Monday, June 27, 2022 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Recently, I read a column by Emma Keith, one of my sister editors in CNHI. Emma leads the news team at the Norman (Okla.) Transcript, the paper that won the Division 1 Sequoyah Award this year at the Oklahoma Press Association convention. Emma is young — at least, compared to me — and I am proud of her and what she’s accomplished. She has her work cut out for her; Norman is one of our biggest papers in Oklahoma, and expectations are high.
Emma also happens to be a member of the LGBTQ community, and that’s what her column centered on. Especially for a person in such a high-profile position, it takes courage to be open in a state like Oklahoma, where candidates for office have been loudly pledging to roll back marriage rights heterosexual/cisgender people take for granted. The cacophony increased Friday, when the Supreme Court rolled back Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested a review of three other cases is in order: Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right of gay marriage; Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that punishment for sodomy (which could mean oral sex among consenting and/or married adults, gay or straight) is unconstitutional; and Griswold v. Connecticut, which declared the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.
I’m not going to weigh in on abortion, except to say this decision could be a portent of things to come. And those things would run counter to the “pro-life” stance many people claim to uphold. How is telling a couple they can’t marry a just act? Is it righteous for the state to ban birth control, thus making couples choose between physical intimacy and pregnancies for which they’re not yet ready? And as for the government telling people they cannot engage in oral intercourse, even within the bounds of marriage? I don’t know a single person who wouldn’t deem that going overboard — unless that person is unable to find a partner with which to engage in such activities.
I’m 62. I’ve gone through menopause, so I won’t need to contemplate an abortion after getting pregnant by a rapist, nor would being denied the ability to use birth control be an issue. I’m not gay, so I’m not worried about the state nullifying my marriage. But just because a SCOTUS decision doesn’t affect me directly doesn’t mean it won’t impact millions of others. So I worry about Emma and others in the LGBTQ community whom I love — including some dear friends and close relatives.
In journalism, we have two prime missions: To act as watchdogs against the rich and powerful, and to give voice to the voiceless. We all know about the voiceless: Jesus defines them in Matthew 25:31-49. Today, he would include the LGBTQ community, as well as people of color. That may seem like a shocking statement to those who believe Christ would’ve turned away people in the first group. Some may also think labeling them “voiceless” is disingenuous, because they have been exercising their First Amendment guarantee to free speech and to peacefully assemble to demand equality. But anyone who can’t abide people they disapprove of philosophically, and would therefore deem them undeserving of civil rights, also aims to take the voice from the subjects of their angst. The media’s job is to try to make sure that doesn’t happen, which is why extremists and bigots label us “the enemy of the people.”
In fact, journalists are advocates of all people of good will who would allow everyone else to live their lives authentically, as long as they do no harm to others, or to the country or institutions that make up its foundation. Journalists are allies of those the larger part of society may deem “lesser” than they are. And Christians are allies, too, even if they have to tamp down confusion and innate disapproval, and even if it’s distasteful, because they are commanded to advocate for “the least of these.” Christ didn’t mention any qualifiers. And though it will outrage some, “the least of these” didn’t refer to embryos. It meant tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, the poor, disabled and “aliens” of the “illegal” variety, as was the Holy Family when they fled into Egypt.
I’d like those in the dominant and most vocal group in society — at least those who judge others based on race, gender, sexual orientation, residency status, disability, creed, country of origin, religion or lack thereof — to ask themselves a single question: Would you “choose” to be gay, or Black, poor, from a Third World country, disabled, or of a gender other than what your privates at birth seemed to suggest? Folks who say “no” have thus revealed that elusive definition of the “privilege” many of us share.
Those who fear, distrust or hate people who are different than they are should understand that these others don’t want special rights; they just want the same ones everyone else has. To accord them less is to reject the concept of America itself, as detailed in our most revered documents and the writings of the Framers — most of whom, by the way, had a real problem with organized religion. Sadly, too many aren’t familiar with our foundation, and they’ve let others tell them what to think.
It will surprise some when I say not only am I an ally of the “outsiders,” I am a Christ follower as well. For me personally, I could not be the latter and not the former. And I cannot support any politician who uses the Christian label as a wedge to diminish entire groups of people not because of what they’ve done, but because of who they are. It’s possible to disapprove of people yet acknowledge their humanity and accord them liberty. It’s possible to support traditional families while allowing the same rights for nontraditional ones. It’s possible to be a decent person and set aside prejudices.
If you can’t stand with others, at least don’t stand against them. But given what’s likely to come, they’ll need your support.
Kim Poindexteris a columnist for the Tahlequah (Okla.) Daily Press.
