An Observation: If Gay is the New Black

Some who fight for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage not only attempt to redefine marriage, but frame the topic as a civil rights issue. One of the more persuasive arguments for same-sex marriage is to contend that the issue is conceptually/ideologically the same as black Americans’ fight for civil rights.

In other words – gay is the new black.

Brother Voddie Baucham recently penned the article – Gay is Not the New Black.1 Bauchman begins with the following statements concerning same-sex marriage and civil rights.

The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.” Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2

While pointing out that the arguments have been made Baucham rightly points out that positing that gay is the new black is a conflation of two issues.

Brilliant Strategy

The argument that gay is the new black is a brilliant strategy. The black American struggle for civil rights was an important fight in U.S. history. By putting the same-sex marriage debate in the same category as the black fight for civil rights it labels Christians, and others who are against re-defining marriage, as being just like the KKK and others who opposed equal rights for blacks.

Yet, it is a rhetorical smoke screen to posit that gay is the new black. I’ll explain.

The argument that gay is the new black could be used as an argument template for virtually any sociopolitical, but it isn’t. One could easily take the template “<insert cause> is the new black” to argue for their position. Yet, the most common usage of this argument is to promote same-sex marriage. The argument is more about the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle than it is about civil rights.

Disagree? Then, how about: NAMBLA3 is the new black?

If NAMBLA started calling themselves the “new black” to promote man-boy marriage, how many Americans would embrace the cause? I doubt President Obama would enthusiastically come out in favor of this type of same-sex marriage. The types of lifestyle NAMBLA promotes is rightly shunned by most Americans. I do not know of any black person who wants the plight of their ancestors to be equated with the behavior of NAMBLA.

An Observation

Most black Americans probably object to being equated with NAMBLA in order to support what would be NAMBLA’s version of same-sex marriage. Along the same lines, I would like to point out how equating gay as the new black in the current same-sex marriage debate should be equally objectionable.

Take a look at the picture below of the 1963 Civil Rights March in Washington, D.C. lead by Martin Luther King, Jr. Think about this picture for a moment. Consider what took place during this march and what was being sought after and promoted.

1963 Washington, D.C. Civil Rights March

Got it? Now, go to your favorite search engine and search for images (proceed with caution) with the terms “gay pride parade”. Consider what took place during those parades and what was being sought after and promoted.

If the equivalency is accepted that gay is the new black in the arena of a civil rights fight, it seems that gay pride parades are now equivalent to new civil rights marches.

Voddie Baucham is right – gay is not the new black.

  1. Voddie Baucham. Gay Is Not the New Black.
  2. Ibid.
  3. North American Man/Boy Love Association.
Let's connect!

tagged as , , , , , in apologetics,Christianity,Culture,morality,politics,relativism

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

1 brianosisek August 3, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Thanks for the insightful article. The Church needs to be wise like serpants, but gentle as doves.

2 Dwight McKissic August 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm


Voddie wrote a great piece and your commentary is also excellent. I commend the both of you.

Dwight McKissic

3 Mark August 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Brother Dwight,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.

4 sagacitygnosis August 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm

I just happen to stumble across this blog.. Being a child of God that happened to be born an individual that is “black”; I’ve found this erroneous civil rights correlation to the well documented struggles that occurred here in America (and abroad) offensive, degrading and an all out affront to the memory of those (white and black) who lived and died to secure “equal rights.” my words are not meant to be a “cheap shot” aimed at people who profess homosexuality. I have been taught to love and accept anyone just as if they were a beloved sibling. Case in point I had a younger sister who “decided” to live that lifestyle yet I never turned my back on her but I never accepted her reasoning as “Truth.” She eventually died from AIDS and I miss her sorely
My offense is well founded in the fact that I grew up during the turbulent “sixties.” I felt racism as a child growing up in a divided segregated southern city. I’ve been at the brunt end of others hatred and indifference yet was fortunate enough to not allow those sad people to twist my sense of humanity
Hence I personally don’t appreciate when a certain group attempts to “piggyback” onto history in order to promote their personal social agendas. I’m sorry my (homosexual) friends your agenda is not an issue of civil nature in society, it’s one of sexual nature desiring to find legitimacy in a society that sees otherwise. You do definitely have a “right” to express whatever desires you have but not to the extent where you begin to “grab bag” the pain, suffering and accomplishments of a group of people who were considered “chattel” (property) and not human

I appreciate your article

5 Mark August 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Thank you for your insight. Drop by anytime.


Previous post:

Next post: