Jackson Free Press

I recently participated in a conversation with a group of people concerning the civil rights of certain marginalized groups. We all had an idea of what that concept means in the "new millennium." The general consensus was that the doctrine of equality should reign supreme in the land; no person should be assigned to second-class citizenship based on race, religion, gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation ... you get the idea. Everyone except one person in the group had this point of view, and there began my personal dilemma. This person's viewpoint focused on the civil rights of Christians and churches that are against marriage equality.

To be fair, I didn't expect anything different from this person. She has made her views known and has debated her point with me since we met. It is a view some of us are familiar with and are tired of hearing: Homosexuality is a choice and a sin; wanting marriage equality is asking for special rights (somehow wanting equal rights transformed into "special rights"); and marriage-equality laws discriminate against churches and religions that want to discriminate against the LGBT community. She also stated that preachers would have to marry same-sex couples if marriage equality became nationally recognized and legalized.

I don't want to address the idiocy of her point of view. We can all go on forever about the fallible logic she used to support it. As offensive as it was, the point of view itself wasn't the most offense portion; it was the speaker. She is an African American female with dark skin, natural hair and a crunchy-hippie style of dressing—not the package you would imagine such a horrible sentiment would come from. But there it was. The day she said her peace was the day I realized that some minorities may have found a new way to "pass."

Passing traditionally meant that light-skinned African Americans with not-so-curly hair (and European facial features) would and could pass for white. As time marched on, the term was used in the LGBT community to indicate that a gay man or woman could pass for straight, a transgender person could pass as the gender they identify with, and so on.

I believe that today, passing has mutated into something other than an aesthetic means to blend into the white world because some individuals can't pass physically. But they can if they adopt the ideology of mainstream society to make themselves acceptable. Call it New Millennial passing. The main difference here is that passing does not mean visually passing, but passing politically or philosophically.

This manifests when the person trying to pass internalizes the negative stereotypes, accepts them as truths about him or herself and tries to gain acceptance from the particular group he or she emulates. They often deflect focus from their perceived faults by pointing out the faults of another marginalized group. Basically, the person is saying, "Yes, I am wretched, but look at these people! At least am not like these people! I hate them, too; let's hate them together." It's almost like being a tattletale or a cheerleader for the bigots.

So if people have the right to express their views, what is the problem? As I see it, the problem is not the speech the person is conveying, but the driving force behind it. The motivation is not the message, but the need to be part of a group they would not be a member of any other way. Imagine if there was no sincerity behind the words, but instead, a hurt ego that the speaker was trying to fill.

I am not stretching my imagination when I doubt the sincerity behind the message. We all remember Strom Thurmond, the avid segregationist who not only had a daughter with an African American woman, but who also financially supported her and paid for her college education. Seems like Thurmond believed in some form in integration, huh?

Then, there were the people who did the actual dirty work during the Sovereignty Commission years. It was not the upper echelon of white Southerners who openly terrorized, spied on and murdered African Americans and civil-rights advocates for about 21 years; it was the lower class whites that did the dirty work, which was convenient for the ones who wanted to be anonymous and not risk a jail sentence. Do you see the similarities? Both were trying to fit in.

Bigotry is bigotry. Certain things shouldn't be tolerated, but allowing the speech promotes dialogue, which could shed light on the hate. Logical thinking will bring such ideologies to their knees and kill them.

Deirdre Jackson has lived in Jackson since 1986. She hopes to be a part of the movement that will improve her city and her state.