Cross-posted from: http://www.tips-q.com/1620540-tackling-dummy-christians-are-new-negro
The rabidly anti-gay Ken Hutcherson, a former Seattle Seahawks linebacker, is pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Washington. I have speculated that “Hutch,” as he likes to be called, took too many hits while wearing an ill-fitting helmet. Hutch has now turned to the stimulating pages of WorldNetDaily in order to proclaim; Church: Stop being 'evangelly-fish.' The main theme of Hutch's polemic is that gays are hijacking the struggles of African-Americans:
It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil-rights issue. If that's the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I'm here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new “African-American” community. In fact, I think Christians are the new Negro – but that's an issue for a follow-up column.
In 2005, the Rev. Jesse Jackson stated that the fight of gays and lesbians wanting to marry should not be compared to the fight African-Americans faced for civil rights. The comparison of the plight of the gay community to slavery is a stretch; remember, gays were never called “three-fifths” human, according to the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to gain the same democratic rights as whites.
Actually, I think that Hutch is referring to Jesse Jackson's comments in February of 2004. That aside, Hutch is incapable of separating the social from the legal issues. Hutch is correct; the struggle of African-Americans for equality is not comparable to the struggle of GLBT citizens (including blacks) for equality. They are very different experiences. However, the only people who seem to be making that comparison are a few homophobic black ministers claiming that the comparison should not be made. If Hutch really wants this to be the “last time” that he claims that gay is not the new black, he simply needs to stop making that feigned comparison as an irrelevant argument to oppose marriage equality and the many other gay rights that he objects to.
Civil rights are, at least in part, protections and privileges that are sought in pursuit of equal protection under the law. For that reason, many black leaders, including Julian Bond — Chairman of the NAACP, have stated that gay rights are civil rights. Gays, at least those of white ancestry, are not the descendants of slaves. That is indisputable fact. It also seems indisputable that gays are denied certain civil rights including the rights to serve openly in the armed forces and the right to marry the person of their choice.
There is a perfectly valid legal comparison between the effort to have same-sex marriage recognized and the historical struggle for interracial marriage equality that resulted in the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. While it provides a compelling precedent, Loving does not serve as a comparison to slavery or any of the other countless injustices that African-Americans suffered.
Loving also provides a thematic comparison — one that should make Hutcherson deeply ashamed. In the original 1959 criminal case, the Lovings were prosecuted for miscegenation and pleaded guilty. The trial judge made a remarkable statement from the bench:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Mr. Hutcherson needs to come to terms with the fact that his homophobic religious-based bigotry is strikingly similar to the legal intolerance that was used to oppress black people. When he is not voicing his manufactured angst about gays co-opting the black struggle, Hutcherson can be found opposing such things as diversity education. Hutcherson has been quite liberal in falsely spreading “recruitment” and “indoctrination” fears. He has no problem putting air to the dog whistle that he knows people hear as “child molestation.” Much to our collective shame, there was a time in this country when that canine caller had a slightly different pitch. It promoted the fear that the black agenda was to rape helpless white women. The implications were disgraceful then and they are disgraceful now. When will Reverend Ken Hutcherson find his lost humanity?