Proud Sikh at Pride Parade
A friend sent me this photo yesterday from this past weekend’s annual LGBT Pride Parade in New York City, which was attended by about a million people. I’ve seen this Singh around NYC before. He happens to be one of the transit workers standing up to the NYC Transit Authority’s discriminatory “turban-branding” policy and now is also standing up for LGBT rights. Sikh solidarity seems to be in full swing lately.
The Pride festivities in NYC were a little different this year since they came just after state lawmakers voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage in New York last week. While some Sikhs (and Sikh institutions) have been outspoken about their opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry, many others of us are celebrating this milestone civil rights victory in New York, seeing the fight for justice for LGBT people as no different as justice for women, people of color, or any other oppressed group.
Despite my previously alluded to reservations about the state sanctioning the way we structure our romantic relationships, households, and/or families, I believe that legalizing gay marriage is nevertheless a much needed blow to the deeply ingrained homophobia and heterosexism in our society. A lot more than marriage equality is needed to create the sort of radical transformation our Gurus envisioned for our world, but it is, at least today, a reason to say fateh!
30 Responses to “Proud Sikh at Pride Parade”
Thanks for sharing and connecting some important pieces here.
Even though you stated you have reservations about the institution of marriage and I DO feel grateful the direction things are heading in ….
I still have hesitancy in accepting that this state sponsored legal decision is "a much needed blow to the deeply ingrained homophobia and heterosexism in our society."
I believe this decision will have a minimal impact and the need is so deep. It might open some doors for some conversations and help some people navigate through their lives but… the most marginalized communities who face this type of sexual oppression will continue to feel the wrath of fear. To much energy goes into campaigns and not into community on the ground education and interactions that allow for tolerance for safety. I know community education is something you value so Im probably preaching to the sangat.
To me I compare this to presidential elections, with all fanfare and hope on board, Obama might be a better candidate then McCain. Ask most marginalized folks around the globe if the election had had a positive impact in their lives at all, most people will say no. Yet Hundreds of Millions of dollars have been used for ads, tv coverage, volunteer time…
Fateh in Solidarity!
i think we are in agreement for the most part. it goes back to the discussion below about radical/revolutionary change versus small reforms to a very broken system. it's always a tricky line to determine at what point in our efforts to combat bigotry are we developing broader buy-in into the current system which we know is inherently flawed? it's not an easy question to answer i don't think. the beyond marriage statement i linked to really nails it. the full statement is here. http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
in some ways this issue is parallel to don't ask don't tell or to the "sikh right to serve campaign." i have lots more thoughts on that issue specifically and have been meaning to write about it for some time!
@Brooklynwala – I still take the position you alluded to about the problem of state sanction. So a tactical victory yes, but not transformative.
But more than that your last line left me wondering….you write "A lot more than marriage equality is needed to create the sort of radical transformation our Gurus envisioned for our world."
How do we define this? Do you or I or any other single individual define this? What is our 'vision' of the Gurus' vision? Is it lock and step with a 'progressive agenda' on all fronts? Does it differ? What happens when others (as they often do on this blog) disagree with this vision?
Totally agree with you on tactical not transformative. And re: your questions about the Gurus' vision (and this addresses Kantay's points below too), I think most Sikhs can agree that our Gurus were spiritual activists of sort and aimed to transform the society in which they were living where caste, sexism, and intolerance and oppression of various sorts were insidious. They did not solely aim to "help" the oppressed (i.e. lower castes, poor people, women, etc), but wanted to fundamentally transform society in a radical way (by radical I mean getting to the root of social problems and fundamentally changing something, not just reforming it while keeping the same system in tact). So that is why I make the comparison to gay marriage, a reform in an oppressive, homophobic society. A significant reform, but not radical change.
Is our Gurus' vision always in line with a progressive agenda? I'm not sure. I know in its inception Sikhi sought to overthrow tyranny and oppression however it manifested, and so I look at our contemporary world through that lens of fighting against all forms of oppression… Is that always in line with a progressive agenda? Perhaps…but it's certainly deeper than a political agenda.
good points
I'm skeptical that the vision for change here is based on gurbani or a sustained effort to understand the social vision described by the Gurus. Like I said it is progressive, Left politics with a tag line linking it to Sikhi with the assumption that they must be the same thing. I say that with minimal rancor.
It may well be that progressive politics links with Sikhi in some (or many) areas, but why not discuss and establish – rather than assume – those areas?
Also, the guy in the picture seems like a really good hearted guy. Good for him for being there!
I'd agree with kantay's sentments above.
Though I on a personal level support marriage equality and am happy to hear the news of the Singh pictured above, I think that too often the Gurus' agenda is equated with a progressive agenda, without seeing, reflecting, on what is contained within Gurbani. I am not sure it is sufficient to align the two without a clear reflection on Sikh history and the Gurus' vision, through long and sustained discussions on issues such as Sikhism and it's actual vision on marriage, gender, justice, as not to take our contemporary understanding of these issues and suggest that the Sikh perspective is/has always been the same.
What I would encourage us to do instead, is to know the institutions the Gurus established for us to deepen our understanding on our Gurus' visions – and use that to build a perspective on contemporary issues.
I agree with Harvinder this topic because of its social political effects it requires much indepth analysis fro Sikhi stand point before anything is taken as fact. We all have our opinion but we should put Sikhi view point aside until enough information is available. In other areas of this form i have been very aggresive bacause for this reason in pushing an opposing opinion to the popular for this very reason.
Yes, I'd imagine that a very fruitful conversation discussion could emerge from the concept of marriage within Sikhism (including the Anand Karaj and the purpose of 'union'), gender (what is the purpose of gender/the body in Sikhism and the relationship to the Formless), sexuality (what is its role/purpose from a Sikh standpoint), and grihasti-jeevan and same-sex marriages/relationships.
I some articles have been written on this topic, though it does seem like an area for wider conversation that would be appropriate for TLH.
http://www.wahegurunet.com/gay-sikh
this is one interesting article i found. i was quite fascinated to hear that one of mian mir's followers was a gay mystic named sarmad who was beheaded near delhi. http://aroundtheworldblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/vi…
Lets be honest here…he's a fella that feels so strongly that a man should have the right to take another man up the **** that he's even willing to go on a parade about it. If push comes to shove (no pun intended) I would describe him as misguided.. How some of you come to the conclusion that it makes him a "good hearted guy", "progressive" and 'inspirational' is frankly beyond my level of understanding. It seems like adulation by the back door (pun intended).
I personally agree with you Blight Singh. [EDITED BY ADMIN] This is a pc play on gurubani, where we have taken into miss interpatation equality as seen fron gurbani point of view. All “religion” is equal rather then all dharms are equal. This is false as gurubani teaches equality but at the same time debases popular hindu belief of that time as well as even today. We Sikhs like like to over look this and jump to accept only pc Sikhi since it falls into the demigraphs of our pc education.
All "religion" is equal rather then all dharms are equal.
What is the difference between 'religion' and 'dharm' ? Sorry, I'm not very knowledged in these things. Can someone explain, please ?
Hi KnowTheEnemy,
This is actually a complex discussion in itself, because even the word 'religion' is a western creation without a clear definition as it does not apply in many areas around the world very clearly, but rather does a 'nut shell' type of sum up of specific beliefs and divides people into specific groups. For example following words fall under 'religion': Sikhs, Gurubani, SGGS, Visakhi, 10 Gurus, founder Guru Nanak, turban, beard, sward etc. These define religion, as they are presenting a picture of a group of people with a culture and specific traditions and beliefs 'system'. Dharma on the other hand is a study of higher consciousnesses, a seeking of Nirvana one could say. This is where "…all paths lead to the same goal…" this popular saying makes some sense here in dharma and not so much as Wester defined 'religion".
I hope this helps, I am no expert, you will have to research this topic on your own, if you really want a clear answer.
Tejinder and Blight Singh, I question what your perception of homosexuality is. I think the popular perception here is that love between a man and man or a woman and woman would be more vulgar/more lustful than love between a husband and wife.
Guru Ji advises us to be very wary of our kaam – since this is a hindrance to actually seeing the Divine Reality. Do you think it's not possible to have a relationship with Waheguru and a consensual, loving relationship with a partner of the same gender too?
Hi Asingh,
Of course a person can have two relationships one with Waheguru, and the other with another male/female, the world has had awkward relationships throughout history. Sikh farmers historically like many other 'religious' group farmers have had a strong relationship with their land, going far as declaring it "mother", going far as killing another human for it. But this does not mean he should drill a hole in the ground and start having sex with it. I have male friends who are so close to me even closer then blood relative in some cases, they have always gone above and beyond the call of duty of any friendship, this does not mean I am going to start having sex with them.
I laughed out loud. Literally.
Blighty Singh, I always wince when I read bigotry written by western Sikhs, because so many Sikhs experience bigotry themselves living in the West. The idea that gays should be demonised and stigmatised is a vile, disgusting, hateful idea, and despite such an attitude being embedded in backward Punjabi culture, to hear it expressed is still really ugly, even though it shouldn't be a surprise.
By the way, if anyone thinks that God cares about an individuals sexual practises, they reduce God to a petty little sexual voyeur. In other words, project their own prejudices onto him. How vulgar and crude.
Bobby,
"I always wince when I read bigotry written by western Sikhs, because so many Sikhs experience bigotry themselves living in the West."
-This is off topic but I would like to state that Sikhs in the West despite contrary to popular belief live in a much more civilized society than India. 10K of us were not slaughtered in the streets of NY after 9/11 by the common American and 3K Muslims were not killed in this countries streets after 9/11 by common America citizens. Your trying to make it sound like you live in Disneyland and the West is the anti-gay evil and the East is the guiding light of Gay freedom see below.
"Row after India minister calls homosexuality a disease" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-140247…
"backward Punjabi culture" — this is fine with me, I rather be backwards thinking any day if forward thinking is going to retard my thinking to look at un-natural acts as acceptable, and allow the distortion of Gurubani by confused and miss-guided people with their own mental disorder called 'liberalism'.
The debase is not about who God chooses based on sexual preference it is about miss guided people who are under the impression they have the right to accept these acts as normal within the Sikh fold without any complete understanding of Gurubanis perspective on the topic other then the memorization of one liners from a power point at some Sikh Youth camp. I am not any expert for a counter argument I know, but I do have the right to at-least provided a equivalent counter argument to keep balance and stop the spread of a base less pro-gay in Sikhi belief.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,
I completely agree that gays deserve rights and tolerance. They are fellow human beings, our brothers andd sisters. But it makes me sick to think that some Sikhs even consider gay Anand Karaj. Anand Karajs are solely for man and woman. If it was intended for gays, then why has there never been a gay Sikh wedding in the times of the gurus, or indeed throughout history? Building on that, why have there never been any gay Sikh saints (or in fact any heterosexual Sikh saints who have performed intercourse for pleasure)?
Also, where does Gurbani condone homosexuality? Some of you may turn around and say, 'oh, but the fact it doesn't mention homosexuality means it must be ok'. Gubani doesn't mention heroin or LSD specifically, does that mean its ok to get high on them? It dos however mention the word 'drugs', which is an umbrella term for all intoxicants. It also mentions kaam, several times, which is an umbrella term for any sexual activity which isn't for procreation, straight or otherwise. This is also a sin.
Also, this argument of homosexuality being 'natural' and thus ok is completely contradictory. Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh, Hankaar, Anger, Ego, Greed etc, are all natural emotions as well, they are all natural parts of the human condition, so why then do we not allow murder for example, which comes from anger (which is naturally part of us)? If homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural, then why not allow incest as well? You think anyone would consciously choose to be sexually attracted (sexual attraction being something we can't help) to their sibling? You can't treat sexuality like pick and mix. Either everything is ok, or nothing is.
Despite what I have said, of course God does not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual, but he does choose between those who are slaves to their lust, and those who stand firm against it. Gays can stand firm against their homosexuall lust, straight people can stand firm against their heterosexual lust.
If I have offended any of my brothers and sisters, straight or gay, I beg forgiveness.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
I have to agree with this. Recently I was at a gun show, and there was a gay gun vendor their with his partner. I will admit we felt more comfortable talking to them and buying from them then we did from other vendors as in our group there were Sardars, who obviously were looked at provided that we were in a gun show no surprise there. In fact just this past weekend a gay sales person helped me pick out couple of shirts, at a store and I really appreciated his help because I got more then I would from a straight male or female sales person as this guy seemed to have a better understanding of what looked good on me, from a male/female perspective. In fact my wife has gay friends whos house we have gone over for dinner and they have come over ours for dinner etc. They tend to be nice people probably nicer than most Punjabi people I meet on a day to day basis.
"I rather be backwards thinking any day if forward thinking is going to retard my thinking to look at un-natural acts as acceptable"
+++++
Add another word to that description – bigoted.
Sikhs face bigotry and when Sikhs express bigotry and demonise human beings for their sexuality they became as bad as those who express bigotry to Sikhs. Stay in Punjab if you cannot tolerate difference and want to stay in a backward society and culture.
"Stay in Punjab if you cannot tolerate difference and want to stay in a backward society and culture"
^ You wanna get out more Bobby. This is not a question of being 'backward'…..especially if you think the Punjab is more backward than where you live. In Punjab transexuals and transgenders are tolerated and respected far more than where you live. In Punjab women with small babies get their jugs out and feed them in public because Punjab doesn't suffer from the type of victorian prudery like where you live. In Punjab men hold hands with other men in public……whereas they'd be ridiculed for doing so where you live. In Punjab lesbianism is rife and accepted in the girls colleges……..far more than where you live. I get the feeling you've gained all the knowledge you know about the Punjab from poverty appeals on the National Geographic channel. You know, there's some men that feel it is their natural god driven desire to fall in love with and get intimate with…little boys. If enough of them get powerfull jobs in the media will I also be forced to agree with their natural desire too…..lest I be called a bigot for not doing so ?
Blightysingh,
How dare you say all these things about the Punjab, like lesbianism is tolerated in colleges and men hold hands with other men. I was born in and lived in Punjab for most of my life, I have never seen such things happening in abundance as you seem to think. You clearly have no idea what the Punjab is like – in a place where young men and women hitting on each other is frowned upon, how can you honestly believe that girls chatting up girls would be accepted. Stop prescribing your hippy liberal beliefs to a place you know nothing about.
And You are in no position to tell bobby ji that hes probably gained all his knowledge on Punjab through poverty appeals. If you knew anything about Punjab, you'd know its one of the richest states in India, with the lowest poverty and hunger rates. The Indian government presented the state with a performance award in recognition of this.
Honestly, I don't care if men hold hands and girls go to college together, the difference between the example of two men having a homosexual relationship and a man having a relationship with a little boy is HUGE. It's called being a consentual adult. A man raping a woman is wrong, a woman raping a man is wrong (within marriage too!). A man and a man who WANT to be together is not wrong, nor is a woman and a man who want to be together. Married or not.
I don’t want to make this a blog argument, but rather keep it as a debate. I think Bobby the difference between Blight Singh and I vs. some of the other thinking on this blog is simply we are using our own brains to rationalize what information is fed to us via mass medias and popular culture and filtering it via our personal understanding of Gurubani, Sikh history and our life experiences. Not because some tear jerker pro-gay movie we saw, moved our emotions
Not to speak for Blight Singh but I really believe that Blight Singh in the USA would have out right said Obama is an idiot and should not be voted for as he will drive America into the ground, based on our understanding of US history and the federalist thinking and papers while people like you Bobby would have called us “typical Punjabis who don’t like blacks”, because as anyone in the US knows you are racist if you don’t like Obama.