NAACP vs. Gay Marriage: Do The Right Thing

[ruggerson]

by Raymond Leon Roker


If the NAACP wants to be a truly inclusive 21st century civil rights organization, it must settle its internal squabbles and officially support same sex marriage. In a year that sees the nation's first black president give a powerful speech on family and social values at the association's 100th anniversary while a Latina woman is about to ascend to the highest court in the land, would any other position make sense? As state after state pushes forward for marriage equality, why should the NAACP act like some backwater province of old ideologies? In an era where the very relevance of a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People seems to be in question, why not show it can -- and should -- still lead the social justice conversation?

On the encouraging side of things, NAACP national chair Julian Bond and president and CEO Benjamin Jealous both support same sex marriage. Opponents of marriage equality -- especially blacks -- should listen to Bond's detailed and powerful speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) earlier this year. In one of the most eloquent cases laid out against homophobia by a black leader (ahem, Mr. President) and in support of full social equality for gays, Bond said, "Black people, out of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage is." He went on to dismantle down to the biblical level the hypocrisy found in the black church. It's as clear a case as I've ever heard made against persistent intolerance towards gays.

In a recent CNN interview, the 30-something Jealous also responded to the gay marriage question, but was less vehement. He espoused his own support for marriage rights while at the same time acknowledging the internal battle over the matter. Jealous seemed to be more comfortable leaving the debate to NAACP stakeholders. Apparently there's even a GLBT Task Force lobbying from within for the NAACP to fully get on the bus for equality. Of course, all of this leaves me wondering why the issue needs to be left to consensus, when basic human rights are what's on the table. Isn't that just part of the group's charter?

As Jealous points out on CNN, choosing your battles is prudent in these turbulent times. The NAACP ranks are filled with well-intentioned, hard working Christians who simply don't believe that God would accept Adam and Andrew sharing a loft in West Hollywood. I get it. Religion and the church remain the muscle of the association and a divided NAACP isn't the desired outcome of any debate. But if the NAACP wants to thrive in the 21st century, it can't kowtow to exclusionary theology. Even in President Obama's entire electrifying speech, he mentions gay rights with the same emphasis as those of the communities the NAACP historically addresses.

FULL STORY

[defendandprotect]

1. K&R -- back later

[johnaries]

2. K&R