Yes, Virginia, there is a Jim Crow.

Emotional writing is almost always bad writing, so I hesitate to write anything until I cool down. Yet if Virginia wants to start a conversation about the “sanctity of marriage,” then I’ll jump on the sanctimonious bandwagon. I cannot, cannot believe that Virginia approved the marriage amendment yesterday. It was not enough that gay marriage was already illegal in the state, but Crazy Ol’ Bob Marshall (more on him later) decided that such exclusion should be a part of the state constitution.

First, a few misconceptions I’d like to correct:

- Advocating gay rights does not make one gay. If someone is so afraid of seeming gay, it is time to either grow up, grow a spine, or face some latent tendencies.
- Voting to support gay rights not does commit one to a homosexual tryst in the voting booth. It’s about rights, not sex.
- Supporting gay rights does not mean one has to be “comfortable” with the idea of gay sex. Why are these people evaluating or envisioning the sex lives of others anyway? If comfort level of others’ sex lives was a requirement for marriage, then how did Larry King slip through the cracks six times? Eww.
- If being gay defies one’s religious beliefs, then being an American citizen guarantees the right to have a church that operates separately from the state. No law will infringe on religious habits. Take the Catholic Church – they won’t marry couples unless they have certain views on birth control, doctrine, etc. If someone does not agree, they can marry elsewhere. It’s the right of a church to make its own rules.

This is not about homosexuality, but about equal Constitutional rights for citizens. It’s about modern-day Jim Crow creating a legally sanctioned second-class citizenry. People defended Jim Crow with Biblical passages, with “not being comfortable with" equal rights for blacks, with comments on what’s “natural.” It all seems so ridiculous and unforgivable now. Current American law on gay marriage is just as ridiculous and unforgivable.

How can we deny basic rights to a citizen based on something as irrelevant as sexual orientation? (Really, have heteros done such a bang-up job at marriage?) One can be 18 and marry someone he just met on the street. One can be divorced ten times and marry again. One can be mentally disabled and marry. Marriage is a fundamental right allowed to adults who don’t have to prove their case or meet standards other than being single and of age. Yet we inflict this one standard. Imagine if marriage was restricted to some based on how they have sex. Gross, right? Irrelevant? Absolutely. Why is this any different?

Many people are so focused on being right about homosexuality, that they forget something more important: being kind. If people can cite a moral code that says that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights under the law, then where is their moral code that kindness dictates we treat each other with respect?

This is not a time to be politely silent. A very large group of people are second-class citizens in this country, and to not speak up on their behalf is to be a co-conspirator. I remember a teacher explaining Jim Crow to me, and I asked her, “But what did YOU do about it?” to her obvious discomfort. Expect one day that children will ask us that, and be ready to keep your head up when you answer.