Bumpus on "Inalienable Rights" and Gay marriage

"... the concept of "rights" is a human creation that has only been around Western civilization since the 18th Century..."

Dear friends,

Just the other day, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, regarding an article by nationally-syndicated columnist George Will about gay marriage. Considering the recent defeat that African Americans helped to give to proponents of gay marriage in California, on the same day they voted for Barack Obama to become our nation's 44th president, I thought that it is time that I comment on this subject. As well, hearing our new president make a reference to "inalienable rights", during his inauguration speech, seemed to make this post fitting. The letter appears below.

One Love,

G. Djata Bumpus
**********************************************
To the Editor:

George Will's piece called " 'Natural justice' and gay marriage", posted 1/15/09, reveals the discussion of gay marriage to be exactly what it is: A total distraction, if not a red herring.

The idea of "inalienable rights", much less "natural justice" ignores reality, sending us into the murky world of mysticism and illusion. That is, the concept of "rights" is a human creation that has only been around Western civilization since the 18th Century.

"Rights" are fought for - not bestowed upon a person, by either the State or Providence. They are not “inalienable". Proof? For most of human history, people socially reproduced themselves as slaves and serfs (called "share-croppers” in America). To be sure, in the aforementioned societies, people had no “rights”. Moreover, being either a slave or serf had more to do with military puissance than blood line. To make an extra point about why "rights" are not inalienable, The Patriot Act, endorsed by politicians like former President George Bush and then Senator Barack Obama, has taken away all of our rights as private citizens. For example, that law now allows any person in this country to be secretly taken into custody, without a warrant or even access to an attorney, and no one even has to know where the abducted person/citizen is.

In any case, drivel by Will and his ilk, about marriage being defined as a union between a "man" and a "woman" circumvents what we know as human logic. After all, these notions of "gender" (man and woman) mean nothing, aside from their uses as social constructs that deny half of the population equal “rights”.

As my oldest daughter, a medical scientist, has insisted to me, for years: Gender is much different than sex and we have to eliminate it. Sex is, of course, biologically relevant but gender roles are social constructions that are completely out-dated. We cannot be okay with getting rid of some and not getting rid of others. There are obvious biological differences between males and females. Certainly, males and females are not the same. However, those differences have no bearing on my ability or responsibility with regard to paying a mortgage, dinner bill or engaging in service to my community and society.

Moreover, two relevant questions, regarding all civil rights issues seems to be: Why is it that ever since 1866, every thirty or forty years, the US Congress finds itself passing more civil rights legislation? In other words, why don’t they “get it”?

Mr. Will - and others like him, may consider starting dialogue about - and trying to resolve - real issues like human exploitation and oppression (e.g., violence against all women and non-European American men, as well as poverty - in terms of food, clothing, housing and health care), instead of apologizing for them (i.e., exploitation and oppression) with fantasies that help make these injustices proliferate.

Finally, while I am still quite confused about the concept of "sexual identity", I encourage all of those who describe themselves as being “gay” to continue fighting, vigorously, for their rights, as all other groups before them have had to do in order to acquire them. Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus