(ThyBlackMan.com) Those who have followed my writings over the years know that I am not very fond of the modern day NAACP. They have strayed very far from their original mission and have become a patsy for the Democratic Party. They are more concerned with having a photo taken at the White House than being the picture of equality and fairness for those with no voice.
The group was founded in 1909 as a civil rights organization. Its charter stated their mission as: “To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored [Black] citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.”
A charter or mission statement guides an organization to ensure that it stays true to its mission; it helps an organization to stay focused on its raison d’etre—its reason for being. So, I ask the NAACP, what is the basis for its focus on gay entitlements or citizenship for those in the country illegally?
Notice that I used the term “gay entitlements” not gay rights! A right has to be derived from some source document—the U.S. Constitution, a law, the Bible, etc. But, an entitlement is not derivative—it’s based on a “belief” that one deservers a benefit; that belief is totally subjective.
Based on their charter, the NAACP has no business being involved in all these issues that are outside of their core mission—equality for Black citizens. Has the Human Rights Campaign (a gay entitlements group) or the pro-amnesty forces come out with a statement about Trayvon Martin, or all the child killings in Chicago, or discrimination against Blacks? We all know the answer is no!
So, you have the NAACP fighting for entitlements that are outside the scope of their charter; but, yet the groups they are fighting for gives no reciprocity when it comes to issues of particular interest to the Black community.
It should not surprise the public that the NAACP has publically declared their support for “gay marriage.” Notice that I did not say “marriage equality.” When gays use the word marriage equality, they are saying that they want gay marriage to be “equal” to heterosexual marriage. By definition that cannot happen since marriage is between a man and a woman. Their goal is not equality, because that is an impossibility; they want acceptance. They want to redefine marriage, thereby forcing society to accept their lifestyle choices.
When the NAACP issued their statement of support for gay entitlements they said, “The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.”
Using the 14th amendment as the basis for asserting the right for gays to marry is a bit of a stretch. In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or “Negro” and extends to other racial, ethnic and other historically disadvantaged groups, i.e. women.
So, please tell me which of the above groups would gay marriage come under? The 14th Amendment does not apply to them. They are asking the courts to create a special class of rights for them based on sexual preference, which is their ultimate goal.
Gays do not deserve special protection based on their sexual preferences, but they do deserve equal protection based on their humanity.
In a 2005 speech, the NAACP’s former chairman, Julian Bond said, “…Sexual disposition parallels race. I [a gay person] was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable. I guess Bond never heard of anyone having their sex changed surgically?
So, let me make sure I understand this. If I choose to exercise my right to oppose gay marriage, I am hateful and believe in discrimination? So, while the Black community is sinking in alarming pathologies with Black on Black crime, runaway teenage pregnancy, high unemployment, the NAACP is taking up the cause that has absolutely no legal basis and is outside the mandate of their own charter. Are you kidding me?
Weak people (and groups), take strong positions on weak issues. The modern day Civil Rights movement has done more harm to Blacks than any man in a white hood!
Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson
Mr. Jackson is also founder of a political and industrial consultant firm which is based in Washington, DC; Raynard Jackson & Associates.
I support Raynes 100%
War on drugs and war on families. Men are commiting suicide at 5x the rate of women..this particularly the case even for gay men as lesbian relatiinships has gained more social acceptance. Our men are being incarcerated at disprportionate rates to the rest of the population..our men are having their credit destroyed licenses revoked and are even being jailed by csas. A community that despises its men run the risk of creating despicable men. Lgbt agenda is not the problem its the naacp politicians and even our president frquently pandering to various group conveninetly evolving on certain issues or tackling the issues that dont require any cajones. We were burying the n-word as the innocence oroject was busy getting falsely accused men like brian banks exonerated. Give us something that really challenges us and thatdemands a solutiin.
Its interesting the charge of ignorance and insensitivuty.. i have no problem with the lgbt agenda being one if many discussions to be had by the naacp. Howeverr, these cowards have refused to address the issues and challenges that men of color face in americas family courts and at the hands of child support agencies. A colleague of mine in the field has forwarded me information regarding the recent loss of her client to suicide after a five year battle with our family courts..i have discovered that two of my clients have been jailed …not for a real crime, but their inability to pay support after struggling with securing employment for two years in this stagnant economy. I continue to be amazed at the lack of focus by various organizations that are full aware of antiquated policies that have and continue to devastate our community. No marching in the streets for these issues..not as sexy as trayvin martin or the lgbt agenda..no calls for a congressional hearing on how the the choice movement righfully gave women the right to choose and have to complete control over family planning and reproductive decision making while men were reduced to no reproductive rights but threats of impripnment should they not comply with financial support of a womans CHOICE! Or the assumption of the custody for women. The same naacp that refuses to tackle the challenging issues of the decimated family and 75% of iur children being born to unwed mothers, continuing to reduce it to simply a need for men to man up focusing on post birth “deadbeatism” ( hate the word) as opposed to the prvention efforts not being exercised by the half of the populatiin with right pre conceptiin is disturbing and indicative of the failure of organizations like the naacp that only address the issues and get on board only once traction is gained or momentum has already begun..sorry fir rant and typos..trying to control myself on this train while typing on a smartphine
Mr Jackson seems ignorant of the reality that there are people of color who are gay. He’s sadly unaware that the intersection of racism and homophobia where these brothers and sisters live compounds the prejudice and inequality they are forced to live with. Should the NAACP ignore these people? Aren’t they his brothers and sisters also?
Civil rights organizations focused on race, sexual orientation, and gender identity need to be working together in places where their missions overlap, not leaving those suffering the most injustice to fend for themselves. Finding common cause across black and white communities helped in the struggle for civil rights in the past, and is can help us all in the present.
Let’s subject Mr Jackson to the quick Substitution Test to if he’s being inconsitent or hypocritical. Taking a statement from his article and transposing the kind of marriage discrimination makes the problem clear: “So, let me make sure I understand this. If I choose to exercise my right to oppose interracial marriage, I am hateful and believe in discrimination?”.
I can’t guess what’s in Mr Jackson’s heart, but he clearly believes in discrimination. Now he’s just quibbling about who should suffer it.
I found this commentary so comical and worthless, I stopped reading it half-way through. People like Mr. Jackson is what’s pulling this country down. He has the same type of mentality that KKK members have, and he doesn’t even realize it.
With all due respect, Mr. Raynard, you really don’t get it, do you?
One might, of course, debate whether the NAACP should take on issues outside the area of African American rights. Fine. And the HRC? Many of us GLBT folks find it an unsatisfying organization, though I’m not sure their (or anyone, for that matter) rushing to judgment on the increasingly complex Trayvon Martin case would have somehow been wise. However, in your quid pro quo world, two wrongs apparently make a right, so we’ll leave it at that.
But you frame your “arguments” in terms that are both insensitive and ignorant. I mean, really ignorant. E.g., do you, somewhere in your brain, truly believe that women have been “historically disadvantaged,” but GLBT people not? Really? You’re THAT ignorant of recent history? Do you not get the difference between the term “sexual preference” and “sexual orientation?” Do you think that being able to get married, hold down a job, and rent an apartment free from discrimination are “special rights?”
Rights stem from the law, meaning that, say, before the Voting Rights Bill was passed, some people didn’t have a right to vote, and therefore they shouldn’t have been given the additional “privilege”of voting? Wow. And rights also stem from the Bible? Swell. I’m Jewish, and according to my Scripture, I have the right to hold slaves, as long as I free them every seven years. Sure will help with the housework.
Are you, supposedly a sophisticated political consultant, unable to differentiate between “sexual orientation” and “gender identification?” Which is to say that someone who, before gender reassignment, is attracted to men will not, after treatment, suddenly be attracted to women. I mean, you’re supposed to be smart. Can you actually sign off on such trashy logic?
No, I’m sure you’re not an ignorant bigot. You simply put forth arguments that sound, for all the world, like ignorant bigotry.