Everyone please read all the way through and read the disclaimer at the end before pouncing.  My goal here is to defuse anger and bitterness, not stir them up. 

I'm still too grieved over Harry Kalas to write about baseball (it took two glasses of wine to write "Part the Sixth," and "Part the Seventh" is very special), so instead I'm wading into hugely emotional, politically charged, controversial waters.  No one said literature scholars were particularly logical. 

It is, however, a pair of logical inconsistencies in the public discussion of homosexuality and gay marriage that I wish to address, one from each side (broadly conceived) of the debate.    In both cases, these inconsistencies weaken the arguments of which they are part (hey, I'm a composition teacher!) and also stir up a lot of unnecessary anger that solves nothing.  As then First Lady Hillary Clinton once said (and if I'm quoting Hillary Clinton favorably, look out the window for flying pigs, but this is the spirit of unity I'm after in this post): "We must reach across the lines that divide us not with pointing fingers, but with outstretched hands."

1.  On the one side, there are "Christian" groups painting homosexuality as somehow worse than other sins. 

2.  On the other side, there is the oft-repeated formulation, "Just substitute 'black' for 'gay' or 'interracial marriage' for 'same sex marriage' and you'll see how this is exactly the same as things that went on during the Civil Rights movement."

Before I go any further with this--because I am not writing out of anger, ill will, or the desire to stir up hurt--the disclosure portion of the program.  I'm a Christian (mainline Protestant), so I do believe the passage in Corinthians that instructs us " ⁹Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:9-11). 

Logical Inconsistency Number 1: The Christian groups that try to paint homosexuality as an unforgiveable thing are ignoring, oh, 90 percent of this and other teachings on forgiveness.  The point, as I understand it, is not to point fingers at "the gays" and say "Bad bad bad!" but the point is that all humans do things that God does not like, and yet all remain eligible for His love and forgiveness, and all ought to be treated and treat one another with the respect and love due God's creation.  I may be heterosexual, but I've committed at least four of the sins in that little passage alone, and twelve other sins I can think of just today . . . that is the point.  Pointing fingers at others and trying to judge them?  That would be one more sin on the pile.  So I devoutly wish that "Christian" protest groups would realize that public judgment of other sinners (read, "others who belong to the group all humans") is a sin in itself and act with love, not shame.

Politically, I'm a friendly, cuddly Republican, so while I would not expect to see religiously consecrated same-sex marriages, I'm fully in favor of civil unions or whatever term a state chooses, with all the same legal rights for partners that husbands and wives enjoy.  I do agree that the term "marriage" shouldn't be changed or extended in definition, not because I'm some sort of paranoid homophobe, but because a same-sex union is factually different from a heterosexual union.  If both are going to be legally recognized, call them something different.  One of the slippery slope (sorry!  writing teacher!) arguments that gets tossed around is "legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy!"  There again, while I do not personally believe in it, if states want to legalize polygamous unions among consenting adults, more power to them; I'd again want them to have a specific name. 

Short version: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), and in my ideal world, every consenting adult has the legal right to whatever relationship he or she chooses, all clearly labelled in and protected by the law--apples are apples; oranges are oranges; bananas are bananas--everyone's legally equal, and everyone knows what's what.  As the great Florence King once wrote, "I don't care what people do to each other, but I care deeply what they do to the English language."

Logical Inconsistency #2: The other bromide that bothers me as both a writing teacher and a human being is the simple equation that's all too often made between racism and homophobia.  Yes, prejudice is prejudice, and all of it is wrong--see above.  However, it is not all the same, and people's experiences receiving or avoiding prejudice are not all the same.  [Looks around for pitchforks and torches] When it comes to dealing with prejudice day in, day out, homosexual persons have choices that members of racial minorities do not have.

 I use the loaded word "choice" very much on purpose.  Think of the very term "coming out of the closet," which implies something that's been able to be  hidden and has been deliberately revealed.  One of my dearest, closest friends was closeted all throughout college.  He dated women, was presumed by all and sundry to be heterosexual (though I always kind of knew, and when he came out to me, doing so very nervously and with a lot of hesitation because of the kind of nasty "Christians" who'd given him reason to fear my reaction, I yelled at him, "Is that all?  You think I didn't know?  You think I mind?  You had me scared that you were actually dying or something with all your nerves; don't ever scare me that way again!"), didn't get called awful homophobic names, didn't get stared at by proprietors of businesses in our little college town, got a great job right out of school, and generally enjoyed all the conscious and unconscious privileges our culture grants to straight white men.  When he chose to come out, pursue a lifelong relationship with a male partner, and participate in specifically homosexual groups and activities (political activism, socializing at gay bars, et al), he chose fully and freely, as an adult, that any risks were outweighed, for him, by benefits of how he would live.  Even to this day, though, if he wants to or if he needs to, he can go somewhere without his partner, even someplace as simple as the grocery store, and enjoy all the privileges our culture consciously and unconsciously would assign to a presumed straight white man.

 Some folks here on OS have written about their own experiences in the closet, sometimes by choice in protection of family/self or livelihood.  Various professional athletes (Esera Tuaola, Billy Beane) and celebrities (Richard Chamberlain, George Takei) come out late in their careers or after retirement and say things like, "I knew it wasn't safe before."  They had choices, and those choices let them avoid inconveniences or even real dangers associated with prejudice.

I know, however, plenty of other people who have never in their lives had a choice about dealing with prejudice.  My best friend of 22 years was born in Bangladesh but has spent pretty much her entire life in the US.  Shortly after 9/11, her parents' car was vandalized in their driveway at night.  When I expressed concern, wondered if they knew who did it, et al., she said, resigned, "Hey, we're the only brown family in the neighborhood."  She can't put her skin in the closet.

Another friend (this story is actually funny in a sad, people-are-dumb sort of way) is of German and Thai descent, and thus happens to have olive-y skin and black hair.  She's been told on one memorable occasion, "You damn Mexicans are ruining the country."  She can't put her skin (or other people's dumb assumptions) in the closet.

Now to the heart of it, the first man I ever considered marrying ("The First," of my "Opposite of Seven-Year Itch" post).  He's an African-American man who also happens to be very large and coach football for a living.  We both lived in the South when we met; one time he returned from visiting an African-American male friend in another Southern city and commented, "He gets treated like dirt.  I guess people leave me alone because they're scared of me."  Even my "scary" friend, however, has gotten his fair share of tickets for Driving While Black, gets dragged into a lot of professional duties for diversity reporting reasons (my cynical/supportive response is always, "Buddy, take it and build your resume!"), has complained of his current home town "I am the only black person here," and seven years ago said something to me that echoes like it was yesterday every time I get upset upon hearing the "homophobia=racism" trope. 

There had been an item in the news about a group of young black men in the nearest large city who ended up getting arrested for vandalism (or something else relatively unserious and youthful) during an African-American fraternity event.  He relayed the news to me, paused, and then said, "I hate it when stuff like this happens.  It does not reflect well."  I was stopped cold.  He was a gainfully employed, bill paying, all around nice guy young professional, but he knew that in some twisted way his life could be affected by some total strangers who happened to have the same color skin doing something dumb as kids.  I've never in my life had to give it a second thought when a young white woman with a WASPy name commits a crime.   He can't put his skin in the closet.

I understand that the point (one of them, anyway) of comparing gay rights struggles to 2oth century Civil Rights struggles is to build solidarity among oppressed groups--Langston Hughes did this beautifully across racial and ethnic groups in "I, Too" and "Let America Be America Again."  Because we can all choose what we tell the world about our sexuality but can't choose whether or not the world sees our race, I always fear that equating homophobia and racism somehow devalues or misrepresents the struggles of racial minorities, historically and today.

The problem, as I hope I've illustrated, is that (the classic Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live sketch aside) for most people, most of the time, there is no "ethnic closet."  From the moment we're born, we can't leave the house without carrying with us all the privileges, prejudices, and external assumptions associated with our genders and ethnicities. 

I walk out my door, and it's obvious to all that I'm a white woman.  As for the fact that I'm also Republican, Christian, and heterosexual--those are details I can reveal or not at will.  My friend from earlier in the post walks out the door and is clearly a white man; no one knows until he tells them that he's also homosexual and a Democrat.  My best friend walks out the door and can't but deal with the cultural realities of being a South Asian American woman; The First walks out the door and can't but deal with the cultural realities of being an African-American man.

 This post is long enough, and I'm sure controversial enough, though I hope never ever unkind, and I still don't have any answers.  What I keep coming back to, though, is that while one may not have a choice about sexual orientation, one does have a choice about whether, when, and with whom to share information about one's sexuality.  One definitely has no choice about one's skin color, and one has no choice about sharing that information with the world. 

Everyone, please, comment all you like.  Debate, disagree, tell me I'm wrong.  Monte, if you're here, poke holes in my amateur theology.  One more Bible verse before I put away the soapbox--I do ask that, if a debate unfolds here, we debate and discuss with respect for one another's different views and experiences and with the understanding that "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1).  That to me is what so much of this issue is about--words used harshly, words used imprecisely, words used to fight with instead of talk to one another.