The hijacking of the civil rights movement

Julian Bond testifies in Trenton on behalf of same-sex marriage

By Clenard Childress

The perpetual slide down the slippery slope of irrelevancy for the NAACP was never more clearly seen then when Julian Bond testified before the New Jersey State Legislature on the behalf of Same-Sex Marriage rights. If LoJack could be installed on the legacy of the Civil Rights movement, the alarm would have surely sounded December 7th, 2009, and you would have found the engine running at that state's judicial hearing. It should be quite evident to all that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community, and its supporters, will go to no end to hijack the legacy of the Civil Rights movement to further their agenda. Such prostitution of those representing this legacy should outrage its members, and the demand for accountability of such, should now be at the forefront of discussion. The obvious ploy to dupe the state legislators of New Jersey into being sympathetic to legislation for gay marriage by the mercenary — Cha-Ching — use of this iconic figure, was despicable. I say 'obvious' due to this simple fact: the NAACP has taken no position on the issue! How could it when all sociological data overwhelmingly reveals that African-Americans oppose gay marriage by as much as 70%. The question was even posed to Mr. Bond by a legislator who asked, what was the position of the NAACP on gay marriage, which Bond sheepishly had to respond that the NAACP has taken no position.

What! Let us look at the absurdity here for a moment. The NAACP, a Civil Rights organization, the name of which means, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which has not taken a position on gay marriage and the national board director of the organization, Julian Bond, is in Trenton brow-beating state legislators in the name of Civil Rights to pass the bill that the NAACP has not taken a position on.... What!

There is more. It was also quite apparent the truth was of no consequence in the testimony of Mr. Bond, for in fact, his words were purposely misleading and deceptive. Mr. Bond testified erroneously that, Bayard Rustin and Dr. Martin Luther King, philosophically and morally agreed on the issue of homosexual rights and nothing could be further from the truth. Bayard Rustin, a practicing homosexual, was the chief organizer of the March on Washington, DC. When confronting Dr. Martin Luther King with the demand that he include homosexual rights in the platform, Dr. Martin Luther King vehemently refused and it was suggested that Bayard Rustin leave the movement. Subsequently, in the March on Washington, there was not one single step taken for homosexual rights. To further this travesty, Mr. Bond tragically made the absurd comment that, "We boycotted the funeral of Coretta Scott King due to the fact it was at a church that did not recognize gay marriage." What!

I would ask, "Who is we?" Who boycotted Coretta Scott King's funeral: The NAACP or Julian Bond? Was this personal boycott due to fact the event could not be manipulated for self serving purposes?

The funeral was at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church at the request of the family where Bishop Eddie Long is Pastor. Bishop Long, as well as being a close friend of the King family, is a clear voice of truth and a pillar of the church internationally. It does not surprise me at all there would be opposition by the fading vanguard of the status quo. Mr. Bond, you do not give Civil Rights to sexual orientation simply due to the fact one's orientation might be flawed. Civil Rights are granted based on birth rights, not mores, habits, or predilections we conform to. Race is immutable; sexual preferences can change.

In Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's keynote address in front of the Lincoln Memorial at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in 1957, King stated,

"What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides that it fails to become committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism which is neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm."

Once again the word of this contemporary Prophet transcends generations and speaks so clearly and profoundly to us today, we need to take heed. Dr. King references a passage in the Book of Revelation directed at the Laodicean Church who had lost their moral compass, had become lukewarm, and sought compromise at the sake of their values. They attempted to play both sides against the middle and wound up irrelevant and lost, eventually paying for it with their culture.

Dr. King in his sermon, facing the challenge of the new age, said,

"The urgency of the hour calls for leaders of wise judgment and sound integrity — leaders not in love with money, but in love with justice; leaders not in love with publicity, but in love with humanity; leaders who can subject their particular egos to the greatness of the cause!"

At this crucial moment in history, I think all the world is in harmonious agreement: we need those leaders.

© Clenard Childress