Gay marriage and a horse named tripod

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

July 03, 2013.

I heard the idiom “never bet on a horse called tripod” in a radio advert recently and thought it humorous. At least, it fitted my perspective on the issue of gay marriage.

For disclaimer, my objection to gay marriage is limited only to the application of the term “marriage” to the union of homosexual couples.

It does not assert that homosexuals should be denied their human rights.  Many African cultures share this humanistic view too.

The recent United States Supreme Court decision, declaring the “Defense of Marriage Act “(DOMA) as unconstitutional, and that "the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections" has exacerbated public debate on homosexuality.

President Obama, on his recent trip to Africa, expanded the debate in Senegal, July 27, 2013, when he referred to the DOMA decision as a needed “victory for democracy.”   

He should have known that he was in Africa, many countries of a continent that treated homosexuality as a crime. 

Standing next to Senegal's president, Mr. Sall, Obama urged other African countries “to make sure that gays and lesbians were not discriminated against by the government,” according to the New York Times.

This prompted a quick retort from Sali.  His country, he said, was not “homophobic,” even though they regarded the homosexual act as criminal. 

Unfortunate for Obama, his declaration in Senegal was viewed as offensive and insensitive.  And when Sali spoke, he was hailed as speaking for the entire continent.

True, Africa is not yet ready to embrace homosexuality.  But it should also be noted that the US, perhaps the most sophisticated country in the world, just officially struck down DOMA barely a week ago.

And curiously, Obama’s advocacy itself was a latecomer; him being a recent convert to the homosexual cause before he visited Senegal. 

Of note were his two political campaigns for the presidency, 2008 and 2012, the final one, which had no homosexual platform.  But, of course, in Senegal, Obama at that time had no more elections to run.

Obama in Senegal saw some moral value in acceptance of homosexuality.  But whatever that value was, some said, it had no priority over other important issues bedeviling the continent.

Africa had better things to do since acquiescence to homosexuality would not necessarily be the golden grail for solving the rest of the continent’s problems; like defeating poverty.

In the West, Obama’s stance was easy to understand.  The politically correct environment assured acceptance.  And the strong, vocal, media-savvy homosexual voices would help kill opposition and shame dissent. 

However, in Africa, the cultural headwinds would be different, just as Obama was to find out.  For, Obama went against the grain when he took the message to Africa.

Marriage in Africa is understood as a union between man and woman, just like DOMA was understood before the Supreme Court decision.

It is for procreation first.  And the institution is also viewed here as the best form in which to raise children. Therefore, to use marriage as a vehicle only for love and companionship, as advocated by homosexuals, would be a frivolous exercise.

Seen in the above light, the label marriage could be an odd fit for gays in Africa, as the name tripod for a racehorse!

One may ask why the bother in America about the term "marriage", even if Obama’s action in Africa is not questioned?    

Labels and names should mean something, therefore the idea of homosexuals advocating to join an institution like marriage must raise concern for those who value this institution as one meant for man and woman only, and as such should be preserved in its current form for these two latter genders.

But homosexuals seek a redefinition of the term marriage to include them.

Civil union, with all the legal benefits, which has been offered, could not be enough for them.  The union offer, unfortunately, could probably have provided a compromise or solution.

Thus, some in opposition see the homosexual drive for marriage recognition as an effort bent on wrecking the traditional concept of marriage itself.  

This redefining of the intent of marriage has begun to sound in the mind of the African like a cover and a license for all things sexual.

Neither Obama nor the Supreme Court of America, many Africans argue, has the cultural right to impose homosexuality on Africa.  And to decriminalize homosexual behavior, therefore, is seen as a step to accepting gay marriage.

In Africa, the heart of the problem for homosexuality is its irrelevance to the community, family, culture, and everyday existence.  So, what its type of sexual activity does has brought a taboo that has been around for ages on the continent.

The African may be primitive in his view on the subject, compared to that of Obama the American's.  But he cannot be wrong in asserting his cultural rights and in his projection on outcome in unintended cost the switch for acceptance may bring.

The arguments the advocates of homosexuality bring to the discussion:  That it is an issue of civil rights, comparable to the struggle of Civil Rights for Blacks also rankles. 

This angle has psychological cost since it fudges and diminishes greatly the historical plight of the Black race.  

Discrimination against homosexuality is centered on sex.  For Blacks, the discrimination is entirely existential.

And since the racial relationship is brought up as an issue, it ought to be asked if granted license, Black and white homosexuals will equally experience the same tolerance in a world where parts of which are still racists?

Certainly, in a racist world, a Black homosexual will still be more disadvantaged than his fellow white homosexual.  The comparison offered to race is, therefore, a lie.

If in doubt about the above, hear from a veritable Black Civil Rights leader, Dr. Cornell West commenting on the same issue:

“The irony of the age of Obama in which Black folks found themselves pushed to the back, (and) our gay brothers and lesbian sisters more and more (are) pushed to the center.”

 Africa has whole areas of rights to worry about, while still caught in a world of discrimination.  One pivotal area is the economic disadvantages that promote poverty.

Africans, regardless of sexual designations, are likely to be poorer than Europeans, for instance. 

How to prevent poverty from becoming an open condition in Africa for the homosexual European tourist, or any other, to exploit is an issue to consider.  Granting a license to the practice will not prevent this type of exploitation, nor prevent poverty.

Disparities in economic conditions will build up the tourist trade in the homosexual direction.  And this may further impact how the new homosexual is recruited from our poor communities.  Natural selection will not matter.  The lure of money will be the determinant. 

The damages that sexual tourism may cause are yet to be factored into a continent that is already awash with other social problems.  Again because of economic disparities.

Considering this risk, Africa has to be protective of its citizens, especially the youth.  And this is the protection that cultural mores have provided for Africa to date. 

But here comes Obama, a son of Africa, wanting to induce a change in mores, with little understanding why abstinence from homosexual practice for now may do a world of good for the continent in the long term.

The message that marriage as a union between man and woman only promotes “injury and indignity” to gay couples is short-sighted when brought into the larger realities of what Africans face today, homosexuals or not.

Obama's stance for gays in Africa, by raising the DOMA decision, must rankle.  It is hubristic, needless an a bridge too far for the present.

Africans do not persecute gays or burn them at the stakes. Simply put, African traditions recognize the humanity of the homosexual but frown on the behavior.  

“Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist.  One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman, “said an Orthodox Jewish organization after the Supreme Court DOMA decision.

Social mores in America or the West have changed.  It must not, therefore, mean that the African view on the same subject must follow suit.  Eventually, this view may change, but not at the instant command of Obama and the West.

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, July 03, 2013.

Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted on a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.