The Bigotry Of God

Earlier this week California became the second state to sanction same sex marriages, preceded only by Massachusetts. Unlike Massachusetts, California does not require any proof of residency. All are welcome. On Monday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was instrumental in initiating a series of legal challenges that led to the state’s high court to strike down California’s one man one woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of eighty seven year old Del Martin and eighty three year old Phyllis Lyon. Ms. Martin and Ms. Lyon are activists in the pursuit of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Thousands of people gathered to protest the same sex unions. Placards were waived above the crowd of same sex opponents saying such things as same sex is a sin, give your life to Jesus, homo sex is a sin, and we don’t hate homos, god hates sin. People protested under the impression that their spiritual beliefs show beyond a doubt that god is a bigot that does not tolerate homosexuality and therefore, they are required to be bigots for god.
I was listening to a discussion about this topic on a radio talk show when a black man called in saying that he believed homosexuality to be a personal choice and that the whole matter could be resolved if people would just make the choice not to be gay. I’ve heard other over simplifications of the infinitely diverse human nature. While some people may make a choice to experiment with homosexuality others may have such a strong attraction to their own sex where the opposite sex is just not an option in their personal pursuit of happiness. The infinite diversity of human nature manifest itself again with people who are much more tolerant of our homosexual brothers and sisters compared to people whose bigotry is so strong that they claim it is a manifestation of the Supreme Being’s bigotry. However, I believe that god did not make bigots in his own image.
My own little niche along the intolerance landscape leaves me disappointed with black people who make the choice to judge others as unworthy of the same considerations and benefits that most enjoy. It bothers me when black people say that homosexuals, whether it is by choice or an undeniable fact of personal circumstance, do not deserve the right to have their love and commitment to each other recognized by the state.
It wasn’t all that long ago that black people were deemed unworthy of many rights that we take for granted. The dominant majority felt that black people were not entitled to be recognized as human or as fully human. It was law that black people were only worth three fifths of a white person. It was law that black people were not entitled to vote, to receive an education, or to receive a fair wage. A lot of people even used the bible to justify their racism. The dominant majority would say that black people were the progeny of the devil here on Earth. God was a racist and therefore all the racial disparity we manifest towards each other was justified.
But we now know that such race based hatred is nothing that is inspired by anything heavenly. Indeed, racial prejudices are more likely to spawn from hell. Any time we use the inherent differences in our appearance and behavior to justify the subjugation of people who are of no real threat to us or a threat to our society in general we display we are guilty of the type of behavior that brings hellish conditions to people here on Earth. Might as well give some people pitch forks so that they can torment others.
If the ancestor many of us refer to as Jesus the Christ taught people anything it is that none of us should consider ourselves so righteous that we are entitled by god to judge others. When the people were ready to stone the adulterous woman in the Christian bible book of John 8:7, Jesus said that whoever is without sin cast the first stone at the woman. Matthew 7:1 says judge not lest ye be judged. God himself says that vengeance is his in Deuteronomy 32:35. A lot of people who claim to follow the words of Jesus to the letter appear to pick and choose which letters warrant following.
The successes of the gay and lesbian community to have their unions recognized may be short lived. The people in California will be voting to have a law passed where the state will strictly limit marriage as the union between a man and a woman. So much for the separation of church and state. If laws were just a matter of what the majority of people wanted then laws that keep black people subjugated and considered to be little more than white people’s property would still be on the books. But just like people laws can be unjust. Just because it is written in a court house somewhere doesn’t make it right.
A person making the choice to discriminate against others bothers me. However, it bothers me to the point of sadness to see black people join the bandwagon to deny somebody rights just because of the way we have been conditioned to feel about those who are different from us. So many of our ancestors had to fight and work so hard against blatant racial subjugation. And now, for some reason that only maybe god knows, so many of us feel entitled to don another form of discrimination, a discrimination based on gender, simply because it goes against our personal sense of reasonable sensibilities.
Gays and lesbians are getting married in California. From all of the pictures that I have seen, they appear to be genuinely happy. After years of denial these people are being given an opportunity to fulfill a dream that is important to them. They are not actually doing anything to offend anyone. As a contrast to this harmony there were tons of people outside the courthouse or city hall protesting and wearing their hatred on their sleeves.
I remember seeing pictures of white people back in the fifties protesting to keep black people subjugated. Young black men and women trying to do nothing but go to school had to walk a gauntlet of white people anxious to demonstrate their racial hatred and protesting the impending change. Laws were passed to keep black people from invading the white community’s environment. Those laws were deemed unconstitutional by experts of legalese with the courage to stand against the desires of the majority and say that their blatant desire to subjugate people who were different was wrong. Now that some black people feel that the black community has arrived, they can drop the torch of continuing to fight for true equality and instead participate in the subjugation of the homosexual community.
These days, instead of employing scholars of law with an all encompassing sense of community, we as a people look for others who share our biases to make law, interpret law, and to execute the law. If we elect the politicians that share our prejudices and who in turn wants to appoint the judges that share our prejudices we have a much better chance at keeping our prejudices alive and legal. Don’t want affirmative action to be a national policy? Then hire judges that feel the same way. Now, judges are more apt to interpret the law so narrowly as to make affirmative action totally useless as a tool against institutionalized racism. Our courts are more apt to recognize reverse discrimination before recognizing any racial discrimination.
Some people now advocate a constitutional amendment that defines marriage strictly as the union between a man and a woman and will reserve the civil union for gay and lesbian couples in a repeat of the condition of totally separate and not even close to being equal and black people want to get in on the ground floor of this opportunity to cultivate this form of discrimination.
Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry. And if the black community wants people to stop subjugating us we should not be participating in the subjugation of others. As Luke 6:31 sayd, do unto others as you would have done to you.


No one should compare homosexuality (a deviant inner conflict and addiction and slavery to their own sexual lusts) to a race of people. One has nothing to do with another. Dr. King would agree, I’m sure, that homosexuality, like other vices, is a sin.
Thanks for the feedback josephudo,
No one should be using anything to exclude anyone from the things that the dominant community feels entitled to simply because it goes against the orthodox. There was a time when the majority of people felt that being black was a deviation from normal human appearance. The only difference is the one that allows people to discriminate. It is a very appropriate anaolgy.
As far as how Doctor King felt about the subject I don’t pretend to know and do not feel inclined to speak on his behalf. However, I will say that if you are correct and Doctor King would agree with your presumption that we should be discriminating against our gay and lesbian communities, I would be seriously disappointed in his bigotry as well. Doctor King was human and therefore not above making mistakes.
Peace
As a Muslim my beliefs are far from what you expressed about homosexuality being no big deal. You refer to African traditions a lot, please inform us of the Ancient Black Civilizations where this practice was widely accepted.If one believes that God condemns this behavior, that is a matter of faith.If your son preferred sex with men would you be happy with that decision.
Does the faith you follow have any moral laws and regulations? Can one read about it or is it left to the individual practitioner
Thanks for the feedback IBN ABDUL HAQQ,
Many of the African spiritualities were handed down from one generation to another. The edicts of these traditions were not written down to be passed along. They were handed down verbally. The new generation would learn to recite the stories and the ancestry from the previous generation of people. Yoruba tradition is centered pretty much in Ile Ife, Nigeria.
However, it should be noted that I do not speak for all people in my belief system. Like most religions and spirtual belief systems, there are those who feel that laws against homosexuality are justified. What I write is based on my own personal interpretation of god and god’s relationship with people.
It is my belief that if someone believes that god condemns homosexual behavior then someone more than likely believes that god will handle people who participate in homosexuality when the time comes. Unlike moral laws that are designed to prevent crimes against others such as thou shall not steal, kill, slander, and such that tries to prevent people from inflicting their will at the expense of others, a law that condemns homosexuality is trying to condemn a behavior that is between two people who are consenting.
If my son grew up to be a homosexual I would be severely disappointed. But he will still be my son and I would still love him just as tremendously as I do now. I have a brother who is a homosexual and I love him just as much as I love my brothers who are heterosexual. I don’t like the fact that man and women cheat on each other. Does that mean we need laws to keep cheaters from dating or from getting married?
Peace
Thank you brother for your reply, I enjoy many of your post and pass them on.We can disagree without being disagreeable.
To me, to encourage homosexuality is part of the bigger plan of Black Eugenics. Please also inform your readers about Sister Harriet Washington’s book Medical Apartheid.
IBN ABDUL HAQQ,
No one here is encouraging anyone to be a homosexual. But what I am encouraging is people to be a little more tolerant of people who are different. A law banning same sex marriages, a law preventing two consentual adults from having their relationship recognized by the state which, according to the United States Constitution is not to endorse any particular religious belief system, is not constitutional. I do not believe that homosexuality is a product of the black community or is part of the bigger plan for Black Eugenics. Homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon in animal behavior. It may be a deviation from what is considered orthodox but it is not “deviant”.
Peace
There’s a lot of complexity here, and that complexity is going to hurt the court systems of states that pass the “one man, one woman” type of marriage statute.
How does one define female or male? Typically, we go by phenotype (outward appearance), but genetics isn’t so simple, especially when considering the rare (but not as rare as you might think) cases of intersexed persons.
For example, someone who has a androgen insensitivity syndrome can be genetically male and phenotypically ultrafemme, but have hidden testes and will typically not know they’re male. Does this person count as male or female? How about if they got married, wanted kids, then found out that they weren’t female after years of marriage? How about if they lived their whole life as female, and only found out during the autopsy, thus putting their husband’s status as a husband at risk?
There’s also people who are legally one sex, and are in transition, and thus may be legally one sex, but phenotypically the other — or a mix. Do they count as male or female? How about if they’re still biologically able to reproduce as the sex they’re transitioning from?
I support gay marriage. I support commitment in all its forms. True, not all Ifa groups are tolerant of that. (Mine, Ile Orunmila Oshun, is notably tolerant and has many gay and lesbian members.)
Even if I didn’t support it, there’s no easy way to prevent gay marriage, depending on how one defines male or female.
Thanks for the feedback Deirdre Saoirse Moen,
You’ve made a couple of very good points! What will be the definition of male and female? I’m not even close to being a lawyer and I can only trust that the people who script this law will try to cover each and every angle. But the complexity of nature goes far beyond what even the most brilliant lawyer could ever hope to comprehend. Human nature is infinitely diverse.
And as you say, the homosexual has, is, and always will make their commitments to each other. We should not be in the business of trying to stop two people who want to share their lives together in a way that the majority of people take for granted so much that they divorce and cheat at the drop of a hat.
Peace
In typical proposed laws, there are no specific guidelines for male and female, which means that judges need to decide.
Here’s the official proposal that’ll be on California’s ballot in November:
4. What would the Protect Marriage constitutional amendment do?
Answer: If passed, the Protect Marriage Amendment would add new language to the state constitution:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”
That’s it! So there will be more complexity in the courts than there has been in the past, because people who have been married (because they believed they were husband and wife) may suddenly have their marriage rendered invalid by this consititutional amendment.
In the past, where someone has been discovered to be intersexed after the date of marriage, the marriage has stood (in California). As an example, if a couple stays married through transsexual transition, they are still married in California at present. However, the proposed law would apparently change that.
As far as complexity of nature goes, I sometimes think Baba Esu (often shown with a penis and breasts) is just funnin’ with us on this issue to help us grow.
josephudo, I have the right to love. I’m not a ’slave’ to anything, nor am I conflicted. I have the right to love.
Thanks for the feedback Anonymous,
You have the same right as everyone else not to be subjugated because you may be different.
Peace
The balls of people to use GOD to try to put other people down… Isn’t lying a sin… The Bible says no sins is greater than the other. Sin is Sin. I am not the religious type, because it causes us to kill and hurt each other. I think it does good also but I think we as people do good with or without religion.
i think it’s sick for a person that practices religion to look down on other people cuz they are different. Like you quoted “whoever is without sin cast the first stone” He also said to take the log out of your eye before you go trying to take the splinter out of the next persons eye”.
What gall to think you are so close to GOD that you know what he really wants and his intentions are.
Let them get married! So sick of these non issues.
Another thing that burns my hide is the whole seperation of church and state…. what happened?
Thanks for the feedback Damien,
Religion is not the problem. People want to take religion and twist it around to fit their personal prejudices.
Peace
While I don’t believe that God would want people to be gay, I do believe that if they want to be recognized as life long partners with all of the benefits thereof, then bravo. To be able to leave your worldly possessions to someone of your choosing by right of marriage and to be able to also share medical benefits, etc. is a good thing for those who have chosen that lifestyle.
However, to be a true marriage under God, you must be a male and a female as the Bible states. A man to his wife. And yes, the Bible does mention homosexuality. And not in a “let them eat cake” sense.
I have a sister who is lesbian and I love her still. I don’t feel that what she is doing is right, but it is not my place to judge her. That is God’s place. And when the time comes, those who sinned will face judgement for those sins. We all sin, no matter what form. None of us are without sin. The liar and the cheat and the adulterer are just as much in sin as the homosexual. But again, we are not to judge. It is not our place.
Thanks for the feedback Jacquelyn,
But regardless of what the bible says I don’t believe god thinks homosexuality is any more of a sin than adultery or sex before marriage. As far as homosexuals eating cake, I think you meant “let them eat beefcake”! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Peace
Okay, while I now know that you have the ability to repeat what I said, let it be known that you said exactly what I said previously and we are in agreement. LOL
And I guess the lesbian version is “let them eat Little Debbie cakes.”