To the Editor:
The new civil rights movement turns for help to the people who have been through it, and is met with scorn, pride, greed and self-righteous ranting.
Amiri Barksdale's Jan. 18 column ("Gays and the Civil Rights Movement," The Dartmouth) exemplifies that incredible but typical response.
Barksdale indignantly complains that the gay rights movement "dares to call itself the new civil rights movement." Its objectives are the same as the old: equal protection under the law for a persecuted minority. Yet Barksdale and others act as if the winning of rights by homosexuals will somehow rob them of their past victories; as if any linkage with homosexuals will taint the righteousness of the "old" civil rights movement.
Barksdale categorically asserts that "needless to say," discrimination against homosexuals does not exist. It needs to be said: Courts have taken a mother's child from her solely because she is a lesbian. Employers routinely fire people for being homosexual. The military discharges Congressional Medal of Honor winners because of sexual orientation alone. Landlords evict rent-paying tenants because of same-sex relationships. Texas towns refuse tax breaks to companies which "condone" same-sex partners. Discrimination is not a figment of the gay imagination.
He labels as "arrogant" that gays have analogized themselves as the "niggers of the 90's." I cannot fathom why he is so adamant in defending the inalienable right to be called names. When was the last time someone called you a nigger to your face, Mr. Barksdale? When was the last time a black man was beaten up because he was black? In 1994, it doesn't happen all that often. Hate crimes against gays are increasing. If you are even suspected of being gay you're going to be called "faggot" or worse. Here's some Ivy League men's room graffiti: "All Fags Must Die." Are you a fag, Mr. Barksdale? Are you a queer? In 1994, it's acceptable to call someone those names. Can anyone call you a nigger, Mr. Barksdale?
Homosexuals exist in every age group, economic class, sex, and ethnic minority. Somewhere there is a homosexual adolescent black who will commit suicide today rather than face a lifetime trying to justify his existence to his alleged brothers. What if your son turns out to be gay, Mr. Barksdale? He'll be a "self-pitying social outcast." Put him in the back of the bus. Better yet, disown him before he can become a blemish on the pride of your heritage.
The Constitution does not say anything about equal rights for gays. And before the Fifteenth Amendment, the same was true for blacks. That's why the new civil rights movement is necessary. That's why it exists.
Gays, like blacks and women before them, "Demand to be recognized by a system that for centuries had left them powerless, helpless victims," in Barksdale's own words. Why is the black community so vehemently opposed to helping with that struggle? Because homosexuality is "morally wrong"? No one's beliefs should dictate someone else's rights. Morality aside, if homosexuality is genetic, gays deserve the same status as people with genetically-determined skin color. If homosexuality is a choice, lesbians and gays deserve the same status as people who choose to be Jewish or Republican.
Black leaders zealously guard the respect of the civil rights movement from the gay movement. That zeal is misguided and wrong. Gay leaders hope not to steal their legitimacy, but to learn from their example. They desire not to "lay claim to the pain and suffering," but to use reason and history to propel their own struggle.
Barksdale contends that these "things" are "not meant to be topics of public discussion," that gays want "acceptance of things that are not meant to be." A few million people north and south of the Mason-Dixon line thought Rosa Parks was never meant to sit in the front of the bus, that the Woolworth's lunch crowd was never meant to be served, and that Dr. King was meant to be shot. Their conception of what was "meant to be" was obviously wrong. So is yours, Mr. Barksdale.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do many things behind closed doors that don't need to be talked about in public. But consensual sexual behavior is the smallest part of what's at stake. Two people who want to spend their lives together should be able to do so without being threatened, without jeopardizing their livelihoods, and without having to answer to someone else's beliefs. We do need to talk about gay rights publicly. Gays, as human beings, deserve equal protection under the law.
When gay civil rights finally emerge from behind the cloud of prejudice, ignorance, and fear that now shrouds them, perhaps Barksdale will see the folly of his misguided opinions.
Gays have a dream, too, Mr. Barksdale. They want to live their lives in peace. They thought you could help. I guess they were wrong.
KEN CARANGELO
