Posted by Pam Spaulding at 11:34 AM
A break from the Alito madness...
Jeninne Lee-St. John has an excellent Viewpoint piece in Time this week, writing on the current conflict within the religious black community on gay civil rights. It's worth the read.
Just look at the black religious leaders—like Rev. Bernice King, a daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.; evangelical juggernaut Bishop T. D. Jakes; and groups like the Memphis-based Coalition of African American Pastors—who've joined ranks with the conservative Right in opposing gay marriage. They say gay rights are not the same as civil rights. They accuse gays and lesbians of "hijacking" the civil rights movement for their homosexual agenda. They say it's unholy and unnatural. But it's for perhaps that last argument alone that, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mulls a challenge to an old state law now being used to prohibit out-of-state homosexual couples from wedding there, black Americans should sympathize with gays and lesbians who want to marry.Lee-St. John accurately notes that anti-miscegenation laws in the South prevented blacks and whites from marrying for those same "unnatural" and "unholy" reasons. When that was over turned, it was not the end of American culture and civilization. Those yahoos hell-bent on "protecting marriage," such as Falwell, Dobson, Santorum, Rick Perry, a host of black homo-bigot pastors, and of course, our friend in the Vatican, Papa Ratzi, have made it practically their life's work to restrict same-sex couples to second-class citizen status.
The hangup many blacks have is the comparison to the gay rights struggle as equivalent to slavery, which is ludicrous. It's not a zero-sum game that civil equality for gays means blacks will somehow have their rights removed or restricted. This, of course is also nonsensical if one considers that there are those among us that are both gay and black, something that clearly is an uncomfortable reality for many religious blacks (see what occurred at the Millions More March, for instance, when black gay activist Keith Boykin was turned away from the podium by homophobe Willie Wilson).
Of course there are important differences. "The comparison with slavery is a stretch," Jesse Jackson asserted in a speech at Harvard last year, "in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." All of which is true. Race is most often, rightly or not, signified physically. While gays have been, and still are in many instances, forced to play straight, they at least had a refuge. It was historically difficult, usually impossible, and often illegal, for a black person to pass as white (even if 15/16ths of his blood was). They had nowhere to hide.
So yes, in the game of Who's Been More Systematically Oppressed?, black people win hands down. But that doesn't discount the hardships of other groups. (Remember the federal Defense of Marriage Act?) And it doesn't mean everyone isn't entitled to equal rights.Massachusetts Governor (and apparently an '08 prez contender) Mitt Romney is clinging to that 1913 law, and knows that there will be a domino effect, a likely positive cascade of gay rights rulings that will follow, if it is overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Lee-St. John challenges those black leaders on the side of the gay-bashing evangelicals on this issue to remember how black civil rights and gay civil rights intersect.
Conservative blacks should denounce the Massachusetts law in question not because they've suddenly decided to embrace something they find wrong but because the law is wrong. It's ostensibly a Federalist argument that is in fact homophobic—and was racist—in intent. And it offends me to the core that lawmakers would deny equal rights to one minority group using a statute created to target others, a statute that could have barred, even invalidated, my existence and might have prevented me from marrying my (white) boyfriend from Massachusetts in Massachusetts. Remember that it took until 1967 for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the anti-miscegenation laws that remained on the books in 16 states—and that Alabama still didn't repeal its law until five years ago.
Filed: GLBT Race Religion
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.pandagon.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1722
Comments
R. Mildred said on October 31, 2005 01:01 PM:
These people need to bone up on their black history: black slaves weren't allowed to marry each other, nevermind white people.
When you're imitating the slave masters, you know you're ideas about the limits of civil rights is wrong.
And how did martin luthor jr's daughter get to be reverend anyway, doesn't she know women reverends are unholy and unnatural?
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Why we aren't winning (any faster)
BLADE BLOG
Why we aren't winning (any faster)
If you want to know why, more than 35 years since Stonewall, gay and lesbian Americans still lack basic federal civil rights protections, an important part of the answer can be found in two stories about the Human Rights Campaign in this week's Washington Blade.
HRC is the nation's biggest gay rights group, with an annual budget of $31 million and a staff of almost 150. HRC claims some 650,000 members, although Blade readers learned earlier this year that this number includes every single person who has ever donated at least $1 and provided an address, minus a few who've died or written the group canceling their membership. Still, HRC is the biggest fish in the gay pond, and has led the way for efforts to win federal gay rights laws.
A quarter-century after HRC's founding, there's still no federal legislation protecting gay Americans from bias in the workplace, housing or public accommodations, or enhancing punishment for anti-gay hate crimes. This despite strong public support in the polls and — at various times — supposedly friendly Democratic control of the White House and both houses of Congress. But two landmark anti-gay laws — "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act — were both signed into law by Bill Clinton, an HRC endorsee.
For years under the leadership of Elizabeth Birch, HRC focused far too much focus on growing the organization and not enough on its mission, including millions and millions to purchase and renovate an upscale headquarters in Washington, D.C.
When HRC does get around to actual lobbying, it is far too timid: too timid in pressuring Democrats and moderate Republicans and too timid in making our case to the American public. Now, the two examples from this week's Blade.
First, we reported that HRC hired as its media relations director Brad Luna, the former spokesperson for a Democratic congressman who aggressively supported amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. When then-Congressman Brad Carson voted for the marriage ban amendment, he even issued a press release bragging about it.
"As a life-long Southern Baptist," Carson said in the statement, "I firmly believe that marriage must remain a consecrated union between one man and one woman. I was the first member of the Oklahoma delegation to publicly call for a ban on gay marriage."
That HRC would hire a staffer from "the enemy camp" was itself newsworthy, if not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are to gain insight about how best to lobby Democrats and moderate Republicans like Carson. But in typical HRC fashion, Luna's position was that Carson and other "red states" Democrats deserve a "pass" on gay marriage, even when it comes to amending our nation's founding document to ban it:
Luna said he urged Carson not to support the marriage amendment and frequently called on him to be more supportive on gay rights, but said he knew instinctively that the political reality in Oklahoma required Carson to distance himself from gay rights to remain a viable candidate for public office.
Well more than 30 Democrats from conservative "red states" voted against the gay marriage ban, so why can't Carson be faulted for not doing the same? "Distancing himself from gay rights"? You can't get much more distant. Carson scored a whopping 11 out of 100 on HRC's congressional scorecard, refusing to back employment protection, hate crime legislation, or even broader HIV treatment.
With a lobbying strategy that excuses such aggressive hostility to gay Americans, who needs opponents?
Speaking of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the Blade also reported that Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas held a hearing last week on the measure, which he recently reintroduced. HRC helped recruit friendly witnesses to testify but made the strategic decision not to publicize the hearing.
[HRC Legislative Director Christopher] Labonte said HRC decided not to issue a press release or call attention to the hearing because the group’s strategists believe public attention to the issue would work to the advantage of the amendment’s supporters.
How is it possible that HRC's lead legislative strategist believes that conservatives have the better side of the argument on amending our Constitution to ban gay marriage?
In fact, HRC has for years tried to change the subject when presented the opportunity to engage the public on gay marriage. In state after state facing ballot measures banning gays from marrying, HRC's strategy has been to avoid discussing gay marriage itself and instead argue that constitutions shouldn't be amended to discriminate. The resulting string of defeats — by remarkably similar margins, whatever the year or the state's political leanings — has still not convinced HRC to modify its strategy.
HRC strategists will claim in their defense that the public needs to be educated first on the issue, but how can we educate if we shirk from opportunities to talk about our lives?
Last year, when Laura Bush was pressed on whether she supported her husband's constitutional ban on gay marriage, her innocuous answer was that the issue was "something people should talk about and debate." Rather than welcome such a rare invitation, HRC's then-leader Cheryl Jacques released a letter criticizing the first lady, saying there were more important issues — like the economy! — for Americans to discuss.
When our biggest gay rights lobbying group is ducking opportunities to actually lobby for our equality, and then makes excuses for those who oppose us, is it any wonder we aren't winning?
Posted by Chris Crain, Executive Editor Nov. 1 at 10:59 PM ccrain@window-media.com
Why we aren't winning (any faster)
If you want to know why, more than 35 years since Stonewall, gay and lesbian Americans still lack basic federal civil rights protections, an important part of the answer can be found in two stories about the Human Rights Campaign in this week's Washington Blade.
HRC is the nation's biggest gay rights group, with an annual budget of $31 million and a staff of almost 150. HRC claims some 650,000 members, although Blade readers learned earlier this year that this number includes every single person who has ever donated at least $1 and provided an address, minus a few who've died or written the group canceling their membership. Still, HRC is the biggest fish in the gay pond, and has led the way for efforts to win federal gay rights laws.
A quarter-century after HRC's founding, there's still no federal legislation protecting gay Americans from bias in the workplace, housing or public accommodations, or enhancing punishment for anti-gay hate crimes. This despite strong public support in the polls and — at various times — supposedly friendly Democratic control of the White House and both houses of Congress. But two landmark anti-gay laws — "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act — were both signed into law by Bill Clinton, an HRC endorsee.
For years under the leadership of Elizabeth Birch, HRC focused far too much focus on growing the organization and not enough on its mission, including millions and millions to purchase and renovate an upscale headquarters in Washington, D.C.
When HRC does get around to actual lobbying, it is far too timid: too timid in pressuring Democrats and moderate Republicans and too timid in making our case to the American public. Now, the two examples from this week's Blade.
First, we reported that HRC hired as its media relations director Brad Luna, the former spokesperson for a Democratic congressman who aggressively supported amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. When then-Congressman Brad Carson voted for the marriage ban amendment, he even issued a press release bragging about it.
"As a life-long Southern Baptist," Carson said in the statement, "I firmly believe that marriage must remain a consecrated union between one man and one woman. I was the first member of the Oklahoma delegation to publicly call for a ban on gay marriage."
That HRC would hire a staffer from "the enemy camp" was itself newsworthy, if not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are to gain insight about how best to lobby Democrats and moderate Republicans like Carson. But in typical HRC fashion, Luna's position was that Carson and other "red states" Democrats deserve a "pass" on gay marriage, even when it comes to amending our nation's founding document to ban it:
Luna said he urged Carson not to support the marriage amendment and frequently called on him to be more supportive on gay rights, but said he knew instinctively that the political reality in Oklahoma required Carson to distance himself from gay rights to remain a viable candidate for public office.
Well more than 30 Democrats from conservative "red states" voted against the gay marriage ban, so why can't Carson be faulted for not doing the same? "Distancing himself from gay rights"? You can't get much more distant. Carson scored a whopping 11 out of 100 on HRC's congressional scorecard, refusing to back employment protection, hate crime legislation, or even broader HIV treatment.
With a lobbying strategy that excuses such aggressive hostility to gay Americans, who needs opponents?
Speaking of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the Blade also reported that Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas held a hearing last week on the measure, which he recently reintroduced. HRC helped recruit friendly witnesses to testify but made the strategic decision not to publicize the hearing.
[HRC Legislative Director Christopher] Labonte said HRC decided not to issue a press release or call attention to the hearing because the group’s strategists believe public attention to the issue would work to the advantage of the amendment’s supporters.
How is it possible that HRC's lead legislative strategist believes that conservatives have the better side of the argument on amending our Constitution to ban gay marriage?
In fact, HRC has for years tried to change the subject when presented the opportunity to engage the public on gay marriage. In state after state facing ballot measures banning gays from marrying, HRC's strategy has been to avoid discussing gay marriage itself and instead argue that constitutions shouldn't be amended to discriminate. The resulting string of defeats — by remarkably similar margins, whatever the year or the state's political leanings — has still not convinced HRC to modify its strategy.
HRC strategists will claim in their defense that the public needs to be educated first on the issue, but how can we educate if we shirk from opportunities to talk about our lives?
Last year, when Laura Bush was pressed on whether she supported her husband's constitutional ban on gay marriage, her innocuous answer was that the issue was "something people should talk about and debate." Rather than welcome such a rare invitation, HRC's then-leader Cheryl Jacques released a letter criticizing the first lady, saying there were more important issues — like the economy! — for Americans to discuss.
When our biggest gay rights lobbying group is ducking opportunities to actually lobby for our equality, and then makes excuses for those who oppose us, is it any wonder we aren't winning?
Posted by Chris Crain, Executive Editor Nov. 1 at 10:59 PM ccrain@window-media.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
