You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
On Election Day, 70-percent of African Americans voted to take away a gay person's right to marry primarily based on a book -- the Bible -- that calls on slaves to obey their masters. Mormons funded the measure -- even though religious discrimination drove them from Missouri and Illinois in the 1830's.
The defeat of Proposition 8 can't be blamed exclusively on African Americans and Mormons. There were plenty of white Catholic and protestant religious leaders -- such as pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church -- that share responsibility. And, there are legitimate questions about how the No On 8 campaign was run, which will be endlessly debated. For example, did the campaign's decision to closet gay people in its ads lead to defeat?
Still, there is something particularly galling and repugnant about people who have felt the sting of discrimination, turn around and step on another minority. What happened at the ballot box feels like a personal betrayal and the hijacking of history.
To the Mormons who bankrolled the bigotry, religious discrimination is awful, as long as it is happening to them. For the black people who voted for Proposition 8, the civil rights movement was about emancipating black people - and no one else seems to matter. These solipsistic individuals and their prejudiced pastors appear to lack an ember of empathy and have turned freedom into a private fiefdom.
The civil rights movement was much larger than the plight of black people, just as the fight for religious freedom is bigger than Mormons. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream that all people are equal under the law and should be judged by the content of their character. Barack Obama largely embodied this universally appealing message and this is why he made history. (His opposition to marriage the one duly noted stain on his record)
The Congressional Black Caucus, the late Coretta Scott King, basketball star Charles Barkley and Archbishop Desmond TuTu are among those who share this inclusive vision. Coretta Scott King once said that, "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
In the next campaign, this message needs to be taken directly to African American voters. But before this happens, the GLBT community needs to have a serious discussion -- not one that is pandering and patronizing -- so we can figure out some solutions. When natural allies vote like enemies, there is much work to be done.
One person not to consult is black lesbian writer Jasmyne Cannick. In a hypocritical op-ed in the Los Angles Times, she said that the Prop 8. Campaign should have done more to reach out to black voters. Then, she turned around and said, "to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either. There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue."
This is a perversion of Dr. King's dream. A white person should be able to talk freely to a black person about discrimination and vice versa. Cannick's ideas are abhorrent and the antithesis of judging a person by their ideas or the content of their character. It is also shameful that Cannick claims that she went door-to-door on behalf of Obama and proudly refused to ask African Americans to vote against Proposition 8. Her actions were closeted and cowardly.
Cannick also asks, "Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"
Imagine how grotesque it would have been in 1965 if a black person had written:
"Does someone who is homeless or suffering from cancer but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of a different race?"
Another way to stop progress is for those hurt by this stinging defeat to verbally or physically assault African Americans. There were reports that this was occurring at rallies condemning Prop. 8. Mirroring the ugly actions of anti-gay haters is anathema to what our movement stands for, which is widening the circle of liberty. We need to be smart, rational grownups and not look for scapegoats.
There is a lot of blame to go around for the failure of Proposition 8 and the first step to healing and moving forward is honesty. Let's not pretend that the repudiation of Martin Luther King Jr's dream by African American voters did not hurt more than, say, rejection by white evangelicals. It did.
Equal rights for some, or at least those who look the same or hold like beliefs -- is not the movement I signed up for, nor is it one that I want any part of. In moving forward, we must move beyond pig-headed parochialism and build a coalition that embraces a universal set of principles that apply to all people. If we stupidly divide ourselves by sexual orientation or race -- we can only expect a race to the bottom.
23 Comments:
Well I already vented about that woman, not realizing she actually wrote an op-ed, I thought she was just a random who posted a comment on a blog.
I'll just repeat my loathing for patriarchal religion and the need to get over our reluctance to confront other people's irrational beliefs. As my philosophy textbook says, we must believe in the equal value of all people, but not in the equal value of their beliefs.
Yeah, technically, people can believe whatever they want no matter how absurd, but the key to a free, pluralistic society is that they aren't allowed to impose their beliefs on others. And when that happens (and especially when the belief is batshit crazy, which homophobia certainly is) then we all need to get angry and strident, and smack it down with facts and outrage.
How about this bullshit that "marriage has always been between one man and one woman"? It's blatantly false!! Yet homophobes repeat it over and over like it's their mantra. And notice they don't point to real history to defend it either, they point to their myths and the invented history they're religions have made up in recent years. Just like they keep saying "America was founded as a Christian nation". No it wasn't, I'm sick of people being able to say shit that isn't true and get away with it just because it's their religious conviction.
If it's true that black communities cannot separate themselves from their religious lives, then we've got a real separation of church and state issue on our hands. Fighting homophobia is useless unless you are prepared to take on religion.
It also means the nicey-nice "let's have a conversation and try not to offend anyone" approach that mainstream activists keep relying on isn't going to work, because religious people feel first and think second. Never forget it.
One approach worth considering is to tell people of color, next time they want GLBTQ folk to side with them against a Don Imus or some other racist - "sorry, but until prejudice against GLBTQ people is more of a priority for people of color, racism is less of a priority for me"
The inequity is what bothers me. For years, GLBTQ people have been expected to rush to the battle - over racism, and expected to just understand that we are on our own when the issue is sexual orientation.
posted by Friend of Jonathan, at
11/11/2008 9:33 PM
Now wait a minute. I think Cannick should not have been so vicious in her column but she does have a point. I think that sentence Wayne pulled out her column should have been phrased another way:
"Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, (such as a number of young gay black men who have been kicked out of their homes and forced to either beg or prostitute on the streets or having to stay at a temporary residence with other gay young men) really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"
It is a valid question when looked at from that standpoint.
And Cannick does have a point when she said "to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either. There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue."
There are two things to remember here - the black community does have roots and foundation in religion and unfortunately a lot of ignorance comes with that.
And the second point does speak to the fact that perhaps marriage equality would play better in the african-american community if there were lgbts of color with visibility to speak for it.
I think to generalize about King and his dream glosses over the factors that is causing this rift as did Cannick's column.
While I understand where she was coming from, I can also understand how some folks were put off by its tone. She could have phrased her words in a less accusatory way.
Interesting that you quoted Coretta Scott King. She made several public remarks in support of Gay Equality - some, just after her daughter, Bernice lead a march from the MLK center to downtown Atlanta along with Bishop Eddie Long and a throng of supporters denouncing Gays.
When MLK Jr's own family is split - it goes to show how deeply divided the African-American community is on the whole subject of homosexuality - let alone the subject of Gay marriage. I am still baffled with the concept of separate Gay Pride events here in Atlanta - there is "Gay Pride" and then there is "Black Gay Pride" - it has always struck me as the antithesis of what I've always believed the Gay Rights movement stood for - at its core, and to a greater extent what MLK actually envisioned.
Although here in Georgia Prop8 means little to nothing politically speaking - there has been an awakening in our community. The actions in California are about to spread across the country to nearly every major city in the nation as the GLBT community stands up in one voice and stands in solidarity. And I've been working this week to help organize the protest action here in Atlanta.
What a time for Milk to debuy! I truly believe this is our generational moment to pull the GLBT community back together to one voice - and that is Equality for All. It can't be about race or religion - it is and always has been about " ...being created equal ".
posted by Paul Shapoe, at
11/11/2008 11:00 PM
I think it also needs to be pointed out that two black governors on the East Coast, David Paterson of NY and Deval Patrick of MA, have been very strong allies. It's not being said enough. Patrick was inspired in part by his own lesbian daughter. He overturned the dreadful turn-of-the-last-century law that forbade people to come to MA for marriages that would be illegal in their home state. Paterson still has a bit of work to do, but he's formed a workable compromise in New York. (Too bad New Yorkers who went to California are seeing their marriages invalidated, too.)
I am heartbroken at the results in CA, AZ, and FL, and heartbroken by the shameful displays of racism by some white LGBTs. Thank you for intelligently discussing this issue, at least, without either excusing black voters for their actions or indulging in racism.
I am white, but my best friend and her partner are, respectively, mixed-race and black. My friend's partner has told people, "How would you have felt if, after Barack got elected, there was a bunch of recounts and challenges? And then they said, 'No, McCain won.'?" Without exception, the black and part-black people she asked got angry at just the thought. She tells them that same-sex couples who married in California feel the same way. They get it.
Maybe the silver lining here is that members of all minority communities may finally have the conversations they need to, then really, truly connect. Failing that, I submit this bit of wisdom my wife gave me a few years ago when I first really encountered homophobia from black people. "Black people are just as good as white, right?" she asked. Of course, I replied. "Then can't they also be just as *bad*?"
posted by CrackerLilo, at
11/11/2008 11:23 PM
I disagree with the remarks about black gay prides.
As long as it is understood that everyone can attend, black gay prides are a good way to bring visibility to lgbts of color and educate the community at large regarding different cultural identities within our community at large.
They also have another positive side effect. Since we started having black gay prides down here in South Carolina, there has been an increase of lgbts of color attending traditional pride and getting involved in other events. Why? Because lgbts of color are being reached through gay black pride.
Think of black gay pride as another way of reaching different facets of our community much like events devoted to gay youth or gay elderly.
posted by BlackTsunami, at
11/11/2008 11:32 PM
Regarding how the election was run-- somewhat different topic, but i do have something to say. This is what I wrote before the election, published as an editorial in the BAR:
To begin with, I am no one in particular-- just a happy gay man who hopes my marriage will survive the election. I am politically aware, knowledgeable on gay issues, as out as I can be, and possess a decent understanding of humanity. I have no political axe to grind.
After the No on 8 kickoff, I spoke briefly to a man who is very high up in gay politics. I asked if they were going to repeat the campaign against Prop. 22: talking about being nice, tolerance, freedom, etc. Or, would they deal with the substantive issues of anti-gay prejudice, and the social, financial, and legal impact on gay people, especially those with children, of not having marriage available? He responded that the focus groups had shown that undecided voters respond best to the former approach, and that would be the emphasis in order to move those voters.
"Do you mean to say that you are going to fight an anti-gay marriage initiative without showing any gay people or even talking about marriage?" While conceding that personal stories and real people are relevant, he repeated what the focus groups show, and that political processes like phone banks will trump personal stories. Liberal tolerance will be the message.
I pointed out some things to him. A smart friend of mine saw the anti-8 ad where a straight bride is continually prevented from getting to her wedding. Until she got to the very end and saw the No on 8 message, she had no idea what it was about. She reasonably wondered why a heterosexual wedding was featured when the discussion is about gay people. I told him of my experience against the Briggs Initiative thirty years ago, when we were fighting the invisibility of the closet as well as that hateful legislation. The public could see real gay people, not the phantasms of the rabid Right. And that reality moved them.
I also pointed out that this strategy has been tried repeatedly, and possibly except for Arizona in 2006, it has yet to work. It failed miserably against Prop. 22. Now, I am not immersed in political culture. And I know that there is far more to politics than merely presenting issues and people voting. The politico may well be right, and I, quite wrong. Though his approach has merit, it is very troubling to me. It smells uncomfortably of the closet, which I have long maintained is the real enemy, not the Radical Right. It tells us to be invisible, not to talk about our lives and the REAL issues we face, lest we offend some undecided voter who needs to be manipulated into doing the right thing.
It avoids the larger issue of anti-gay prejudice, an apparently invisible 800 pound lavender gorilla. Research and experience show that people who know gay people tend not to vote against them. If we do not show gay people, we remain a faceless, menacing other, instead of friend, neighbor, or family. It is easy to vote against someone who is invisible. This was the lesson of Briggs and Prop.22.
I can see producing commercials featuring pretty straight girls. But why are we not also showing the couple who have been together for forty years, and who, because they cannot marry, are not eligible for each other's pensions, guaranteeing one of them an old age of poverty? Why not show the two women who are raising their children, children who deserve the same protections that marriage would bring their family as it does their hetero counterparts? Why are we not showing the minister marrying two men in their church, surrounded by their happy, cheering families? Why are we not showing indignant Rabbis and Episcopal, UCC, and other ministers who don't want a few denominations telling them what to do? Why are we not showing the man who nursed his partner through a heart attack? Why are we showing anything but us?
I cannot insist that I am right, but my life's experience tells me I am. And telling the truth, especially in the face of so much hate and lies, is never a mistake. What if we lost this election because undecided voters say, "I voted yes because I don't know any gay people, or anything about them. And I didn't get that commercial."
Which brings me to my final point. If you want to do the minimum against Prop. 8, unless your physical safety is an issue, COME OUT NOW-- especially to your family and friends. Not eventually, not next month, but NOW. Ask those people to vote NO on 8 for your sake, or, if they cannot vote no, at least, not to vote on it.
And this is what I wrote after. I don't think myself there is any debate as to why the campaign failed. It was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, as my Da used to say. Unfortunately, the BAR decided to publish someone else's editorial on 8 this week. But here it is.
Time. Energy. Money.
As a recently married gay man, I contributed a lot of each against Prop. 8. I’m sad that we failed to beat it. But I'm also angry-- and not just about political campaigns fueled by bigotry, conservative religion, and way too much tax-free money-- because I could see defeat coming with the inevitability of a slow-motion train wreck.
At the campaign kickoff, I asked Mark Leno personally if campaign leaders were going to do the liberal-tolerance-equality strategy again, pointing out that it has failed repeatedly. Or, were they going to show actual gay people, actual families, and actual lives. You know: reality. He said that focus groups indicated that everybody-make-nice and civil liberties were the way to go. This would move the undecided voters who were so crucial. I made the same point to HRC’s Marty Rouse and several campaign leaders, and got the same response. The approach would be political rather than human, in every sense of both words.
What a concept! Let's ask straight people who are afraid of gay people about how to win gay rights, instead of asking gay people what has worked in their lives. You can see the result of focus group viewpoints. We have been focused over big-time.
Politics may move undecided voters, but the movement is only as valuable as the last person they spoke to. Human connections move hearts and minds, even minds that are made up. People who know gay people don't usually vote against them. But it's easy to vote against someone who is invisible, faceless, a menacing other, instead of friend or family, or even someone you just met on the street. And in No on 8, we were invisible. We saw the supportive, loving parents, but no gay daughter, no grandchildren. No on 8 was uninterested in a speakers’ bureau to reach out to community groups and churches; I gave up asking. They wanted volunteers for phone banking and sign waving, not personal contact with real voters. At a training we were told NOT to use words like children, because Pro-8 people had appropriated the issue. Because we refused to claim it-- to claim reality-- it was used against us. Likewise, we can't talk about this ancient and deeply rooted anti-gay prejudice, either, because by calling attention to a reality in our lives, we might offend the very people who call us a threat to family, faith, and country. Newsflash! Our existence offends them.
This all may make sense to professional political people in their world and culture, but not in mine. It fails as a strategy because it embraces THE CLOSET, which is our real enemy. The closet is US. It is making ourselves invisible and unknown, rather than showing the simple fact and humanity of our lives. It is our consent to the lies, our silence in the face of naked prejudice. It is us not standing up for ourselves, and when we don't, who else will stand with us? I absolutely praise and thank our leaders for their efforts and sacrifices and dedication. But frankly, if our leaders don't know that we have to stand up for ourselves, as ourselves, then they shouldn't be our leaders. Because here's the result: we gay people were barely visible, and more people thought that the standard of living of California chickens was more important than the families of their fellow Americans.
Thirty years ago, I worked against the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay teachers. A much smaller group of people, with far fewer resources, in a far less accepting time, succeeded against great odds. Maybe I'm romanticizing, but I remember it was because all we really had to show were ourselves and our lives. We said NO to the closet.
I know this fight is far from over. We will be back. However, if future campaign organizations want to continue this losing strategy of focus groups, phone banking, invisibility, and cute but irrelevant ads that look good on political resumes but change nothing, the rest of us need a parallel campaign that comes out of the closet and presents us as who we are.
If you expect me to stay in the closet, then don’t--DON"T-- expect one minute of my time, one iota of my energy, or one dime of my money.
posted by Ben in Oakland, at
11/11/2008 11:35 PM
"Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, (such as a number of young gay black men who have been kicked out of their homes and forced to either beg or prostitute on the streets or having to stay at a temporary residence with other gay young men) really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"
Yes, they do benefit. I had no health insurance for a year when I started Truth Wins Out. During this time, I once ended up in the hospital with a large bill. At no point did my plight affect my commitment to same-sex marriage, or to ending racism for that matter.
What? People can't walk and chew gum at the same time? They have to choose between equality issues? I don't think so.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
11/12/2008 12:25 AM
"Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, . . . really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"
Yes. Marriage confers an inordinate number of benefits, including access to the health care benefits of one's spouse. Further, that one may not benefit this week or this year, is not a sane reason for being apathetic about having the right to marry in the future.
Anyone who is allowed to marry, can benefit from it, and there are even cases of heterosexual homeless who have gotten married. Not to mention all of the married couples who are able to share some form of medical coverage because they are married.
posted by Friend of Jonathan, at
11/12/2008 1:16 AM
Wayne,
that was your case but it does not take away from the other cases. Your circumstances may not be the same as theirs. And some of these folks may not have that knowledge that they may benefit. And some may not benefit regardless. And its not about "blaming racism." It's about being in the position to care about marriage equality or being bogged down with other more pressing issues, such as being homeless and the like.
posted by BlackTsunami, at
11/12/2008 9:59 AM
Lets be honest here people, the gay activist community failed in their understanding of several groups who were either ignorant, confused, or out right bigoted - not just the African American community. As Wayne mentioned, there is plenty of blame to go around. It's time to unite and stop pointing fingers. As a gay black man with a white partner, I am reminded by the actions of a few "white activist" against the AA community on just how divided the gay community is and the failure to truly understand the minority groups within our own minority group. We need to unite and move forward with understanding, empathy, and love.
Let me point something out - look around at the rallies, what's the percentage of African Americans there (few - I marched in the rally in Long Beach). Why do you think that is - I will tell you, many AA gay men/women not only have to work through self-loathing, but also the religious conditioning that I would offer is not unique from other gay men, but it does have several additional layers of "stuff" - also, black gays also have to still combat with racism and to see it come from within the community that supposed to embrace them only pours more salt in these wounds that take time to heal.
Just my 2cents, but someone said it well - thank you Wayne for not excusing and not entertaining the divide.
posted by SouthernCalSPHR, at
11/12/2008 10:35 AM
It may well be true that some people won't benefit at all from the right to same-sex marriage. Or have no interest in getting married. Or have other pressing issues they must prioritize. But that's no reason to vote *against* someone else's rights. If you have no stake in an issue, maybe the thing to do is stay out of it altogether.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/12/2008 5:55 PM
