Black Pastor's Stand to Ban Gay-Marriage: What Up With That?

Now I’m being told I’m not a Christian. I’ve been called a heretic and a disgrace. Shucks, I’ve been called things that I can’t print on this page. I can deal with being ostracized by the good ole boys and girls club of the Christian elite, but questioning the faith I love so much is stepping on butt whip territory.

“They aren’t Christian if people support same-sex marriage,” Donald Fozard, pastor of Mt. Zion Christian Church in Durham, claimed during a press conference to show African American support for House Bill 777/Senate Bill 106 (the anti-gay marriage amendment). Other speakers at the press conference included Kevin Daniels of the Frederick Douglas Foundation of North Carolina, Patrick Wooden of Upper Room Church of God and Christ in Raleigh, NC and Johnny Hunter of Cliffdale Community Church in Fayetteville, NC.

Things got crazy when Rep. Marcus Brandon (D-Guillford) brought attention to a recent poll from Elon University that shows 61% of African American living in North Carolina oppose or strongly oppose an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Fozard repeatedly called Brandon a “liar.”

Fozard’s comments follow a pro-amendment press conference on August 30, held by Rep Paul “Skip” Stam (R-Wake) during which Stam compared same-gender relationships to polygamy, pedophilia and incest. Conservatives are hoping that this issue will forge a relationship with African American voters that will severe the tight grip between African Americans and Democrats.

The strategy is a simple one. There is only one thing that goes deeper than black folk’s allegiance to the Democratic Party, and that is their faith. The religious conservatism of African Americans has long been divergent from the progressive political agenda of those who attend those churches. The rise of the mega-church movement can be, in part, linked to a union between a conservative evangelical political agenda and the charismatic worship experience of the African American faith tradition.

Fozard’s comments should surprise no one. His conservative theological agenda is instructive in gauging the radical departure the Black Church has taken in leading the charge in constructing a progressive theological agenda. One need only consider an article that appeared in the Independent Weekly on March 3, 2004.

"Faggots across the nation, heading churches. Homos on the pianos. Faggots in the choir. What kind of spirit is leading that church?" The Independent Weekly quoted him as he preached to 150 people after watching “The Passion”. “And now? Men with men, women with women? Let me remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah, That sin will bring fire from heaven. I tell the homosexual man: repent, turn and get a woman. I tell the woman who wants to get married: get yourself a man."

He then defines the difference between a true believer and those who play games with God. "The Reverend Al Sharpton says it doesn't matter who you sleep with?" he says. "I'll tell you one thing: the Reverend ain't no Reverend. All of them are running around saying it doesn't matter who you sleep with! They want that little 1 percent of faggots that go to vote."

Could this be our generation’s version of the Reconquist and the Crusades? The war of words hurled by African American evangelical Christians is one that forces a definition related to what it means to be a Christian. It is one thing to discuss and ponder the significance of these matters politically, but it is quite another when a person is questioned due to the position they take. One can be a Republican or Democrat and a Christian at the same time. But, according to Fozard and his cohorts, you can’t be a Christian if you support gay-marriage.

It’s troubling when people have an obsession with forcing others to think the way they do. The last I checked that’s why we have a Constitution in this country. It has something to do with protecting the rights, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all who call America home. I suppose, for some, those who decide to love a person of the same sex aren’t people. They shouldn’t be given rights because they forfeit being created in the image of God due to a decision they make. That’s what some Christians will tell you.

The last I checked, the Constitution is about protecting rights, not taking them away. It’s about shielding those who are different. Not all of us are Christians. Many cling to no faith claim. Does that make them less American, or, as Fozard would have you think, less of a person. I think not. America is a nation of free expression. We have the right to follow happiness in the way that speaks to our unique personalities.

Sorry Mr. Fozard. I am a heterosexual black man. I was born in Missouri. I am an American. I support the rights of those who love a person of the same gender. I believe in their right to get married if they desire living within a committed relationship that will be sanctioned legally. I will stand with them in that struggle. I do so not because I am gay, but because I am a Christian.

That may sound strange to those who claim you can’t be a Christian if you support gay rights, but, for me, you can’t be a Christian if you don’t. It all comes down to how you read what Jesus would have done.

Would he call them faggots, or give them a hug and call them brothers and sisters? I’ll take the hug.

The Democratic Candidate Debate: Gay Rights Takes Center Stage

Here we go again. The hot topic during the most recent Democratic Presidential debate was gay rights. It’s safe to say that the concerns that led to the election of George Dub during the last Presidential election were those that forced people to deal with their deep seeded religious convictions. Namely, John Kerry’s seemingly liberal views on abortion and gay rights were too much for many Americans to deal with.

The recent debate proves that these presidential wanna be’s are grappling to find a way to say what most intelligent people are willing to acknowledge-that the constitution protects a persons right to have a relationship with whomever they wish. Given the assumption that part of living in a nation that safeguards the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of every person residing in America; it’s effortless to conclude that part of what that means is related to ones relationship.

The gay rights issue becomes convoluted when thrust within the political arena. What makes it problematic isn’t so much about law, but more about what it takes to get elected to the highest office in the land. In other words, sad to say, most Americans aren’t ready to embrace a president willing to hang out at a gay rally. Despite the progress made, far too many Americans are homophobic and unwilling to consider the underlying issues that have gays and lesbians pressing for equal rights.

At the root of this political diatribe is the bearing evangelical Christianity plays in molding a divisive agenda. There are two issues related to the amalgamation of public policy and religion. The first begs us to regard the significance of the warning embedded within the Constitution-the marriage of Church and State will ultimately lead to the refutation of other faith claims. America is, and has always been, a union of varied theological voices. This is the strength of any democratic society, and to impose a theological construct above others at the expense of a segment of society forces a rethinking of our melting pot dreams.

The Democratic presidential candidates ranted on their justification for opposing same-sex marriage. Senator Barrack Obama, who supports only civil unions, cited the need to “disentangle” the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what “has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people.”

John Edwards cited his Christian faith as a reason for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He stressed that his campaign is “about equality across the board,” while admitting that his position on civil unions “stops short of real equality. It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was a mistake that she failed to do more to condemn the recent comments of a top military officer who said that homosexuality is immoral. Clinton angered gay supporters when she appeared to dodge questions about the remark.

The three front runners are functioning in a way reminiscent of the good ole boys in ole Dixie during the heat of the Civil Rights era The maligned of society must be sacrificed for political gain. Given the detestation toward gays felt by evangelical Christians and an overwhelming majority of African Americans, it’s best to do what they did in the old South, discount the agenda of the minority in favor of being elected.

By affirming their individual faith above the rights of the discarded, these candidates have proven their inability to stand above the political fray to protect the rights of those with a position that defers from that in the mainstream. What America needs is leadership enamored with doing the right thing, even when it may lead to being abandoned by the masses.

Now for issue number two. Not only does this issue beg for a deep conversation on what it means to promote a clear separation of Church and State, it also is screaming for the Church to engage in a critical rethinking of its long held position related to homosexuality.

In 2002, I wrote a column for the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) challenging churches to deliberate on new ways to confront homosexuality. The solution I proposed was for faith communities to hold conversations with gays and lesbians who share the same faith claims. I informed my readers that gays and lesbians are attending their churches. Rather than deny their presence, why not have a chat around the issues they have, and, in the process, give those on the other side space to discuss how they feel about having gays and lesbians as part of their congregation.

This simple solution led to my termination from the church. Yes, there were other issues that caused the members to turn their back on the pastor who helped transform the church into one of the largest and most vital ministries in the city. With that being said, it’s safe to conclude that the prevalent concern was my desire to embrace gays and lesbians. More than my divorces (yes there were two). More than my dating before the divorce from my second wife was final. More than the ordaining of a single female who was pregnant. More than any of that, the congregation was incensed that I was willing to love, embrace and support gays and lesbians void of a demand that they change before entering those pearly gates.

What is the lesson? Leadership requires sacrifice. I’m looking for a president willing to lose it all for the sake of the higher good. The secret to change are leaders who stand above the common voice. I’m still looking.

This bunch has a lot to learn.