Some thoughts about black rights vs. GLBT rights

[Chovexani]

I'm far from the most eloquent person on this board, but after reading the umpteenth statement by someone saying that the GLBT community needs to stop comparing our fight for civil rights to the black civil rights movement because "gays don't have it as hard as black people", I have to say something because frankly my head is exploding. These are just my thoughts, I do not presume to speak for the entire black and/or GLBT communities.

I am sick and tired of these pointless pissing contests as to which group "has it the hardest". First of all, it shouldn't matter, because progressive people ought to be fighting for everybody's rights in the first place. However, what never seems to enter these discussions is the fact that that there are literally millions of Black GLBT people in this country. Nobody seems to care about our experiences and how we feel about the issues. We're on the back of everyone's bus.

Jesse Jackson's comments were reprehensible but not surprising given the hypocrisy of the black church when it comes to GLBT issues. I was raised in the black church and there were gays everywhere--our Minister of Music, etc. I will never forget how that church treated my family when my uncle (who was fairly out) was diagnosed HIV positive in the 80s. Even though we had given to the church and supported it--my mom was on the Building Fund and my grandma was a Deaconess--they shunned us when we needed support. Gay Men's Health Crisis gave us information and counseling. In my experience the black church tolerates gays as long as they are asexual and relatively quiet. While I am grateful for the black ministers who have spoken out in support of GLBT rights, there are far too many who don't understand that fighting for GLBT rights means fighting for the rights of their own community.

Sakia Gunn was a Black lesbian who was only 15 years old when she was brutally murdered because of her orientation on May 11, 2003. She and her friends were coming home from a night of hanging out, waiting for the bus in Newark, NJ, when they were approached by men, and after they said they were gay, the men stabbed Sakia and left her to bleed to death. She died on the way to the hospital. http://www.baywindows.com/news/2003/05/29/Opinion/Editorialsakia.Gunn.Why.The.Silence-437473.shtml

There are dozens more cases like this, that because they didn't involve photogenic, "clean cut" white GLBT people did not make the cover of Time Magazine or M$NBC/CNN/Faux. No one hears their stories.

The Gay Rights Movement *should be* and *is* part of the Civil Rights Movement because GLBT people are a part of the Black community too--and the Hispanic community, and the Asian/Pacific Islander community, and every other community that experiences discrimination. Period. It's everyone's fight. To deny that is to deny the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who are GLBT and black and have to fight every day of their lives because of who they are. Civil Marriage for everyone regardless of sexual orientation *is* a *Civil Rights Issue* and Black leaders need to be involved in the fight. That Black folks' rights are being denied and a so-called Black leader would not step up to the plate is a travesty and just shows what sorry shape the movement is in. To those who think I'm off base here, and think Black folks have it harder than GLBT folks: imagine how much worse it is to be GLBT *and* Black?

It hurts me to see some DUers falling for--and perpetuating--the myth that GLBT people are all rich and white and therefore don't "need" rights. It's not like there's a limited amount of rights and if GLBT people are treated the same as everyone else then suddenly Black folks won't have rights. It's a silly notion to begin with and nothing more than a divide-and-conquer tactic by the Religious Reich. Progressive people need to stop buying into this nonsense. As Keith Boykin once said, "In the end, it matters not which group is most oppressed, which was first oppressed, or whether they are identically oppressed. What matters is that no group of people should be oppressed."

Just my 2 cents.

--Chovexani

[Lisa0825]

1. Wow... very powerful statement!

Thanks for your perspective!

[anti-NAFTA]

2. uh..What exactly did Jesse Jackson say?

I must have missed the news.

[anti-NAFTA]

6. looks like no one has the decency to respond to my question

oh well.

[Chovexani]

9. Jesse is waffling on gay rights

Basically he said that the GLBT community should not compare the marriage struggle to the civil rights movement, and said he was against gay marriage but then hemmed and hawed and said he was in favor of "some rights". Here's the LBN thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=370670

[anti-NAFTA]

11. I don't see what is so shocking about what Jackson said

it's a mainstream view. It's not as bad as what Pat Buchanan said.

[PVnRT]

12. The shocking part

is that this is a man who has spent years laboring for civil rights for blacks, but dismisses those of gays with a wave of his hand. Just because it's a "mainstream view" doesn't make it OK. People expect him and others like him to come out on the right side of these things.

[Chovexani]

15. Being a "mainstream" view makes it right?

Years and years ago it was a "mainstream" view that blacks and whites should not be allowed to get married. It was even the law. Does that make it right? I really don't understand that line of thinking.

Besides, Jesse ought to know better. That's why I was so angry about what he said.

[DenverDem]

3. GLBT struggle exactly analagous to race struggle.

I am disappointed that black folks can't see the direct similarities to the two group's struggles. Some of this, I feel, is an unquestionable and deep seasted bigotry by people of color against alterno-lifestyle people. The antagonism that glbt's suffer is every bit as painful to them as racism is to blacks. "Why can't we (all disenfranchised people, that now includes everyone but the rich) all get along." This is just another wedge issue to keep the proles from ganging up on the power elite like we should be focusing on right now.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. If you get any more eloquent, you'll be speaking in iambic pentameter

Wonderful post!


Now go write more. :)

[Chovexani]

5. Hey thanks

It's amazing what being pissed off will do for your writing. :)

[distortionmarshall]

8. mebbe i'm the only one who feels this way....

..... but i coulda sworn that exactly similar sentiments were made in recent threads on this topic.....

sorry i couldn't jump on the repetitive bandwagon folks.... :)

[Chovexani]

10. I'm glad they were

And I hope they continue to be. I just saw one too many posts telling GLBT people to settle and felt like saying something.

Welcome to DU btw. :)

[chiburb]

7. Yep. Hypocrisy and hatred know no colors...

Thank you for a great post.

[booley]

13. delinking the civil rights movement is just what the right wants...

of course there are differences between the different branches of the civil rights movement.
Gay people as a group never had to worry about being dfenied the vote or the lingering effects of slavery.
Black people as a group never had to worry about being socially ostracized or thrown out of thier families becuase they are discovered to be black.
Niether group found itself being rounded up as enemy spies like japanese or Muslim Americans.
The Muslims rounded up by ashcroft didn't have it as bad as the Japanese Americans who were rounded up by Roosevelt who had it easy compared to the Jews, Gays, Gypsies, ect rounded up by Hitler.

These little factoids are all true by themselves. But if you take them by themselves, the point of the matter gets lost.

One is not free if others are enslaved. Suffering is not a contest where one has to accue a certain number of points before you can say that being oppressd is wrong. And the civil rights movement has never worked as a disjointed entity. it has always worked by coalitions. The Black civil rights movement joined with Jewish liberals and yes, gay activists. It inspired not only more activism for gay rights but for Chicanos and women and Native Americans.

The Repubs know this. And that's why they seem to get so offended and blustery when one compares black civil rights with gay rights. They know full well that the only way to keep the civil rights movement at bay is to get it's proponents fighting each other instead of them.

Unfortunatly it isn't helped when you also have black homphobes and gay racists and gay and straight men (black and white and asian and ect) who are sexist... too often I see some "progressives" act like conservatives and let thier baser prejudices get in the way of ther best interests and higher beliefs.

And for the record, I think you are quite eloquent...

[Chovexani]

17. The Religious Reich pits minorities against each other

I completely agree with you about Repubs needing civil rights groups to fight each other. A tactic that I have seen in the past, and one that looks like it will be tried again and again now that we have the Federal Marriage Amendment to deal with is Reich Wing preachers going into black churches to get the support of black ministers for their anti-GLBT agenda. One of my pet projects is keeping track of what the RR is up to and they are really trying to drum up support from black ministers. Here's one recent story from Mass.:


Black clergy rejection stirs gay marriage backers
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 2/10/2004

The three major associations of Greater Boston's black clergy, exercising their considerable influence within the minority community and asserting moral authority on civil rights matters, have shaken up the debate over same-sex marriage with their insistence that the quest by gays and lesbians for marriage licenses is not a civil rights issue.

The Black Ministerial Alliance, the Boston Ten Point Coalition, and the Cambridge Black Pastors Conference issued a joint statement this weekend opposing gay marriage.

In response, gay and lesbian African-Americans are hastily pulling together an organization they say will seek to end their invisibility within the black church.

But the region's black pastors, some long associated with liberal political causes, say they are proud to be speaking out on an issue they consider to be hugely important. Several said that gay marriage would contribute to the further erosion of traditional family structure in the black community.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/10/black_clergy_rejection_stirs_gay_marriage_backers/

What these black pastors don't seem to get (or care about) is that they're being used as tools by the Religious Reich--the same group of people who fought against desegregation and who denounced the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s by saying religion shouldn't be dirtied by politics (oh, the irony!). It's absolutely maddening.

Homophobia in the black community is a very complex issue. On one hand there is less homophobia than a lot of folks might think. My mom, for instance, is a born again "fundie" type Christian but having her gay brother pass on from AIDS and all the stigma that went with that changed her attitudes somewhat. She's against gay marriage ("God says it's wrong"), but feels that people should be free to live their lives without harrassment from others ("It's between them and God"). On the other hand the homophobia that's there is visceral, almost like a defense mechanism. The legacy of slavery--the destruction of the black family--is a large cause of it, I think. As a young woman raised in the black church I was constantly bombarded with the message that I was somehow responsible for The Black Family and while it was never said outright, homo/bisexuality was considered to be absolutely out of the question. I am bi and got the same cross-eyed looks from black folks holding a (black) woman's hand that I do holding my current partner's hand (a white male).

It's complicated. There's a lot of education that needs to be done, and I think it's the responsibility of black GLBT folks to be out and visible wherever possible. That would go a long way to help the situation.

[David__77]

14. Black & LGBT

It just shows that there is interplay between various struggles. This is not a "zero-sum game" in which one fight gains at the expense of another. United front is what is called for. I think that Black people who are also LGB or T need to be in the forefront of these efforts and in the leadership of both movements.

[Terran]

16. Well said, Chovexani

I have been thinking about this aspect of the civil right/gay marriage equation myself, because my partner is African-American. But wasn't quite sure how to express my thoughts on it. You have stated it very succinctly. There is an absurd tendency, even among liberals, to think that all gay people are male, white, and live in San Francisco or New York. But of course, there are GLBT people everywhere, no matter what anyone says, and millions of them are too afraid to go public, much less get married. We are all in this, the struggle for equality and dignity, together.

Thank you, thank you, thank you

Dirk

[Solomon]

18. What the hell does gays getting married have to do with

lynchings and dogs getting sicked on you for trying to live? That's why we have a problem with the analogies. Sorry I'm not PC, but you have to give some consideration to what "rights" you're talking about here.

Nobody is stopping gays from living together and loving each other. All this fuss over semantics. Whether you call it civil union or marriage wouldn't matter if the stupid legislatures would give all the rights incident to marriage, to civil unions also.

But I get the impression that that wouldn't be good enough for some gays. They want the "word" too. Well, I'm sorry, arguing over a word is not analogous to the civil rights struggle of african americans. Under the worst case, gays can still obtain the benefits of marriage by making out wills, beneficiary designations, and so on.

Flame all you want, but I don't like the analogy either. Discrimination in the work place, denying gays the right to vote, ok, no problem. And I have no problem with gays getting all the benefits incident to marriage. But don't act like it's the appocalypse because some people don't want to give up a word.

On the other hand, I've always said that black people insure everyone's rights because you know damn well, if a black man gets something, everybody else, no question, gotta get it too. Shit, that would be reverse discrimination if they didn't you know?
But in this case the analogy doesn't really fit because what the analogy is really arguing is that since blacks have a right to get married, then gays should have the right to get married. Getting dogs sicced on you, waterhoses turned on you, while national tv is laughing at you, has nothing whatsoever to do with gays being able to get married.

Putting on flack jacket now.

[Chovexani]

19. Thanks for your opinion, but you sort of missed the point of my post

My point was that some of the people who were lynched, had dogs sicced on them, waterhoses turned on them, etc. were also GLBT people.

It has everything to do with gays being able to get married because GLBT people were there. Your post made this into an us/them thing when "them" *is* "us".

Don't think it's true? Read up on Bayard Rustin, to use the most prominent example. He was a fairly out (for the times) gay man and was a critical figure in the civil rights movement, was largely responsible for the March on Washington, an advisor to MLK, and was thought by many in the movement to be a liability because of his "lifestyle". Here's a link to get you started: http://www.rustin.org/biography.html

I agree with you that the right to marry is not the same thing as being lynched and having waterhoses put on you. But that's not the point--the point is, the movements are one in the same, because the people affected are one in the same. GLBT Civil Rights are Black Civil Rights because Blacks are GLBT too. That's what I meant. When you have people like Jesse Jackson getting up saying that GLBT people should have "some rights", what he's saying (whether he means to or not) is that he's in favor of some Blacks being discriminated against. Because Black folks are GLBT folks too.

--C.

[Solomon]

20. Not to argue with you, but I think you missed the point of MY

post. You guys are arguing over a "word". If you get the same rights that married people do then why wouldn't you be satisfied with that? Beyond that, you're just whining because you want the word. Of course there were gays, black and white, in the civil rights struggle, but that doesn't make it the gay civil rights struggle. The point is, it's the rights that carry the wait, and whining because people don't want to give you a word is insulting to those people that died to improve the civil rights of all americans.

I'm sorry you had the experience that you did in your church. I too grew up in the black church and yes, you are right, the prevailing view in black america is anti-gay. My nephew is gay, but his parents and my other family members who are very religious, pretend that he's not. At the same time they are pretending that he's not, they don't bug him to come to church with them because they would feel embarrassed. All this is true. But I can't imagine the church treating your family the way it did because of aids. Despite the black church's phobia with homosexuality, my experience is that they overlook these kinds of issues when it comes to comforting and helping the sick.

Then too, you should look at the politics of things too. I try to explain to my fundie family that you just can't read the bible's rules and laws without taking into account the politics of the times.
For the black community in america today, the black male is under siege, and is now missing from the household. Therefore, there is a strong interest in the black community in producing traditional marriages.

Sorry to say so, and it's not my particular point of view, and it's not pc, but the black community has far more worries than the rights of homosexuals. That's just the bottom line.

[Chovexani]

21. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this

Funny how different people's perspectives can be depending on what part of the scale they're on. I'm glad that you can afford to not worry about GLBT rights. Many people in the black community can not afford to do anything but. Sakia Gunn's family, for instance. Or Transgendered people of color who, because of the homophobia in their communities, live lives of shame and isolation and turn to substance abuse. Or the thousands of gay and bisexual Black men who would rather live "on the down low" and risk the own health and well-being of themselves and their partners in the process because the pressures put upon them by the black community to conform to a particular notion of black maleness. Or some of the black GLBT teens I was in a G.E.D. program with, some of whom had resorted to selling drugs and/or their bodies to support themselves in the past because their families and churches wanted no part of them.

I recognize the strong interest in the black community to produce traditional marriages. Being told you're a traitor to your race unless you find a strong black male to breed strong black babies with will do that for a person (I shit you not--but I wish I was.). I don't pretend to know the answers to the problems plaguing black families in America, but I don't think denying rights to some black families because of the gender configurations involved helps matters much.

The "worries" of the larger black community are amplified by a hundred in the Black GLBT community: substance abuse, astronomical AIDS rates, poverty, job discrimination, you name it. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. Black folks ignore the rights of their GLBT sons and daughters at their own peril.

As for arguments over the word marriage? Opinion is less than monolithic in the GLBT community over it, even among GLBT DUers. My position on it is rather complicated. When you talk about "marriage" you're really talking about two parts of an equation: a laundry list of benefits and responsibilities conferred to a pair of individuals by the state, and a vow made by a pair of individuals in their religious community before their deity. My feeling is that the former ought to be the sole province of the state and it should be called civil unions, no matter the gender configuration of the people involved, because they are just that. The latter should be called marriage and left to individual spiritual communities--churches, temples, whatever. Being private entities they would confer no rights beyond that of their own belief system, and wouldn't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they felt it would be wrong.

Granted that is a fairly radical concept, one that I know wouldn't fly with most people (which is rather amusing to me--if it's just a word, why would married hets have a problem with having their marriage changed to a civil union, they're the same rights aren't they?). I'm all about the rights, and if the only way to get them is to have civil unions, then I am for it. But, admittedly, the thought of that leaves an uncomfortable pit in my stomach. It smacks of second-class citizenship status, separate and not-quite-equal. If that's whining, I guess it's whining.

--C.

[Solomon]

30. Oh. So in order to make things equal, you would force husband and

wife to call themselves civil unioned rather than married? That's the only way if you don't get your "word"? Get a grip. Stop whining about a word.

How do you come to the conclusion that it would be "separate and not quite equal"? If civil unions give all the rights and privileges of marriage, then how is it "not quite equal"?

[mondo joe]

31. What's in a Word?

"Oh. So in order to make things equal, you would force husband and wife to call themselves civil unioned rather than married? That's the only way if you don't get your "word"? Get a grip. Stop whining about a word."

If it's just a word, what difference does it make if husband and wife use it too?

You keep saying it's just a word, and yet you seem to attach a great deal of importance to it.

[Solomon]

39. Look. What a trickster you try to be. I couldn't give a rat's ass

whether gays can use the word "married" or not. I'm just sick of the stupidity. The compromise is to give gays the rights, and let heteros continue having the "word." The stupid heteros won't be happy because most of them don't even want to give gays equal rights of marriage. Gays won't be happy with their rights because they want a "word". Compromise. Get on with life until the next stage.

Why don't you explain to us how it would be "un-equal" or discriminatory if civil unions provided all the rights and privileges of marriage?

The irony of it all is, if the legislatures do not fix it so that civil unions carry the same rights and privileges as marriages, then the courts will have no choice but to authorize gay "marriages". So asshole heteros who have a problem with civil unions will shoot themselves in the foot by arguing against civil unions and causing the courts to sanction marriage.

[mondo joe]

44. We do agree on this one item

"The irony of it all is, if the legislatures do not fix it so that civil unions carry the same rights and privileges as marriages, then the courts will have no choice but to authorize gay "marriages". So asshole heteros who have a problem with civil unions will shoot themselves in the foot by arguing against civil unions and causing the courts to sanction marriage."

We agree.

[Chovexani]

45. Yes.

It's not equal because it's not the same word.

I felt for a long time that the state has no business issuing marriage licenses to anybody--that the state had no business blessing anyone's relationships, gay straight or otherwise (and that stance didn't come out of being queer, it came out of being a member of a minority religion most folks have either not heard of or react with a visceral hatred to). I'd rather the state not get itself involved with something that has such a heavy religious connotation. I've since come to the position I'm at now and think it makes the most sense.

I'm not whining, and I have tried to be as respectful as possible talking to you, but I'm not the one with the raised blood pressure here. I could just as well ask you why, in order to make things equal, we need to force gay and lesbian couples to call themselves civil unioned instead of wed. I honestly do not understand why we need to create a parallel system that is exactly the same, solely for one class of individuals, except for the name (civil unions). It kinda sounds like a big waste of time to me. We already have a system in place that grants rights, benefits and responsibilities to a pair of individuals who swear to make a committment to each other for life (marriage)--why don't we just use that? Saves time and energy, IMO.

I can be pragmatic. I understand that my idea for a radical overhaul of the way marriage is handled by the state would never happen, thus my support for civil unions (with all the rights of het marriage) if it was the absolute only way. Or heck even as a stepping stone. Geez, this is really just hypothetical to me anyway, since my current partner has the "correct" set of naughty bits in the eyes of Uncle Sam for us to get capital-M Married. It kinda seems to me like you're the one whining about a word. If that's not the case, why the hysterical reaction to "forcing" het couples to call themselves civil unionized? After all, it's just a word.

--C.

[Solomon]

47. Wrong wrong wrong. The state has every right to get involved in

marriage because a host of legal issues attend to the state of marriage. That's why you guys are arguing discrimination in the first place. Isn't that right?

[mondo joe]

29. Sorry to horn in on your oppression monopoly

Ecactly how much oppression does a class of people need before they qualify?

Do Jews qualify?

Do women?

Do hispanics?

"Nobody is stopping gays from living together and loving each other. All this fuss over semantics. Whether you call it civil union or marriage wouldn't matter if the stupid legislatures would give all the rights incident to marriage, to civil unions also."

Well that might be so if they were offering Civil Unions, which they're not.

"But I get the impression that that wouldn't be good enough for some gays. They want the "word" too."

Do you think riding in the back of the bus was enough? Or did you have to have the front too?

[Solomon]

34. Now see, you're another one. I specifically said that gays should have

the same rights and privileges that marriage gives people. It WILL happen because it would be discrimination otherwise. But you go on and make your argument based upon something I'm not advocating. I specifically said that the legislatures have to fix it or the courts will.

Jews, women, hispanics, muslims, christians, anybody you want to add on the list qualifies when it comes to "oppression" as you put it. But I sincerely submit to you that denying gays the word "marriage" IS NOT OPPRESSION, okay? Get a grip. Denying gays the right to the privileges and incidents of marriage IS discriminatory, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE WORD "MARRIAGE" to fix it.

[mondo joe]

37. I sincerely submit to you that if it's just a word what do you care?

"But I sincerely submit to you that denying gays the word "marriage" IS NOT OPPRESSION, okay? Get a grip. Denying gays the right to the privileges and incidents of marriage IS discriminatory, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE WORD "MARRIAGE" to fix it."

But we're not currently getting anything - so perhaps you'll excuse my failure to be impressed.

I wonder why you even think the word marriage is yours to give.

I note you expressed dismay that husbands and wives should have to give up "marriage" in favor of "civil union" as if it was egregious. I ask you, if it's so important for hetero couples why should it be less important for gays?

I note also that you expressed that at worst gays could get wills and legal contracts to ensure a few of the rights associated with marriage. I wonder if you felt that at worst blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. Certainly it was just a minor inconvenience.

[Solomon]

48. There you go again with the back of the bus shit again.

Maybe one of these times you might find a suitable use for it. So far you are so far off the mark it's not worth responding to. It demonstrates however, a woeful nonunderstanding of the civil rights movement in america.

[kiahzero]

35. That's funny

I seem to recall a phenomenon known as "gay-bashing" occuring.

So, how much discrimination do GLBT people have to suffer before their allowed to be pissed about it?

[DrWeird]

40. Not that I want to contribute to an intellectual pissing contest...

but ignorance isn't going to salve anybody's problems.

Gays have been lynched plenty of times.

[Joe Momma]

22. i have respect for this struggle, however

i do not think a comparison can be drawn to the black struggle for equality. at the height of the civil rights movement, you would have been hard pressed to find black people that would openly side or vote for their oppressors. i do not see this same conviction in the gay community. i believe a fair barometer for the feelings of oppression is the level of outrage of those oppressed.

[QC]

24. According to that reasoning,

the presence of kapos in Auschwitz means that the prisoners there didn't feel particularly oppressed.

Sorry, but the presence of the Log Cabin Republicans, who are utterly insignificant and powerless even within their own party, doesn't mean that gay people in America do not feel oppressed.

[Joe Momma]

25. do these log cabin republicans

whom I am not familiar with, compromise one quarter of the gay community?

[foreigncorrespondent]

27. Does the LCR...

...speak for the ENTIRE gay community?

[Joe Momma]

33. which group does?

i am not familiar with the lcr. do they represent 25% of the gay community? which black group during the height of the civil rights struggle representing a full quarter of blacks threw their support to those that hated them? i am not saying this is not a legitimate struggle against discrimination for gays. it is a far cry from the black struggle for equality, though.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. Just because...

...Bush* got 25% of the gay vote in 2000, doesn't mean they were all members of the LCR. Some were swing voters. So NO, the LCR doesn't represent 25% of the gay community. The LCR represents their membership base, and that is it.

Now, I don't plan on getting into this with you again today. This is what I would term a thread jack, as it takes the readers away from the original posters thoughts. Which by the way was brilliantly said.

[Joe Momma]

41. you have yet to actually say why

bush got this 25%.

i will continue to vote for canditates that, while they may not do everything you want, will not curtail rights even further, as the fascists wish to do. this is unlike 1 in 4 in your own group.

do i think this is an issue that compares to the civil rights struggle of blacks? no. neither do the vast majority of americans. do i think it is wrong to deny the rights of straight couples to gays? yes, as the do the vast majority in my party. perhaps you should lobby with those in your group that find their pocketbooks more important than your cause. there are a lot of votes there. republicans will target them again, as they successfully did in the last campaign, and i am interested to see how it comes out. after all, they are so much different now then they were back then.

[QC]

32. Far from it.

As I said in my earlier post, they are a very small and powerless subgroup within the GOP.

[Joe Momma]

43. thank you

do you feel that the 1.1 million votes for bush in 2000 by gays were the member of a particular group? is it possible to turn these votes the other way in '04?

[QC]

49. I have so idea why so many GLBTs voted for Bush.

I suspect it might be a combination of two things:

1. Some are rich and care only about their financial wellbeing, and

2. Some were probably taken in by Bush's carefully-cultivated image of being "compassionate" and "moderate."

While the greedy will probably still support him, I suspect that very few people in the second group will. He's made it pretty much impossible to see him as any kind of moderate.

As for the bigger point of the thread, I don't think that any intelligent person would say that being black is exactly like being gay. But, I think the common thread here is being set apart for "special treatment" on the basis of irrational prejudice. That is a common experience between the two groups (which are really not two separate groups, since, as others have pointed out here, lots of people are both black and gay.) And, of course, there are common enemies as well. The same people who hate you for being black generally hate me for being gay, and pitting us against each other only serves their interests.

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. Very well said!

About a week ago someone else brought up about the black LGBT folks, but that got ignored.

I have been saying in almost all of the threads I have been contributing to on this very subject, that this isn't a game between which group is discriminated against the most. Discrimination is discrimination and it comes in many forms. From that, I got told that being gay is a choice, being black isn't. I won't say what happened after that, because it led to my receiving my first moderator warning.

Anyway, thank you for a wonderful thread, I truly appreciate it.

[sleepystudent]

26. just my rambling opinion...

Sorry, long time lurker on here...almost never feel inclined to post anything. But, I am black and gay too( wasn't raised in the black church though) and strangely enough, don't agree with this original post-or at least not completely. It just seems that everyone that compares this new struggle with the black civil rights struggle talks about the fight for black civil rights in the past tense-as if they got their rights and now it is our turn. The black civil rights struggle is far from over and it seeme like people will now simply turn their attention to the gay rights struggle because it seems "easier" to solve or gay people seem "easier" to deal with, perhaps because the face of the gay community put forth in the media is that of the white male, middle to upper middle class, educated, non-threatening, with great taste. Other types of gays are not seen. And I think this is conscious. In my opinion this is one reason that the Matthew Shepard murder, while horrible, got way more attention than the murder of someone like Sakia Gunn, even in the gay community- he was a more photogenic, relatable face for the media.

And let's not even go into the racism in the gay community itself-if you are going to blanket condemn the black community for homophobia, you need to call the gay community out on their racism.

Sometimes I worry that so many groups latch on to the iconography of the civil rights movement because it retains a residual power for so many people-but they do not latch onto the movement itself-I don't see many gay people condemning police brutality, etc. And there is a tension between black people and white gays in many places and it goes beyond issues of morality. There are issues of gentrification in some neighborhoods, for one example. I don't think you can just sweep it all under the rug and demand that all oppressed groups hold hands. And as it stands now, in the black community for many, conditions are getting worse and are moving backwards in many cases. Black people are seen as a "problem" people and people are just throwing up their hands-there seems to be a pessimism compounded by the fact that this struggle has been going on for a century and we expected more at this point. The gay rights struggle is less than a century old and looks like it will be getting results very quickly(I think gay marriage will be legal within 5-10 years) and many gays also benefit from white privilege which gives them a leg up. And I'm sorry, is the right to marry really that much more important than the right to be free from police brutality or the decimation of an entire generation due to imprisonment? Some of these issues just don't register with many black people and I can understand the resentment that creates.

[sleepystudent]

28. Just a nitpick...

Also, am I the only person that gets sort of uncomfortable when people seem to go out of their way to call a black person "eloquent"? You are "so eloquent!" Like they're amazed you can speak and write properly? I'm being oversenstive I know, but it has happened to me in the past and I just think there is something funny behind that compliment.

Also, as people say that Black LGBT people should be at the head of the movement, what's to keep the major LGBT orgs, which are overwhelmingly white, from simply using one or two gays of color as window dressing and continuing to show a white face to the national media?

[Chovexani]

42. Welcome to DU

And thanks for your perspective. I tried to make it clear in my original post that I wasn't trying to speak for anyone but myself, and I'm glad someone else posted a different view.

I'm with you on the "eloquent" thing--I'm really insecure when it comes to putting my thoughts down on paper in non-story form, so I didn't take offense at it this time. It's an uncomfortable word sometimes though, and I totally understand where you're coming from, having gone to a largely white private school growing up.

Anyway, I focused on the black community because it was Jesse Jackson's comments that initially led me to write the post--but I didn't mean to hand the major GLBT orgs a free pass, because I have some pretty choice words for them too. There is plenty of unabashed racism among what I call the "professional" GLBT activists. HRC in particular gets on my last nerve because they are quite guilty of using token POCs as window dressing (Donna Payne is one of their favorite reps to put on camera to prove their "diversity"). They're rather clueless when it comes to queers outside their own largely white, upper class yuppie bubble. NGLTF is one of the better larger orgs, mainly because they also work on poverty and social justice issues. I can't really speak about GLAAD because I don't know much about them as an org.

There's a lot of racism in the GLBT activist community, some of it subtle, some of it blatant. I get very uncomfortable when people like HRC try to make the case for GLBT rights to Middle America by insisting that "we're just like you"--we're not those sassy, finger-snapping black drag queens, we're rich white and Republican just like you! :eyes: Just looking at the way certain GLBT hate crime victims are embraced by the major orgs while others might recieve a blurb on the website and nothing else is proof positive of that.

It's a complex issue. I think ultimately the best way to change things is to be out when and wherever possible, and work to be heard in both communities. It's a tough choice. Some closeted black GLBT people I know stay closeted because they value their families and churches and they fear if they come out there won't be a community to welcome them with open arms (and those fears are too often justified). Some are out but choose to stay out of the politics because it makes their heads spin too much (a valid response as any, and one I can understand). Others, like me, are just plain misfits period and toss it all to the wind. After all if you're already a freak it's not like you've got anything to lose, ne? :)

Like I said, it's a complex issue, and it's good to have dialogue about it. I think we need more.

--C.

On Edit: I also think you are absolutely right when you say that there are some who would latch onto the iconography of the black civil rights movement, without really doing anything to further its aims and acting like it's "succeeded" (it largely has, but the work is far, far from over). Where I'm at (NYC), GLBT politicians and local leaders are good about speaking out about police brutality, and other issues of concern to people of color. It helps that POCs are well-represented among them (and not just in a tokenistic fashion). Is there room for improvement, locally speaking? Yes, but I think the situation is handled better here than in other places and certainly better than on the national level.

[sendero]

38. when someone already on the lifeboat..

.... is stepping on the fingers of those trying to climb aboard (it is a virtual lifeboat, capacity infinity), they immediately lose my respect.

Civil rights are civil rights. It is never a "popular" issue, look back at the early 60s if you think it was.

There is simply no grounds for gays getting second-class treatment. None, except mostly religious bigotry. What else is new, those people said the same things about blacks back then.

Fooey.

[Chovexani]

46. Something that gets lost in the sauce

I'm glad you brought up the fact that the anti-gay forces now also said the same things about black folks back then (and still do, only now they use code words like "urban", "welfare queen" etc).

It really well and truly bothers me that some black ministers would align themselves with these self-serving, racist assclowns. IIRC the whole reason the Southern Baptist Convention came into existence in the first place is because they disagreed vehemently with the National Baptist Convention (?) over segregation and civil rights.

I try to follow the Religious Reich's antics, and gay marriage is being used as a wedge issue not just in Middle America but specifically by the RR to try to drive a wedge in the black community (school vouchers and abortion are two other favorites of theirs). Fortunately most black folks are not stupid enough to fall for it. But expect them to try this tack more and more often as the issue gets more play in the press and we get closer to November. Progressives need to be aware of this and present a united front to combat it.