Why President Obama Hurts His Own Cause By Not Addressing Homophobia in the Black Community

Over the last few days we have seen the White House struggle to answer questions about the failed discriminatory policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, as well as respond intelligently to the recent positive domino effect of marriage equality occurring in states -- moves that affirm those governments realize separate is not equal.

Candidate Obama decided to regress his political position from supporting full marriage equality to a "God is in the mix" conflation of religious and civil marriage when he ran for president. What was seen as a political necessity/reality at the time has wreaked havoc on the PR front of late, but it has also allowed the anti-gay establishment to cite his opposition to marriage equality over and over again. The old unintended consequences -- at our expense.

Marc Fisher in the WaPo takes the position that yes, polls like Obama and fellow equality regression-sufferer Marion Barry, who are indeed using the LGBT community as a political football.

In 1996, Barack Obama responded to a Chicago newspaper's questions about the issue with these words: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Obama has characteristically reached out to the center, writing in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided . . . and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Yeah, that's his political escape hatch -- that he will have some "moment of clarity" sometime in the future, a political revelation (guided by polls, of course), that separate is not equal. Fisher offers this rationale for both Marion Barry's opposition to marriage recognition in DC and Obama's absurd position on equality:

Barry's claim to be "a moral politician" was catnip to the late-night TV comics. But he has positioned himself of late as the voice of pre-gentrification D.C. -- older black residents who feel that their city has been taken over by newcomers, especially affluent young whites. Add the faceoff between Barry and Mayor Adrian Fenty -- whose deepest support comes from exactly those newcomers -- and you have a compelling political rationale for Barry's flip.

The president's position is also rooted in electoral concerns, including the simple desire to be true to a campaign stance that helped him demonstrate that he is not a knee-jerk liberal. Just as Obama's selection of evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the prayer at his inauguration raised the hackles of many liberal and gay supporters, the president's stand on same-sex marriage sends a message of moderation to religious voters, even as he assures gays that he supports them on civil unions and repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In other words, Obama and Barry don't want to challenge religious voters (or rather anti-gay religious voters, since there are those of faith who support equality, but they are always rendered invisible in these discussions) on their ignorance about the difference between religious and civil marriage.

Politicians such as Obama and Barry won't hesitate to go where the people are when the time is right. But on difficult and divisive issues, they're happier to hold back until the people have spoken. Call it timidity, call it craven, but it's how things work.

It's all about politics, friends, and LGBTs are still the field hands, not players in the Big House. There is no LBJ with political courage to look to on these issues, and Fisher gives them the classic out.

But I want to return to the subject of black homophobia, and the impact of President Obama's decision to purposefully confuse the issue, despite being a Constitutional scholar.

One of the readers at Pam's House Blend points to a great post on Jack and Jill Politics, Gay Marriage and the Black Community. Barack Obama showed courage in addressing homophobia in the black community during the campaign, but he has now left LGBTs, particularly black LGBTs, twisting in the wind to battle the ignorance he affirms. (It should be noted that LGBT POC are also frequently left twisting in the wind by the larger -- read: white-dominated -- LGBT community and leadership, that is loathe to address the racial discord that inhibits progress.)

Craig Hickman delivered a personal, powerful essay that intelligently gets to the heart of why civil marriage equality is necessary and important for the black community to support. It's the kind of message that leads and challenges, rather than follows, on this issue. It's something the President has abandoned since taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

A snippet:

For me, civil rights is civil rights is civil rights. Equal protection under the law is equal protection under the law. In employment. In housing. In public accommodations. In adoption. In civil marriage. Either we all have it or we don't.

When a person has no recourse to force an undertaker to come and take a corpse out of their home because the survivor is not legally considered the next of kin despite their thirty-year relationship and the dead person's next of kin is thousands of miles away and, because of Alzheimer's, doesn't even remember who the dead person is anymore, but she is the only person alive who, by state law, can force the undertaker to remove the corpse from their house; when you wrap your mind around all of the practical and emotional turmoil that results in this situation because of this discrimination, I would argue strongly that that certificate of marriage is way more than just a piece of paper.

This is but one example. It's not a hypothetical, either.

I could provide many others, several much more devastating.

A marriage certificate is akin to an adoption decree and an altered birth certificate: it creates a legal familial relationship.

Adoption and civil marriage are the only two ways the state allows unrelated people to create a legal family unit in this country. Both are established by a certificate -- a piece of paper filed with the office of vital statistics -- which protects that family unit against all sorts of madness and bullshit from other parties.

As Black people whose ancestors' families were ripped apart by the institution of slavery, how can we stand in opposition to the creation of a family unit and the safety and security, emotional and otherwise, that ensue for all of its members?

Tell me, Black people.

How?

This seems so simple to understand, so rational, right? You should see some of the comments that erupted in the thread at JJP. It shows you how difficult it is to penetrate 1) homophobia based on religious convictions and very selective readings of the Bible tossed casually out there as moral certainty while ignoring passages that condemn their own behavior; and 2) the odd zero-sum game that civil rights for LGBTs somehow diminishes rights granted to blacks as a result of the struggle of that civil rights movement. The fact that the two movements aren't wholly equivalent yet both have merit and seems to escape some commentators. Here's one:

Craig, I am sorry my friend you are off base. It seems that from your background you are fighting not for gay people but against a so-called establishment you never fit into being black, adopted, gay. Not to insult but you are a misfit and like all misfits you want the world to validate your abnormalities. You want acceptance and validation from the society that rejects you.

My friend you will never convince the majority of people that the lifestyle you live is anything but unnatural.The majority of us know gay people and have no problem with them. Most care not about this issue. This is a gay militant extremist equal to the KKK in White America that is trying to force this down the public's throat. I want to ask you some very serious questions. First of all, you are going to have violence soon, as sure as I am sitting here, if you keep pushing this on the Black community in the name of civil rights. That being said, do you think we should let men marry their daughters? Women marry their sons? There are people who believe that should be legal. What about a man marrying 5 wives? Or a woman with 5 husbands? Society has a right to regulate morals and behavior when it is just. Laws against interracial marriage were unjust, because they were created by racist not from any religious belief system so stop comparing the two please.

This is clearly an attempt to not only compare interracial marriage with gay marriage but to also trivialize the 400 years of pain of people who were forced into bondage. No one is forcing gays into bondage this is something they want not need.To suggest basic rights as a human being to a lifestyle shows you have bought the racist on the left's cool aid. They also think black people need them to lord over.

Note that this commenter has bought the whole bag of goods that the white, anti-gay establishment has been shilling in the community for some time now. Where is our counter message? Oh, that's right, the first black President believes (in public) that "God is in the mix," and that separate is equal. So that gives these commentators license to continue spewing this nonsense. There's no leadership coming from the White House to counter the issue of black homophobia that he called out so clearly in the past. From his speech delivered at the house of worship where Dr. Martin Luther King preached, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in January 2008:

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.

Where is this Barack Obama? Will he continue with his silence, allowing ignorance to continue to divide us? People at JJP are clearly seeking answers in their dialogue with one another, but they clearly want and need leadership on this issue to have their back, against a religious community that is red alert anti-gay.

I feel you Craig on the "family unit" standpoint, but how would you respond to those citizens who argue, "I don't want my children 'exposed' to homosexuality. I don't ever want to have that conversation with my child." So from their vantage point, their fighting to protect their "family unit", family values, etc.

These people have internalized gay marriage as the greatest threat to their family units (greater than any economic calamity or terrorism). They could give less than a fuck about the "Rights of Kin" or what happens at the funeral home with gay lovers. They are fighting to perpetuate their bloodlines through the traditional definition of marriage: a man and a woman.

But contrary to popular belief in the LGBT community, there is reasoned, honest support out there and allies that should be cultivated. It's why we need more cross-cultural dialogue, rather than retreating to corners of silence and comfort.

This is an issue that has bothered me over the last few months, especially after the race baiting that went on after Prop. 8 in California. However, over the last few weeks, two different storylines have moved me to tears.

I watched three parents on Oprah who buried their little boys because of sexual orientation bullying. We have made homosexuality so taboo and disgraceful that these beautiful little boys would rather be dead than be taunted with a gay "slur". It occurred to me that those of us who have been silent on this issue have somehow fed into this notion and that was devastating.

The second was watching the happiness on the faces of same sex couples with the decisions in Iowa and Maine on gay marriage. Why should they have to fight to be seen as equals? Why should they have to convince people that they deserve the same rights that many of us take for granted and enter into legal marriages for a variety or reasons, many of them silly and many doomed to fail. Why should their rights be decided by ballot initiatives?

The sad reality is that if black equality of the 1960's was decided by the opinions of everyday God fearing, church going Americans, we'd still be eating at segregated lunch counters and riding on the back of the bus. Please stop using religion to cover your bigotry as I can assure you that since the advent of the slave trade, people have used those same arguments to defend the systematic racism, rape, and genocide of black people.

Great post, Craig. Marriage is a civil contract, as evidenced by the piece of paper given to the couple by the religious official who performs the ceremony and the words spoken, "By the power vested in me by the State of ___..." We still have separation of church and state in this country, although you wouldn't know it by some of the laws being passed. And although I am a white, straight woman, I am always saddened and confused when I hear AAs say that gay marriage is not a civil right or that gay rights do not equate to civil rights. As the mother of a gay son, you cannot tell me when he is denied the very same rights my straight son has, that is not about equality and civil rights. I will fight to my dying breath for those rights for my son and his partner and for all LGBT people in this county and everywhere I can.

[and note this response]

Neither of your sons are denied any rights. You have one son who chooses not to marry the opposite gender and thus he is denying himself 'rights' because he is not engaging in marriage in the way society has deemed in it's best interest. Societal interest when it comes to marriage is not about the individual rather, the state of matrimony itself, is set up to circumscribe individual pursuit of happiness, thus the incentives/benefits given to those individuals who choose to enter in the state of matrimony where they lose individual rights under the law when it comes to property.

The problem here is that 'gay folks and their advocates' think marriage is about the individual and it is not.

Now the adoption of particular language of Civil Rights and the co-opting of African-American culture to promote Marriage Equality (and Feminism too for that matter) bothers me because it's white people (men mostly) using it while ignoring the contributions of AAs who may also be LGBT - and that REALLY bothers me.

I'd like to see more AA LGBTs step forward in leadership positions and address this because it is an impediment from getting all the support available.

Setting that aside for a moment though I absolutely agree that legalizing marriages between adults who are the same gender, transgendered, etc is not something that should be barred. The irony is that other states have moved forward while CA has not, but it's all blowback in my opinion. $40M and 12 years of planning didn't stop other people in smaller areas from passing legal protections.

People may not realize that the image of the oversexualized (white) male having indiscriminate sex is not the life of the average LBGT anymore. AIDS took care of that and people realized "traditional" relationships would stop the cannibalization of the majority population. Quite frankly, the behavior of some had to change to preserve the lives of the majority. I am hoping a similar shift in attitude and political advancement results from the majority of AA women who are now the hardest hit group of HIV/AIDS.

We just have to keep making inroads and keep marching around the embattlements because like reproductive rights some will always be in attack mode and we must be very diligent about guarding the things we value. Bigotry does not give religious beliefs free reign.

I could go on and on posting some of the extremely interesting comments, but I encourage you to surf over and check it out.

Where does that leave us -- the black community, the LGBT community, the black LGBT community -- in dealing with a President reticent to do much of anything about LGBT issues or homophobia in the black community unless there's overwhelming support to give him cover? Obviously I don't have the answers, but I do know we have to to discuss these outside of the respective echo chambers in order to succeed.

Our fractured communities are so easily played against one another; sitting here in virtual space I see it way too often. Our organizations often look impotent (from the outside) in dealing with this White House. There is little evidence that any meaningful pressure is being applied. We need to have our acts together and working in concert for equality in order to make this administration hear us -- and hold Obama to his promises to embark on meaningful change, as well as challenge those who uphold bigotry in the name of religion who should know better.

Related:
* Where's Barack Obama, the 'Fierce Advocate' for LGBT rights?
* The White House has nowhere to hide from MSM equality questions as Gibbs blows it at presser
* CNN report 'Gay Issues Closing In On Obama' shows the MSM is noticing the White House silence
* The Obama admin doesn't know how to respond to the marriage equality dominoes
* Words Mean Everything
* Which way is Obama's religion wind blowing?

Comments

[diogenes1967]

Wow, as a gay black man, these comments here are sad, sad, sad.

[LynnW49]

Well done, Pam.

[HUkid07]

What "We Shall Overcome" moment has the movement had? What Birmingham 5 moment has this movement witnessed? This are just a couple of things most older African American leaders say when the LGBT movement tries to equate itself to the struggle for Civil Rights of the 50's&60's.

The LGBT community needs to galvanize the American public. They need a rallying cry. The struggle for Civil Rights was long and brutal. Court battles had to be won in order to lay a foundation for the movement, not done over night and it wasn't with just a few cases, built on miles of marches, tons of beatings, and hosings.

LGBT needs better PR and outreach towards minority communities. These communities are not going to be receptive if your first gambit is to equate it to the Civil Rights movement.

The African American community needs more gay people of color to look to, those that don't exemplify the stereotypical notion of a homosexuality. Most young black gay men (who are closested/dl) do not have other gay POC that they can relate to or look up to. They look up to athletes like Jordan, Lebron, Carmello, etc. When they see depictions of gay black males in the media, they see caricature­s/embodime­nt of many predjudices. They don't have strong examples of gay black males who can relate to their experiences.

Meet your adversary and challenge his believes and prejudices. Posting on blogs isn't gonna do it.

[Mauimom]

It's sad, especially for those of us who worked for Obama's election and contributed to his coffers [in response to the MANY requests], but Obama's a coward.

As someone pointed out here, he won't lead. He won't buck "public opinion." He'll wait until the polls suggest it's safe.

Part of the "change" I was hoping for was that we'd get someone who WOULD lead this country, who would use his masterful oratorical skills to educate and inspire. Instead we've got someone who fears offending "traditional" supporters AND CONTRIBUTORS.

I am so, so disappointed.

[PuddinPie]

Enlighten me. Who are the leaders of the LGBT community?

Who are your song writers, essayist, speakers and great thinkers?

If we are to bridge this divide, we should hear your voice(s).

[Awake-and-Sing]

Wow. This article is amazing. Thank you.

Isn't the human and civil rights of one the human and civil rights of all?

I'm a gay white man, but I see gender equality, racial equality, LGBT equality, labor organizing and environmental protections as part of one struggle for a better America.

These movements are not all the same, but they are all civil rights movements and they all overlap.

When African-Americans were living under segregation, gays were losing their jobs, homes and even being imprisoned just for being gay, women had unequal rights in the workplace.

When African-Americans were living under slavery, gays were being imprisoned and even killed outright, women did not have the right to vote, and the military was sent in to break up labor organizing.

None of these movements are the same. ALL of them are vital to the best America we can be.

[racje]

I spent Election Day in November working at a poll against Prop. 8. I had been planning to work for Obama, but it was clear to me that he would win without me. It was a long day. When I came home I checked my phone messages..­. the first one was Obama's voice, saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," from an interview he did in Nevada just the day before the election. The "Yes on 8" folks picked it up and got it out to thousands of households overnight.

I turned on the radio and learned that Prop. 8 had failed, and Obama had won.

President Obama is not the leader of the black community; he's the leader of the whole nation. He needs to support the equal protection of the laws for all citizens. He needs to address homophobia not just in the black community but wherever it appears.

Not all homophobes are Christian and not all Christians are homophobic, but Obama's familiarity and comfort with American Christian churches should help him to find and use the language of justice and love in Bible, so that Christians can turn away from the six questionable verses in the Bible that might be interpreted as homophobic, and read the three thousand verses that speak for justice, and the uncounted verses that speak of accepting love.

[HUkid07]

Fourth, the racism within the LGBT should be addressed as well. How often is a person of color used as contributor in an LGBT publication or PAC, network? How often is the perspective of the LGBT POC explored and talked about? What examples do they have to look to? How often does a white club owner/staff openly discriminate against young gays of color and stereotype them as being trouble makers? Lets get this beam out of your eye first before you start getting to the righteous indignation.

[HUkid07]

First and foremost I think it's a hard sell to older African American leaders when you equate the fight for marriage equality to the Civil Rights movement that they endured. That will quickly lose traction because they do not see the two as synonymous. Most older African Americans do not see the same level of struggle that they endured being endured by the LGBT community.

Secondly, the African American experience is indelibly tied to religion, so you are going to be hard pressed with trying to remove religion from the greater discourse. Religion has given African Americans hope when they had no hope, for those that have been oppressed, repressed, and depressed; religion has provied a light in the darkest of times. An older African American woman once told me: I have been oppressed, repressed, depressed and impressed, so it all doesn't matter to me much" in reference to the changing societal climate.

Thirdly, how has the LGBT allowed the debate to be shaped? What leaders have the had to come out and make the argument to the greater American public about their struggle? What demostrations of civil disobedience have they engaged in? How have they made their struggle for equality something that is palletable and yet visceral to the greater public? I have yet to see the LGBT community stand and take command of the discussion. Sure it's cute to have oppions and pieces apprear in blogs but who are these blogs reaching? Is the message reaching the adversary?

[wereeverywhere]

It's painful to read the out of the closet pettiness of 'why should we help the LGBT because ______ or _____ .' There's a beautiful slogan and attitude from the longshoreman's union which you might want to ponder- "An injury to one is an injury to all." Solidarity is a powerful weapon for those who fighting the powers that be.

[racje]

Thanks for this. Those words say it all.

[Benton]

If melanin were the issue then the darker a black person is then the more homophobic they would be. People truly need to get off of this surface thinking and actually look at an issues of culture and religion.

Black people moving out of the bible belt represents the largest migration of people from one region of the country to another in the history of the United States. Black culture is rooted in a handful of states, a handful of families in the south.

I suspect that it is much easier to attack black people then to attack the religious culture of the south because white southerns will tell you to get out of their face.

If you want to address homophobia you have to address religion. If you are unwilling to address religion then you have to address separation of church and state. The very last thing you need to do is go into the black community casting aspersions based upon self righteous hypocrisy.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

Great post! I agree. Furthermore, to scapegoat African Americans is not only wrong but unproductive. Most Black people young and old in America and throughout the world view homosexuality as a spiritual matter-not in a I hate gays-homophobe way. What most African Americans are concerned about when it comes to homosexual individuals is their souls and eternal resting place.

[Benton]

I am not sure melanin concentration is the determinative factor in homophobia in the black community. Perhaps addressing the fact that the overwhelming majority of African Americans come out of the bible belt would get to the heart of the issue. I would imagine that black "homophobia" is actually less acute then our white brothers that have been raised in the scotts-Irish culture of the bible belt. The religion and culture of the bible belt and not melanin is the issue.

[frommyeyes]

I appreciate this article, Pam. As the mother of a gay son I have a vested interest in President Obama's view on this issue and frankly am appalled at the change in his stance in the last 10 years. I signed a petition today to encourage him to hold fast to his promise to rescind the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.. I believe that what you are saying that any victim of abuse should hopefully grow in wisdom and never abuse another person, having experienced that horror. Clearly, psychological studies tell us many victims instead turn into perpetrators and I think what we see on this board are many who have not healed from their own abuse, and feel free to pass it on down to the next segment of the population they can kick.

Thank you for your post. I believe you encouraged him to address this with African Americans simply because he is the premier role model of the day, and has in the past, CLEARLY supported Gay marriage. To say he is too busy is ridiculous. There is nothing more important than us, "WE, THE PEOPLE." It doesn't read, "We, The Banks." I, for one, would like to see his backbone. I hope his mother is watching and that he will do her proud.

[LewDan]

LGBT issues are not about Civil Rights. The Black Civil Rights Movement wasn't about equality in general, it was about civil laws being enforced equally, fairly. Once the ball got rolling additional laws and SCOTUS decisions promoted greater Black equality but though we lazily lump everything that occurred as "The Civil Rights Movement" the movement was one thing civil rights are another. The movement happened to have accomplished more than winning our civil rights, it expanded them.

Blacks already had rights under law. White officials refused to enforce the law.
LGBTs want rights under the law. They're not being denied them, they don't have them.
Blacks wanted whites to stop doing illegal things TO them.
LGBTS want things done FOR them. (You can marry now if you want. But it doesn't mean much unless the government provides the same benefits and forces others to provide the same benefits heterosexual marriages receive.)

My point is YOU may not see a difference but WE do. Your insistence that your struggle and the civil rights movement are the same destroys your credibility. Your insistence on making the civil rights struggle about you offends us.

Learn from our experience, benefit from it, adapt our tactics and strategies -- fine. But hijack our history, make it about you, be insulting and dismissive­...? Being defensive, rejecting you, isn't homophobia its the reaction you've earned and deserve.

[ColumbusMike]

See that's the big misunderstanding. Most of us do not seek to equate our cause and the black civil rights movement. We only point out that many of the stupid arguments people used to justify their bias and biggotry toward interracial marriage are the same stupid arguments that they now use against same-sex marriage. They contorted biblical passages to mean whatever they wanted them to mean, and they cited all kinds of ridiculous doomsday scenarios that would occur if the floodgates were opened. We are just saying that someday those arguments will sound just as bogus to people regarding us, as they were in regard to you. That does not equate the two struggles--it just equates the stupidity of the arguments against them.

Believe me, as a white youth of the 60's I did all in my power to promote civil rights. I saw everyone as my brother or sister, and preached against injustice. I joined organizations. I told my friends and relatives that I would not tolerate their racist actions and remarks in my presence and tried to get them to see the world differently than they had been raised. I introduced them to my black friends. I think I was successful in making a difference. My other firends were doing the same thing--and many of them were gay.

So now you say that rejecting us is the reaction we've earned and deserve. Very nice.

[LewDan]

I too am against injustice to anyone. I wouldn't be wasting my time here otherwise. And yes I know I'm generalizing unfairly, my remarks don't apply to all -- I'm only allowed 250 words!

"Why President Obama Hurts His Own Cause By Not Addressing Homophobia in the Black Community"

"Cause?" We're all about affirmative action and welfare?

"His Own Cause?" Every Black man has some militant agenda?

"Homophobia in the Black Community?" We keep having the honor of being singled out?

"Addressing Homophobia?" Anyone who doesn't support the agenda you've a right to change?

Racist, dismissive, stereotypical, offensive and intolerant -- and this from a Black woman. You think people referred to that way need to fear you to be defensive and hostile? You think thinking and acting that way doesn't earn you hostility and rejection?

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

"Most of us do not seek to equate our cause and the black civil rights movement. We only point out that many of the stupid arguments people used to justify their bias and biggotry toward interracial marriage are the same stupid arguments that they now use against same-sex marriage. "Could you send me some of the statemen.

[showmestategal]

If he addresses homophobia --he will need to give equal time to heterosexu­alphobians­!
He is far to busy with issues that are truly more important to the Majority of the American citizens such as jobs, health care, economy , wars.etc.
The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what's the problem !
Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad.
I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything--- I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!.

[Pam Spaulding - Huffpost Blogger]

"The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what's the problem "

You can't be serious with that statement. If we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama's parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

Not necessarily, I think eventually Blacks and other who were supressed would have taken up arms and the US would have an altogether different history. You do remember that this country did kill or jail most of our civil rights leaders. Had Blacks in this country waged war during reconstruction they would have been negoiating from a place of empowerment and not waiting for crumbs in the form of sharecropping and protection from violent orgs like kkk

[just saying]

I agree with you about the states being where social issues should be handled - as our Founding Fathers intended it. However, in this case I think it should be at the federal level since it really is a rights issue and all other rights issues were federal (i.e. amendments).