African-American Community Should Embrace Gay Rights

Whenever there is a discussion about gay rights and the African-American community, someone can be depended upon to offer the juvenile critique that the cause of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is not the same as the historical Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s.

It's not uncommon to hear African-American pastors suggest "my skin cannot be compared with their sin" as a way to poetically justify their homophobia.

This argument assumes a collective understanding of what the Civil Rights Movement is and what the LGBT movement is not.

If one views the civil rights movement and the current LGBT struggle through the linear paradigm of race and sex, I would agree there is little that connects the two.

If, however, one understands the civil rights movement as something that helped America get closer to the democratic values to which it committed itself in 1776, along with the preamble of the Constitution that reads: "We the people of the United States in order form a more perfect union," then I would suggest the LGBT struggle is very much an extension in the ongoing civil rights struggle.

As Dr. Sylvia Rhue, director of religious affairs for the National Black Justice Coalition stated: "Challenging homophobia is the unfinished business of civil rights."

One of the great challenges of the American experiment is the ongoing examination of who exactly comprises the "we."

Former Congresswoman, Barbara Jordan, during the Watergate hearings eloquently stated:

"'We, the people.' It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the 17th of September 1787 I was not included in that 'We, the people.' I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in 'We, the people.'"

It is fair to say that when the Constitution was ratified, not only was Jordan not included, but also many Americans today, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, let alone orientation, would have found themselves outside of the inclusive jurisdiction of the "we."

"Who are the we?" has been arguably the most tension-filled question in America's brief history. It has fueled demonstrations and violence. The country even went to war against itself, in part, because of the inability to answer the "we" question definitively.

It was the question that African slaves and their descendants raised in their quest for equality. It was the question for women during the suffrage movement. And it is the question that so many in the LGBT movement rightly have today.

The ironic aspect to this dubious legacy is when those newly admitted develop amnesia about their particular struggle for justice when volunteering for gate duty as others attempt to enter through the door marked, "Equal Protection Under the Law. "

On March 28, the National Black Justice Coalition will hold its fourth annual Black Church Summit along with a national town hall meeting at Glide United Methodist Church in San Francisco, beginning at 9 a.m. There will be a number of clergy, theologians and activists assembled in the ongoing attempt answer the "we" question as it relates to the African-American LGBT community.

NBJC is a civil rights organization dedicated to empowering the LGBT community. According to Rhue, "NBJC envisions a world where all people are fully empowered to participate safely, openly and honestly in family, faith and community, regardless of race, gender-identity or sexual orientation."

In order to meet this lofty goal, NBJC recognizes the importance of fostering dialogue with the historical black church that has played a vital role in the African-American community. The black church has consistently been a nexus of hope for people once condemned to the outskirts of second-class citizenship.

But far too many segments of the black church today prefer to hide behind the same rationale that justified Jim Crow segregation than to welcome their LGBT brothers and sisters.

When will we learn the door to equality does not remain cracked selectively?

Comments

[Byron Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

The historical piece is this as it relates to the Civil Rights Movement. There were over 120 churches in Montgomery in 1955, but only 20 participated in the boycott; and the only reason King was made chair of the Montgomery Improvement Association was because the other pastors were afraid, he was young, and new to the city. In 1963 there were over 500 black churches in Birmingham, roughly 15 participated in the marches. King was kicked out of the National Baptist Convention because of his work, which led to the creation of the Progressive National Baptist Convention. So if the majority of black churches were wrong about civil rights could it be they are also wrong about LGBT issues? Peace and Blessings Byron

[Nommo]

Of course they could be wrong and most likely are. As with most institutions, their emphasis is staying around. If that means avoiding certain controversies, then so be it. The issue is for all the progressive energies to find each other and just as those 15 churches in Birmingham went on with the work that needed to be done, so should it be today. Those churches that embrace all without condition and without fear will just be one front in this protracted drama.

As for the rest of everyone else, make new churches or whatever have you. Time and tide are still not waiting.

[Byron Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

I just got back from DC surprised to see that conversation (for lack of a better word) is continuing after nearly a week. I've read a few (not all) of the comments about the black church. While the term is amorphous and paints broad, and sometimes unfair, strokes about the most important institution within the African American community here are a few facts. The Christian right has put quite a few African American pastors on retainer to do their bidding. The AME is not to my knowledge among this group, but an AME pastor who was on panel with me this week stated if her denomination found her about her stance for gay rights, she risks excommunication. To be continued.

[SJBrown]

When did the AME Church start excommunicating?

[diogenes1967]

A final plea.

Both sides of this argument need to acknowledge the enormus diversity in both communities, there is no such thing as "the black community" and the "gay community." There are various African American faith traditions that are LGBT affirming, for example. There is a LGBT faith community that often gets overlooked. There are vast regional differences in both communities. There are vast class differences in both communties.

Oldc talked about the Gay Men's Health Crisis working with the hose kids in New York. I know that in Chicago I worked (and still communicate with) with a black LGBT group that ran a summer job program for black and Latino youth; those kids had jobs working in many business establishments in the gay community.

Also look at the regional patterns in LGBT voting because a lot has been made of the 27% LGBT vote for McCain (and much of it was chalked up to racism against Obama) but much of that came from the South, not from the traditional bastions like the Castro, west Hollywood, Chelsea, etc. This indicates that there are also regional differences in voting patterns and, hence, regional variations in what constitutes "the gay community."

There are gay communities" and "black communities." Period. The more both sides of this argument recognize that, the better.

And tune in next time for the continuing saga of "the Gays and the Blacks", I tell ya...

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83918

[Tanyars5]

Old doc and Dio please read this article.

http://www.queerty.com/your-rights-vs-mine-is-there-common-ground-between-lgbt-and-african-american-civil-rights-20090312/

[Tanyars5]

Oldoc and Dio- My position is my own. Many black people I know agree with me or agree with me on varying levels. I think you will find that black people will not support gay rights the way you both would like. Good luck in your quest to change minds.
Word to the wise.......don't defend the indefensible.

[jugganaut]

Hmm, I wonder if these are historic parallels in the two causes:

1) Majorities in many states pass "Jim Crow" laws codifying denial of blacks' legal rights
Majorities in many states pass laws, i.e., anti-gay marriage amendments, codifying denial of gays' legal rights

2) Many blacks were/are victims of "hate crime" assaults
Many gays were/are victims of "hate crime" assaults

3) Blacks suffer/ed discrimination in housing/employment
Gays suffer/ed discrimination in housing/employment

Yep, you guys are right, there are absolutely no valid historical comparisons that can be drawn between the two. Gee, whatever was I thinking.

[EqualMeansEqual]

Watch it. reason and logic turns are warped into insults to the minds of some.

[carsntrucks]

1) You really think Jim Crow laws parallel "anti-gay-marriage" amendments? Really?
2) Except the law actively made it OK for hate crimes against blacks; hate crimes against gays have never been a) that prevalent in the first place, and b) actively nor implicitly promoted by the system
3) Aside from a few individual cases, gays haven't suffered discrimination in housing and employment. Probably because we can't see gayness the way we can see blackness.

Nope, you don't have any historical comparisons that can be drawn. You can generalize the plight of some gays to what was the standard treatment of an entire race of people and say it's the same, but people who consider logic and rationale to be "whatever I agree with politically" will agree.

[Nommo]

Jim Crow laws sanctioned state violence against Black people. Black demonstrators were attacked by uniforms. It continues in the form of police harassment against Black youth, primarily males with constant unreasonable search and seizures, that statistics of which the NYPD tries to move heaven and earth to keep from being released. 80% of all "stop and frisks" are of young Black men and boys. Straight, gay and undecided, but all Black and Latin.

That could have been you walking down Gates Ave., oldoc. Not because you are gay, but because you are Black. Extrapolate that to a nation wide scale. Does the GLBT community experience state sanctioned violence on that scale? Can you imagine how many letters I have written on behalf of mine and their friends? They have to worry about police as much as any thug in the street.

Have you not witnessed that in Brooklyn, NY, oldoc? Where is the outcry for their rights? Did you see the crowds that turned out to protest what happened to Sean Bell and his friends? Could you count the white faces, oldoc?

[jugganaut]

Well as oldoc pointed out, anti-sodomy laws (not to mention Christian anti-gay religious "laws") sanctioned anti-gay violence and bigotry-in all honesty the "marriage defense" amendments are among the more benign forms of codified anti-gay discrimination.

But congratulations anyway, you get to be a contestant in the "Oppression Olympics", just like you wanted. Hate to tell ya though, but truth be told, blacks would probably only take the silver in that competition. The gold medal would probably go to the Jews-they've suffered far more throughout history than blacks. Heck, the Holocaust alone dwarfs anything blacks have gone through.

Funny thing is, Jews have thrived despite historical anti-Semitism-many of them emigrated to America with nothing after the Holocaust and built themselves up. Why? Because they have a culture that emphasizes success rather than holding onto grievances in perpetuity. Sure they remember, but very few dwell on it.

Fyi, I'm not Jewish, but I can see appreciable differences in their culture and yours. You'd do well to emulate them and de-emphasize this "blacks always get screwed by the man" security blanket to which you insist on clinging.

[Tanyars5]

Doc-Here is a comparison for you

Isiah Washiongton had to apologize to every gay person in the US for calling a cast member a bad name.. His career is on hold and losing his residence. Media coverage of HUGE

White gays insult black people etc. National TV coverage of the foolishness of the black vote. The data used to disparage black people is an exit poll.

Data used to insult black people is found to be incorrect. National TV coverage minimal.
Some gays pretend all of the hate didn't happen.

Gay people you owe black people an apology.
Period

[diogenes1967]

You might want to go read Rod 2.0 for his many, many, many posts on the number of preachers in African American churches who have preached homophobia from the pulpit.

All I am saying is that accountability has to go both ways.

[Tanyars5]

Hi Dio-
When Isiah Washington made his racial slur I don't remember AA making excuses for him. He apologized. Why is it so hard for people to apologize? I am speaking about a reaction to a RECENT event.
Dio- All due respect and out of luv...........don't defend white haters.........just don't

[EqualMeansEqual]

White gays?

a few people do not equal a entire group. (you done that this whole thread, white gays do this, white gays that, etc)

Isiah apologized for HIS actions he did not apologize for black people, and he also cowardly tried to claim his firing was because he was black and not because he attacked someone and used hate words aimed at a gay person.http://www.usmagazine.com/isaiah_washington_4

A individuals wrongs does not mean the entire group should have to apologize for it. Your just hating and latching on to a "reason"(not a very well thought out one at that) to hate.

So way aren't you calling for "black people to apologize" to gays for any and all anti-gay statements , made by numerous rappers, and athletes? Why do you think gays are so beneath you that they have to bow down at your feet, when you want to treat insults to them in such a dismissive manner? You complain about gays "forgetting the hate happen" and yet you have a very selective memory, when it happen to them!

Why don't you just" treat people the same? WHy?

[Tanyars5]

I am speaking about a reaction to a RECENT event. You seem to always bring up things that I have not heard about.
So you are saying that white gays can get on national tv and disparage blacks. They can get on the internet and call us names. Then find out that all of their data is incorrect and they don't have to apologize?
Please answer my question on why they don't owe black people an apology.

[oldocwoods]

This is an important distinction, thank you Equal. If we could find these racist dudes who made these offensive statements, and they apologized for their actions, that would be a totally different thing than asking gays to apologize to blacks, which, is frankly absurd.

[carsntrucks]

Name some rappers and athletes who have used gay slurs (that have actually gotten attention) who DIDN'T issue an apology. Quit just using this generality and not expounding on it.

And let us not forget the TOPIC. Byron Williams is asking for blacks to embrace gay rights; this isn't a referendum on who does who more wrong. It's the gays who pitched a fit when they found out blacks weren't down for the cause. How many times have you heard blacks complaining about the lack of support from gay people? They just resign to the fact that they have to take care of their own. But if gays are going to act entitled to support from a minority group who has and does go through more than them, they're going to have to humble themselves...which is something they seem reluctant to do.

[oldocwoods]

1. So are you saying that I owe an apology to Black people? Because thats what your statement "Gay people you owe black people an apology. Period" says to me. So, your saying I should apologize to black people for what several white gay racists said?

2. On this comparison, there is a gaping disparity between Isiah Washington, as a public figure, and the "White gays," who are, for all intents and purposes publicly anonymous. The only commonality between the two, besides the insults, is the role of the media in sensationalizing both. Rather than demand that "gay people" apologize, why don't we push for the media to apologize for faulty reporting?

[Tanyars5]

Old I cannot get things posted ...you know who I am speaking.
I am being very specific about a specific event. Please keep your response to my questions to the specific event in question.
The people who were on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are public figures. The say they are some sort of leader of the gay movement. I have no idea how they got on the show. I don't know what stature they have in the gay movement. They have some stature so they could get booked. I am just a regular old citizen.I cannot get on MSNBC and spout hate.
The media was a tool used by the gay movement to get their message across. They are on the tube regularly speaking about different issues. The same ones who got their faces on it to talk about bigoted blacks need to parade themselves back on those shows.

[jugganaut]

I don't owe black people an apology.

A 2009 NYU-CUNY study found that after controlling all other factors, blacks were 2% more likely to vote for Prop 8 than whites. So what that says to me is that while it's absurd to claim that the black vote was solely responsible for Prop 8's passage, it's also equally ridiculous to claim that blacks deserve NO criticism for their role in it.

While that stat may not sound significant, it is rather ironic given that whites generally have not suffered the effects of discrimination (though some white subgroups certainly have, e.g., Irish-Americans) while blacks have, and thus should be more acutely aware of the impact of discriminatory laws.

Moreover, the "black vote was only 6% of the total" argument is misguided because it completely absolves the 58% of blacks who DID vote for Prop 8 of any accountability for their role in perpetuating civil injustice. We're not leveling criticism because you're black-we're leveling criticism because 58% of you harbor erroneous notions of civil justice for other minority groups, just as Latinos deserve their share of criticism because 53% of them harbor erroneous notions of civil justice, and so on.

The Prop 8 black vote results indicate that the black community needs to do a better job of confronting homophobia within its ranks. I stand by that criticism and I won't apologize for it.

[Tanyars5]

Jug - fine with me. Just don't look for AA support.

[Tanyars5]

Jug- Being white means never having to say you are sorry to blacks.

My view will not change on this matter.

Nommo-thanks for the support on this one.

Old Doc and Dio- (shaking my head in wonder)

[oldocwoods]

Jug: I am responding to you in several parts.

pt 1.

I have been posting this study all over this board, and your analysis warps the actual results of the Egan/Sherril study that you refer to. The results don't actually support the community level generalizations that you prefer.

1. The study actually concludes that the determinant factors in the prop 8 vote was not race, but religion and age--"We find that voters’ party identification, ideology, religiosity and age had a much bigger impact on the vote than other voter characteristics." Furthermore, they specifically argue: "The differences seen among racial and ethnic groups in support for Proposition 8 were almost certainly more narrow than indicated by the Election Day exit poll conducted by the NEP, and we believe these differences do not merit the amount of attention they have received. "

They argue that:"African Americans and Latinos were stronger supporters of Proposition 8 than other groups ...but not to a significant degree after controlling for
religiosity... " to suggest that the real demographic patterning goes to the conservative religious voters 65 and over who overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, and this despite race or knowledge of gays and lesbians. Further: "support for Proposition 8 was greatest in precincts that are the least racially diverse."

[oldocwoods]

response pt 2.

2. The black voters who voted yes on prop. 8 absolutely deserve criticism for their their vote, but no more so than the Latino voters (as you acknowledge), or the white voters---which have received very little attention as a "community." The way you have formulated your response you reason from the voters who voted on prop 8., to the black population as a whole---"58% of you harbor erroneous notions of civil justice for other minority groups" Yet that statistic only speaks to blacks who voted, not to the population as a whole. Furthermore, if you accept the statistic, generalizations from racial populations is misleading, because the grouping that is important is religion, ideology and age.

You can stand by your criticism, but you cant use this study to justify your argument. Furthermore, your assumptions are not helpful as the study actually points to a looming problem---given the voting patterns, community level organizing around issues of homophobia would have made little difference as "Two variables are exceptions in that their effects do not persist across all of the models: (1) race and ethnicity, and (2) personal knowledge of gays and lesbians." If you want to effectively isolate a population for criticism, why don't you try arguing that what we need to do is convince conservative, religious voters over 65 that LGBT issues are issues they should care about.

[SJBrown]

What is this "you Black people" argument you're making? Did Black people huddle together and decide to vote for Prop 8 or did they go exercise their individual right to vote? You are mistaking your person logic for statistical rigor and your personal experience and prejudices as objective analysis.

Are you trying to build coalitions or deepen the divide?

[carsntrucks]

I'm glad you mentioned that. Isaiah Washington did more for the gay rights movement than T.R. Knight has in the closet. And he still lost his job.

And how many national news stories have there been about the race-baiting behind the rallies about Prop 8? Did Rachel Maddow talk about it? But she's so smart! What about KO and his BS "Final Comment" whatever. Anybody? No.

[oldocwoods]

The idea that T.R. Knight, or Isaiah Washington have actively done anything for gay rights is laughable. I think your confusing gay rights with gay media exposure.

There have been plenty of national news stories done on race-baiting at the rallies around prop. 8. I think the question you should be asking is how many national news stories actually managed to get the statistics behind prop 8. right. Then follow that up and ask how many managed to do follow up on the actual statistics. I think we'll find that both questions cleave around the issue of sensationalism. Perhaps you should rethink where you get your news.

[diogenes1967]

I may get flamed for this suggestion but here it goes.

Another segment of the mainstream gay community that seems to be marginalized in our civil rights struggle is LGBTs of religious faith. That's in spite of the many denominations in mainstream society and in the African American community itself that are LGBT affirming. But you hardly ever hear about these affirming faiths in our civil rights struggle.

I say this because sometimes you have to meet folks where they are at. I know a lot of African American gays and lesbians that go church. I know many that go to homophobic churches. I don't understand why they continue to go to these churches that continue to disrespect them. Many sing in those churches. A few even preach in those churches. One thing I know that turns many black GLBTs off is the perception that mainstream (read: white) GLBT movement is the apparent lack of a faith community. Let those LGBTs in the African American community know that if they come out that they have an increasing number of options for joining the LGBT faith communities.

[oldocwoods]

I absolutely agree with both points Diogenes. That is why I think that Pastor William's suggestion is so important, and why I think the conference that he points to (NBJC's 4th annual Black Church Summit) is super important, not only for organizing amongst queers of color, but also because it fills a real need in the African American community.

[Tanyars5]

Old and Dio you both identify as black. I have attended black churches my whole life. Now I have to say most have been in Ohio. I was raised in the AME church. I have never ever ever heard any black preacher get into the pulpit and start ranting and raving about gay people. At church most preachers I have heard speak about the bible. The black church is getting a bum rap. I don't know what type of churches you guys go to and believe me I think some black churches may have preachers who do this but I think this is just some bull crap that is fueling this fire.

[jugganaut]

One thing that really bothers me as a gay man is that some blacks get indignant and object when the gay equality struggle is compared to their struggles.

We aren't competing in the "Oppression Olympics", folks. Recognizing that other groups face similar problems does not demean the merit of one's own struggle.

There's work to be done on both fronts, but we've all gotta keep in mind that when the water rises for one group it rises for all of us.

[carsntrucks]

You want to compete when you make comparisons.

[ruscle]

Nonsense. Does that mean that women are "competing" with Blacks when they make comparisons in asking for equal treatment under the law?

[FearlessFreep]

I don't see how that's so.

[EqualMeansEqual]

once again no logic.

[jugganaut]

Only if you don't possess the capability to recognize when one is analogizing for the purpose of persuasion.

[LewDan]

"Whenever there is a discussion about gay rights and the African-American community, someone can be depended upon to offer the juvenile critique that the cause of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is not the same as the historical Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s."

Anyone who fails to recognize the Civil Rights Movement as the same is "juvenile?"

But you cant' understand why anyone (other than homophobes) would be insulted.

"The cause of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is not the same as the historical Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s."

Because gays are being lynched, juries won't convict perpetrators of straight-on-gay crime, the gays are arrested if they complain of assaults by straights, and when the law favors gays the laws are ignored just like with Blacks in the '50s and '60s -- oh, wait, making a FACTUAL comparison is "playing the biggest victim game" -- No one here is COMPETING -- gay struggles are just the same, that's all, anyone who wasn't a homophobe could see that!

People, your problem with the Black community is a simple one. There's an old saying: "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining."

[EqualMeansEqual]

They are comparing it because both are a struggle for equalities and equal treatment under the law. Not one is claiming that the situations and history are exactly the same. Your hatred blinds you if you get made at comparisons. I asked you before people have compared the civil rights movement of Hispanics(which the history of such a LARGE movement has been underrepresented in just about all discussions of the matter) Native Americans and women. No one got mad or insulted at the comparisons? No outrage when comparing the holocaust and Native American genocide, even though they were not the same.
Why such a different attitude when gays do it?

Oh yeah you ignore that the only group that has a increase in hate crimes committed against them are GAYS. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_7_39/ai_n31331697 Gays are murdered and raped in Africa because they are GAY.

Your problem is you think you can piss on someone leg and then pretend to get upset when the do the same think.

[Tanyars5]

So after Iris's, Carsntrucks, and Nommo intelligent and insightful analysis below, has anyone contacted CNN, MSNBC and FOX to speak about an apology to black people?

[oldocwoods]

Tanyars5: I dont entirely share your conclusion that the analysis by Iris,Carnstrucks, or Nommo has been entirely insightful or sound. I also don't share your conclusion that an apology in this is entirely the right track based on your reasoning. Two things: I would love it if we could talk to the racist gay people that denounced African American voters after prop8. and ask them to apologize. I dont support the idea that the media figures who you cited speak for the gay community, or that they are in the position to apologize for succumbing to the racist bias implied by the faulty exit polls. Lets consider this issue of media leadership. If we pursue it, I think we would need to call up D.L. Hughley first. He reported the same statistic in his interview with Dan Savage. If his show, which appears on CNN, reported that fact, by your logic, wouldn't Hughley owe us an apology as well?

"Hughley: On November 4, the same day Barack Obama was elected president, voters in California approved the measure that makes same-sex marriage illegal in the state of California. Seventy percent of blacks and 53 percent of Latinos voted to ban gay marriage. So is the gay community holding minorities responsible for this?
[...]
Hughley: Why do you think that so many -- the large percentage of African-Americans -- voted for Proposition 8, and Latinos?"

[Nommo]

The Black vote was 6% of the entire electorate. Further, the figures derived were based on exit polls which can be twisted to fit whatever the need is of the moment. I fear, oldoc, that innumeracy drags the argument much further than it needs to go and equally obscures the fact that no one has produced a verifiable figure on that Black vote.

It is not unlike the long back and forth you went through with carsntrucks, bandying back an forth a notion that you did not seem clear on at all. As I said before, that marriage issue was discussed numerous times on these very pages and it seems as though a lot of people just don't get and thus fight a battle that simply makes no sense. Then too many want to argue in the most specious fashion, not ever addressing the actual issue.

If you do not understand, in the context of jurisprudence the definition of marriage, you will continue to fight a battle that you cannot win, and your enemies will actually encourage that route for you. There is little room in the law for sentiment.

It is equally important to study the failures of the civil rights movement. It is important to study the issues that the civil rights movement did not address, such as the economic underdevelopment of our communities. To me, that is the crucial issue. Wealth building. Fail to do that, and all else is moot.

[oldocwoods]

Ps: Tanyars5, I'm adding this as a post here because I missed it before, and I saw that you asked me to respond. I didnt see this post until now.

1. I'm not apologizing for racists. I've never said that what happened after prop. 8 was right , and I have never said that the implicit racism argued by the media is excusable. IN fact, I was arguing the case for its racism after prop 8.

What I have been saying is that the LGBT community is not simply composed of white folk. There has been a tendency, long before prop. 8, for LGBT community to be understood as white, and this means overlooking all of the communities which contribute to the LGBT movement. ( and I'm not saying this is particular to the African American Community) I have argued that while the response of racist white gays to the passage of prop. 8 is disgusting, to equate the entirety of the LGBT movement with those gays is not only disappointing, its acutely irresponsi­ble--parti­cularly if you are making the argument that in writing off the LGBT community, you are some how acting in protection of the African American community. By equating the work of African American gays and lesbians with a white racist minority, you are essentially shoving your brothers and sisters under the bus.--and this in the name of African American solidarity! Its not only contradictory, I find it misguiding and insulting.

[Tanyars5]

Old - I am very familiar with the LGBT community. I have been to many HRC dinners and events. I have been to several gay prides etc. I know what is happening in the gay community. One of my best friend's (who is white) is a log cabin republican. Lets not pretend that all of this kumbaya stuff is happening in the gay communities. I can only speak of what I have observed and heard from other people. Lets be for real. Maybe in your town all the blacks and white gays get together and party. You know this is not happening. Black gays gather separately from white gays and have different activities.
Black gays don't participate in the pride event because they feel activities are geared for whites. Blacks don't want to listen to dance music and folk music all day long. Give me a break.
If you are insulted by my words then understand that the feeling is mutual.

[oldocwoods]

Tanyar5: (cont.)

2. I cant speak for this minority, and I cant make them apologize. I can tell you though that within the gay community there has been many efforts to counter this sort of behavior. And severe outcry on behalf of the African American community. This doesnt seem enough for you, however. I sympathize, but what good does it do to tell African American gay and lesbians that the GLBT community doesn't want you? Does that include the Latino and Hispanic LGBT community? The Asian LGBT community? Or does it just include white folk?

Furthermore, I have to say that I have little sympathy for you if you are unaware of African American LGBT leaders--in particular because Pastor Williams ends his article with explicit reference to the only national organization working on African American GLBT issues---The National Black Justice Coalition. To my mind this article was pitched at black folk, and for the life of me, I cant understand how you can go from the work of the of the National Black Justice Coalition straight to stirring up more hysteria about Prop 8. And you do this in the name of Black folk? Please.

[oldocwoods]

3. Finally, you asked me how I benefit from same sex marriage as a Black Gay Man. Personally, I can tell you that it would go a long way towards setting my momma's mind at ease because she worries that being gay and black that I wont take seriously the hard work of taking care of myself--of honoring my worth as an African American man worthy of respect. She worries that not only will I disrespect myself, but that I will choose to love men who disrespect themselves, and our union. Furthermore, she worries that standing out as an Gay man will make me even more vulnerable to racism. Now, obviously, marriage doesn't solve for any of this. But as a symbol, it goes a long way towards creating a context for taking my commitment to my partner seriously, and working at stability. Not to mention children. However, in a formal sense, consider the basic unequal outcomes that black folk experience as a result of structural racism--obstacles to maintaining generational wealth, cultural racism impacting our use of public institutions, health problems impacting life expectancy, the prison industrial complex's grip on our families. The list goes on. Now consider trying to work within your family---your gay family which already exists--without benefit to things like :

[oldocwoods]

Access to family courts, death benefits for surviving spouses, mutual responsiblity for debts, joint assesment of income to determine eligibility for state government assistance, entitlement to inherit social security, right to file joint income taxes, ability two jointly own property, or deed a home without incurring a tax penalty, domestic violence protection, immunity to testify against your spouse, right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse.

[Nommo]

oldocwoods, in the event that you don't see this down below, there was no offense taken at all. To me, it is just a matter of being pragmatic. I am just hopeful that you get what you want because you have the good fight in you. (Watch the language, tho..)

[oldocwoods]

hey thanks. u too. but what language do u mean?

[Nommo]

the marriage language. the language of "legis"

[LewDan]

One more dishonest attempt to equate the LGBT struggle with the Civil Rights Movement will not advance you cause at all. The Civil Rights Movement was a battle for equality under the law. The actual laws themselves were largely different battles. The civil rights battle was about having laws, whatever they were, executed and enforced equally, regardless of race. LGBT battles are over what laws should be executed and enforced, just like every other interest group.

Black support is neither due nor owed anyone on any issue. You demean the civil rights struggle and insult us by insisting LGBT struggles are the same, and Black support should be automatic. I AM against discrimination against LGBTs or anyone else. But the constant appeals and/or recriminations because we're Black are extremely offensive.

[MagisterLudi]

Precisely why no protests were staged at African American churches communities by gay leaders. Too embarrassing and sends a mixed message.

[RainbowPhoenix]

Nooooo.... we didn't protest there because most of us are smart enough to realize that they weren't responsible.

[FearlessFreep]

"The civil rights battle was about having laws, whatever they were, executed and enforced equally, regardless of race. LGBT battles are over what laws should be executed and enforced, just like every other interest group."

Anyone who's followed the debate about the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy will realize that this is a nonsensical distinction. That policy was supposed to provide protection for gay GIs, but it has not been "executed and enforced."

[Nommo]

You're talking about the military. A completely different set of rules.

[ruscle]

You say "The Civil Rights Movement was a battle for equality under the law."

Gay rights movement is a battle for equality under the law.

I don't see what your point is other than to make the point that they are one in the same -- a battle for equal rights under the law.

[FearlessFreep]

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/10/religion_news_c.html

[jugganaut]

If you can't see the similarities between the two equality movements, it's simply because you don't want to.

[LewDan]

One more dishonest attempt to equate the LGBT struggle with the Civil Rights Movement will not advance your cause at all. The Civil Rights Movement was a battle for equality under the law. The actual laws themselves were largely different battles. The civil rights battle was about having laws, whatever they were, executed and enforced equally, regardless of race. LGBT battles are over what laws should be executed and enforced, just like every other interest group.

Black support is neither due nor owed anyone on any issue, that's racist. You demean the civil rights struggle and insult us by insisting LGBT struggles are the same, and Black support should be automatic. I AM against discrimination against LGBTs or anyone else. But the constant racist appeals and/or recriminations are extremely offensive.

[oldocwoods]

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the African American Civil Rights Movement, or the American Civil Right Movement considered in its totality? On either point, I absolutely reject the notion that the African American Civil Rights movement does not overlap with the LGBT rights movement, or that the LGBT rights movement cannot be equated with the American Civil Rights movement.

If we accept that the African American Civil Rights Movement was only concered with equality under the law, then pivotal and important acts of civil disobedence--such as Homer Plessy's refusal to submit to racial segregation--is certainly jettisoned to to the terrain that you dismisively attribute to 'interest groups' and their battles over what laws should be executed and enforced. Plessy's act was protesting the injustice of the law, and the culture of segregation which resulted and enforced and enacted unjust laws.

LGBT battles are similarly protesting and advocating for changes to the execution and enforcement of unjust laws. In this stance, they are a vital part of the other movements to change unjust laws. You may certainly question the injustice of the law, but you cant honestly and in good faith question the continuity these battles have to prior hisorical precedents.

[EqualMeansEqual]

And LewDan ignores(by accident, ignorance or hatred) that the civil rights movements also involved Hispanics and Native Americans. Like César Chávez and a long list of other leaders and movements thta existed even before the 60's.

All opressed people have a connection. Should native Americans be mad at blacks for people comparing the experiences? No. Is it someone wrong to compare jews and Native aemrican genocide? No.

Only homophobes who look down on gays get disgusted at a analogy that may not be 100% perfect. (like analogies are ever perfect anyhow.)

[LewDan]

Excuse me -- Do you usually argue by redefining reality? The Civil Rights Movement was a specific struggle in American history for the specific goal of Equal Protection. Yes -- it was a continuation of the human experience -- as are all human endeavors.

That does not make all human activity equal, or even equivalent. If it did the position of those fighting against LGBT rights would be just as valid as yours, now wouldn't it? The actual immediate objectives don't matter do they? The actual results are irrelevant, right? As long as the process is the same then everything else is equal too. Right?

I imagine those terrified of LGBT "sinners" consider any law authorizing gay marriage "unjust," don't you think? So, since everything is equal there's no need address LGBT issues. Problem solved! -- And thanks for the history and philosophy lesson!

[Jacquiem]

The thorny issue I have heard many African Americans I know voice regarding this particular fight is that we feel we are really being asked to ACCEPT a behavior and a lifestyle that the Christian faith (in which many African Americans believe) clearly define as immoral. And as much as people say they only want equal rights, not acceptance, it's hard to believe that when the person who does not express complete acceptance of homesexuality is labeled a homophobe or a bigot. (So then can I start calling people who don't agree with the Christian life Christophobes?)

Accepting legal spousal rights for gay people and calling it MARRIAGE in the Black community is going to be a hard sell because of the spiritual significance of marriage coupled with the Scriptural admonitions (in both the Old and New Testaments) against homosexuality. If the argument were just equal dignity and rights under the law without the overtones of moral acceptance, I think much of this argument would be moot. Because the same Scriptures that admonish against any sinful behavior also command me to love my neighbor as I would love myself. I don't have like what you do in order to be concerned that you are treated with respect and dignity. But your request for respect and dignity shouldn't carry the caveat of me having to like or accept what you do.

[antaeus]

When did Jesus denounce gays? You believe that? Wow . . .

[carsntrucks]

Well, Moses did, and Jesus said he came not to do away with the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it. So...

Yeah, you're right. It's crazy.

[oldocwoods]

The political issue is not one of acceptance. Its one of tolerance, and equality of principle. Once thats been accomplished, and you find that you cant accept homosexuality, then you need to consider two aspects of your religious belief:

a. its religious justification

b. the role this religious justification plays in your civic life. Even if your religious justification for not accepting homosexulaity continues to conflict with your civic predisposition, you need to have the self restraint not to act on it. Perhaps you should consider this an exercise in faith

Which brings me to the religous issue--This is the same argument that white folk used to justify slavery. When people quote the bible to me today to justify racism, am I just to turn my back on the issue? No, sorry, particularly when I know that Jesus' message had the issue of tolerance, in the form of an enlarged view of community, at its very heart. Why dont we consider again the Parable of the Good Samaratin?

[mydwyf]

Not everyone who has concerns about same sex behavior (in particular role modeling) is even the least bit religious. My concerns come from having spent a great many years on the event horizon of the gay realm. I have seen what I have seen, and I know what I know.
Unfortunately, political correctness requires that I maintain silence or be banned.

[diogenes1967]

Good posts, all. Thanks oldoc.

Let me add to this that not every African American goes to church or is into the church either, though most of us were raised that way. One of the problems is this tendency for ourselves and others to simply see the "African American community (s)" as a big population of churchgoers. I know quite a few black people who are atheist, agnostic, and even dislike the church (I am one of those, and I have a few family members who dislike the church)

[carsntrucks]

"But far too many segments of the black church today prefer to hide behind the same rationale that justified Jim Crow segregation than to welcome their LGBT brothers and sisters."

I'm just curious, Mr. Williams: what was the rationale behind Jim Crow? Because here's what I think it was:

After the passage of the 14thA, many whites -- especially in the South -- still felt it necessary to assert supremacy and dominance over Blacks. So they enacted Jim Crow laws as a continuation of the Black Codes (which did impede their civil rights and liberties) to keep the white male hegemony intact, and they justified it based primarily on libertarian ideas like states' rights. So states passed ordinances making room for de jure discrimination -- policies that kept the "othering" of the black community in place.

Do tell me if I'm wrong.

Now, here's where I'm confused: if Blacks don't agree with LGBT individuals, can you say for certain that's because they think they're beneath them, lesser than them, not as deserving of rights they ought to have? Or, is it a bit more principled than that? I mean, you're a pastor, maybe you can fill me in.

Like I said, the disparity between blacks and gays exists in gay marriage, not "gay rights". Is there a consensus among blacks that things like employment and housing should be denied based on orientation? Do most blacks feel like violence against gays ISN'T a hate crime? I'm curious.

[FearlessFreep]

I think I can say that SOME blacks see homosexuals as beneath them and undeserving of rights, and want to deny them rights to fair employment and housing as well as marriage. The question of "consensus" is meaningless.

Of course, there are also blacks who support gay rights, though some of them are so far afraid to speak out in their own community. I hope they get braver.

[Nommo]

Bullsh*t. This notion is ridiculous on its face. How dare you to presume to speak for millions of individuals. All Black people have ideas about things. Surprise. Some do, some don't, some will some won't. It is no one's business anyway. Consensus is all you ever get anyway, and they know that and with that knowledge they make you spend your way into massive debt anyway. Black or white.

You are not fearless at all. Change your name to "fearful".

[carsntrucks]

No, the question of consensus isn't meaningless. It's a question you know you can't answer the way you want to, so you move the goal post to address something I've implied (by asking for a consensus, and not an absolute answer) I understand to be the case for SOME anyway.

And out of curiosity: off the top of your head, name ten public black figures who have said they would deny gays those things. How about five? Can you do it?Yeah, that's what I thought. You're just being intellectually dishonest. You could say SOME black people plan on turning into pumpkins at midnight. So what?

[Nommo]

Actually carsntrucks its bats at midnight, for one kind of clarity, for another, thank you for this particular elucidation of certain concepts. De jure for one. I think that a major disconnect occurs when folks miss the origins and growth of things. Most importantly, how law becomes custom so that if one identifies the origin of "what happens", in law, one is in a better position to decide how and if the fight is worthy.

If one asks enough Black people, you will get a fair share of viewpoints and no points at all. The same extremes and middle grounds and don't give a damns is what you'll get and statistically ordered, I'll bet. But mostly you'll get a certain cynicism, as Black people tend not to trust the kinds of survey that dwell in certain areas. I would go so far as to say that you will see a genuine concern, even an insistence on discretion and privacy. I have just gone out on a limb, but I am thinking here in cultural terms. That transcends most political stances.

Any Black person disagreeing with the immediate above, holla.

And you knew that, carsntrucks, didn't you?

[EqualMeansEqual]

Homophobic culture.(Gay slurs in music, actors bashing gays, famous athletes insulting gays)
Higher hate crime rates against gays.(Black gays are more likely be attacked by blacks then white gays being attacked by whites) Gee higher rate of hate crimes and higher rate of voting against gay marriage? A separate downlow gay culture that formed in the black community because of the hatred of gays? No connection???? I am sure you will ignore logic again and go of on a homophobic rant. Marriage is a right, regardless of how you try to twist things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-harrislacewell/hate-crimes-and-justice-i_b_65842.html
notice the Afrocentric homophobic comments in the article that link gay and whiteness.
"In the Bible the serpent speak of lust and sex.Black Folk take the good book as gospel we aren't muslim don't care that White Folk have gay kids.We Black Folk who love God just don't want GAY kids!Walking down any street in America Men and Women travel how do i know who's gay?The ones who show us all they are.[LUST and SEX]being cramed down Black Folks Thoats if we don't get in line with the DEVIL."

Gays are in line with the devil? God don't want gay kids? And you say(actually you lie), No one black is looking down on gays?

[Nommo]

Well, just that one. Might be one or two others, but fo sho, we know 'bout dat one.

[oldocwoods]

These sorts of comments are not unique to the African American community. Racial purity is policed around sexual orientation in all of our communities---and at the global level, overt violence against gays is, for example, equally prevalent in "middle eastern" as well as "eastern european" contexts.

Just as we need to be vigilant against critiquing attempts to generalize about the role of race, we need to be critical of the role that homosexuality plays in racialized contexts. Consider:

1. One problem with the hate crimes statistics is that they are not disaggregated for socio-economic status. To my mind, community level generalizations are somewhat blind without this data.

2. Blacks do not vote against same sex marriage in greater numbers. For example, the determinate factors in the Prop. 8 mess was not race, or ethnicity, but age, and religion.

3. The down low culture is unique to African American culture in name only. In white glbt communities, particularly in rural contexts, you find men who identify as straight, who do not participate in LGBT institutions, but who have sex with men. This behaviour is accompanied by unique demographic cultural attributes (cruising practices and symbols etc). Furthermore, it has correlaries in most ethnic groups. The name (dl) has even been adopted by differerent other groups.

Its one thing to point out homophobia in the African American community. Its another thing to suggest that African Americans are more homophobic than other groups.

[oldocwoods]

Cars--to continue (the posting is illegible)

Again, I never made mention of couples rights. Thats all you. Frankly, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

My argument goes to your contention that DOMA establishes equality of marriage. The act of codifying marriage between a man and a woman constitutes a legal act of exclusion which denies same sex unions parity of legal recognition, and thus denies the benefits accrued through such recognition. I never said that those benefits should be confused with legal rights. They are however, political rights which I would argue are established, by intent, if not substance, in the preamble to the constitution.

Polygamy has been criminalized, and in that context constitutes a different body of arguments. I find very little similarity between these two bodies of argument (other than the fact they go to the broader historical issue of existant medical patterns). .

The law is not simply negative, it also establishes, and allows for.

[carsntrucks]

I keep mentioning it because you continue to argue as though DOMA is exclusionary based on a doctrine that does not exist. I'm saying marriage policy stipulates that a man and a woman are what is considered to be marriage. We all have an individual right to marry in that respect. You're saying DOMA is wrong because it denies "same sex unions parity of legal recognition" WHEN THERE'S NO CLAIM TO PARITY OF LEGAL RECOGNITION ON THAT BASIS. And just like those couples don't deserve or mandate legal recognition, they're not entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage, either. These aren't political rights; their subsidies, of a sort, given to heterosexual (male/female) couples. Why do you think they receive these subsidies?

I'm not interested in debating polygamy, but I will say DOMA doesn't make way for those types of unions to receive these federal benefits, either. Standard marriage policy is exclusionary to them, too. You can posit all you want that it's for extenuating circumstances, but I'd say the reason we don't have gay marriage in most states and the federal government is for extenuating circumstances.

[RainbowPhoenix]

What benefit would there be to a straight person marrying a person of the same sex? That's why DOMA is discriminatory. Straights aren't being denied something that would benefit them. Same-sex couples are being singled out to be denied these benefits and real people are being hurt by it.

[oldocwoods]

I'm not suggesting that DOMA is based on a doctrine that doesnt exist. Its very language is exclusionary. DOMA does more than state that marriage be defined between a man and a woman. Its very language, which I have already quoted, stipulates that same sex unions not be recognized, which is exclusionary. i dont care how you spin it, there is not way out of that. My argument doesnt suggest that there is an existent claim to parity of legal recognition. I'm suggesting that because DOMA denies same sex unions (explicitly) access to subsidies enjoyed by male-female couples, it creats a condition of unequal recognition in which the responsibilites of marriage are enjoyed without benefits of rights. This is an issue of both political, and civil rights in that same sex unions are 'burdened' with responsiblities, but are witheld rights recognized for male-female couples.

I'm not interested in debating polygamy either. You are the one who brought it up through comparison. I'm not arguing that DOMA goes to polygmy. DOMA seeks to withold the benefits enjoyed by male-female couples from same sex unions.

[Allamr18]

dont worry most of us do. there are portions of the holy rollers that arent too found of gay rights but they are older.