Lining the pages of every paper, magazine and leaflet are words in praise and support of a new social movement. This uprising is strong in its demands and its support grows daily among the liberals and youth of this country.
I talk of the homosexual rights movement. There are active supporters and those who are merely lukewarm consenters, afraid to contradict an opinion held by more than two people. But despite its unquestioned popular support, I am a bit perplexed by this philosophy, which not only lays claim to the wealth of pain in black hearts and minds, but dares to call itself the new civil rights movement.
Homosexual activists have made statements ranging from the naive, insincere demand that they want another civil rights movement "like the one they had in the 1960s" to the arrogant claim that they are the "niggers of the 1990s."
The claim that they desire another civil rights movement is inherently misguided. It points out a selfish, motivational flaw in this crusade for equality.
The true civil rights movement was not based upon any desire. It was based upon a need to be recognized as human beings and a need to be protected by the law after centuries of physical abuse and oppression - in short, the need for humanity. The civil rights movement was the result of these needs, not the result of a desire to make noise and usurp the legitimacy of a prior movement for selfish ends.
Needless to say, there has not been the same type of widespread discrimination against homosexuals - homosexuality is not a visible characteristic unless made so by that person. Nor is there the need to be protected against the force of the state. Most homosexuals are middle class white men, the generally recognized arbiters of power, right?
Second, even though one can see that the "real niggers" are in full force in the 1990s, this movement claims that it is based upon the architecture of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. This is not true.
That struggle for civil rights was the demand of women and black people to be recognized by a system that for centuries had left them powerless, helpless victims of a structure that discriminated against them on the basis of their birthrights.
Homosexuals and other sexual panoramists thus use the civil rights analogy to give meaning to their feelings of persecution and victimization - but while homosexuals have indeed been the victims of persecution, it is not at all certain that it is on the basis of any birthright.
While many homosexuals have uttered the healing chant of genetic determinacy, as many as have uttered the awful liturgy of sexual choice.
This choice is a problem - if homosexuality is not an inborn characteristic, but rather the result of a choice, then homosexuals are wholly responsible for that choice and the persecution it may bring.
I have said the same thing about Rodney King's decision to drink and drive that night in March 1991. I have said the same thing about Jesus, who even in the face of Pilate claimed he was the Messiah.
I am sure this column will be labeled reactionary and homophobic, and I will be criticized for being insensitive to the oppression of others - an accusation all the more horrible because I myself am black.
But then, maybe I will be stigmatized as a bourgeois, Clarence Thomas-like negro. That is, one who has never felt the sting of oppression in this time or any other. Even the lukewarm consenters will protest this column, to appear open-minded to their friends, because it is easier to attack the messenger than the message.
In spite of all this, there is no new civil rights movement, at least not one that can legitimately lay claim to the pain and suffering of those who took part in the true civil rights movement.
If there is anything, it is the self-pitying cry of a group of social outcasts for unconditional acceptance - acceptance of things that are not meant to be topics of public discussion, and acceptance of things that are not meant to be.
