Civil Rights Movement was to prick the moral consciousness of America. Local churches were the central meeting places and launching pads for most of the Movement's protest actions. Martin Luther King and its other leaders gave no thought to raising money to finance politicians' campaigns and influence their votes. They believed that media exposure of their non-violent protests -- and the contrasting violent response by their adversaries -- would be enough to persuade those who were sitting on the proverbial fence. The cruel irony is that, if gay rights advocates succeed in legalizing gay marriage, the same churches that gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement may be forced by the government to perform marriage ceremonies that are antithetical to Biblical and moral principles, or be penalized by having their tax exempt status revoked.

The history of African Americans is one that should be protected and preserved. One should not pimp this legacy for political gain, nor should parallels be drawn where none exist for an era that is simply unparalleled. Our ancestors, who made a determination to stay alive and endure unimaginable indignities so their offspring could perhaps see a better day, deserve that the memory of their sacrifice be honored.

Clearly, homosexuals have their own story to tell. Their history is one that could be compelling if presented on its merits. But the use of African-American oppression to further their cause must come to an end. To continue this practice is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful.

Gwen Richardson is an author and entrepreneur who resides in Houston, Texas.

NOTE: Permission is hereby granted for all U.S. domestic and international media outlets to print this commentary, in part or in its entirety, as long as credit is given to the above author.