October News

by Pam Spaulding

A reader of my blog named Kevin wrote me the other day to say that he is interested in building bridges with people of color (POC) about race and equality but doesn’t know how to engage when the conversation turns tense. I asked if I could post his letter to generate discussion because I know he’s not the only one out there who had this reaction to my recent blog posts about the topic.

I am a twenty-one-year-old white, gay male living in California. I campaigned for ridiculous amounts of time (seriously, I had a huge void in my life when President Obama was safely elected—a sign that I was addicted! Or something.) for Obama and against Proposition 8. I was part of the effort in San Diego, California and frequently rubbed arms with POC (as you call them in your HuffPo) people while campaigning for both things.

I wanted to say I just read your post on ”Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’“ and I found it to be very inspiring. It also reignited my interest in working toward some form of outreach toward the local black community. I found that while I spoke about Obama and why he was the right choice for America, etc, I had the focus of the people I was talking to 100% (assuming they weren’t McCainites) but when I tried to segue into Proposition 8 a lot of people would slip into an interesting… defensive stance? Their demeanor completely shifted to what I liked to call ”I am not listening to anything you said while trying to think of a way to escape from this conversation“. Anyway, I noticed that certain members of the black community were quick to dismiss me as some kind of white, gay racist. I am not sure when this became such a widespread stereotype, nor am I sure why I of all people was labeled a racist for bringing up a collection of quotes from MLK and Coretta Scott King. My boyfriend is bi-racial (he doesn’t like being called ‘black or white’ and dislikes people being labeled and sorted into groups) and I had to do a lot of convincing to get him to march with me, and to go out and talk to people about Prop 8.

On two separate occasions, while trying to use him to display that I am not at all racist, he was told by the black people we were talking to that he ‘gave up’ being black when he decided to be gay. I’ve also tried explaining that my two best friends growing up were both black, though I imagine that probably worked more against me than for me. This isn’t just an issue within minorities and several of the white people outwardly called me a faggot on multiple occasions (I live in an oddly socially conservative part of California).

So I guess what I am asking is… how do I establish the dialogue? How do I get through to members of the black community that seem to think if I sneeze on them they will catch some gay disease? I am going to work my ass off again in 2010 and beyond, but I am not able to do it all by myself and you seem to be very educated on the subject.

Well, I’m not exactly well-educated about such things, so much as I have had to deal with inhabiting two worlds that frequently have problems with my very existence because it challenges assumptions they would like to remain intact.

That out of the way, I want to thank you and your boyfriend for being willing to step outside of your comfort zone and take the predictable abuse in order to challenge these black residents on their bigotry. Most people are so scared of being labeled racist by perfect strangers that they avoid the outreach. Honestly, those in the black community who are homophobic don’t get challenged enough—the charges they lob is a defense for not wanting to engage. They know they can play the dreaded race card—even at black gays, denying their blackness, something I’ve personally experienced (and it occurred yet again, in the comments of that HuffPost piece).

My suggestions are below the fold. Contribute yours in the comments.

You see, they have no sense of their own hypocrisy—that not all white gay men are racist, just as not all blacks are homophobic. Both groups tend to cling to the generalizations because there is always a factual basis for any bias or stereotype. The fact is the faces of the LGBT community are largely white gay men. There are no insurmountable reasons for this in this day and time, yet the lack of diversity (including class) in the visible leadership in our organizations continues. It should be no surprise to hear this charge.

However, one should always use a face-to-face interaction as a mutual learning opportunity by actively listening and testing assumptions. When you come up against that wall of resistance—when the “white, gay racist” retort comes up—it’s going to sting. You can’t help feeling slighted but you have to move past it and acknowledge the truth in the statement. You could have said something on the order of:

“I understand why you may feel that way; there are too many in the LGBT community who have not visibly engaged in struggles affecting the black community, but I can’t change the past. What I am offering, with my presence here today, is to work for change across the board—and why this election is important. I want to address all instances of discrimination that have gone long unaddressed. As part of that I would like you to consider voting against Prop 8 because it represents instituting government-based discrimination.”

You are: 1) acknowledging a truth; 2) representing that you are both taking personal responsibility as a white gay man to counter racism in the LGBT community; and 3) asking her for support in stopping all discrimination.

BTW, it’s doubly difficult sometimes if you bring up MLK or other black civil rights leaders since the people you’re meeting with may object out of the box to the “appropriation” of that movement’s figures. In fact, some try to explain away or ignore black leaders still with us who support LGBT civil rights, such as John Lewis, Ben Jealous of NAACP national and Julian Bond.

That’s my two cents; I’m sure others will be glad to contribute in the comments.

My suggested answer, of course, doesn’t even address religious objections to homosexuality; if it hasn’t been brought up as a defense shield yet, would likely come up next. One way to respectfully approach scripture being tossed out or that religious freedom is under attack is to discuss the church state separation issue, but the conflation of state/civil marriage with anti-gay people makes this a tough nut to crack. A better approach is to say that this kind of discrimination:

1) Opens the door for government to allow religious discrimination—ask them about why they would vote for a measure that discriminates against other faiths, including other Christian ones, that DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples.

2) That placing civil rights at the whim of a majority vote at the ballot box endangers all civil rights.

I’m sure other readers have other ideas for you. There is no answer that can cover every encounter you may have when engaging on this challenging topic, but just know that by doing something, rather than sitting back and doing nothing out of fear and the desire to avoid discomfort, that you are making a difference.

Over at my pad, someone suggested that the writer’s partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts was in itself racist. My reply:

I don’t see partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts as racist; it’s a reality that the people they are encountering often refuse to acknowledge that there are POC LGBTs and start right into the attack mode. Obviously his BF went willingly (if apprehensively, knowing what was coming), and the fact is his presence allows the conversation to turn away from invisibility to their ownership of the fact they consider he’s turned in his black card. That’s their public admission of bigotry.

That’s why I have advocated that when canvassing POC neighborhoods that may be hostile to LGBT rights, whites should pair up with someone of color to take that “weapon” out of the hands of those you talk to. These are people who are rarely challenged about their own prejudices. The major problem with this is we have to tackle the racism in the LGBT community that makes it difficult for POC to feel they will be accepted if the come out. So that leaves a movement with precious few POC to rise to the challenge of taking the almost-certain abuse by members of their own communities of color for the goal of full civil equality. A tall order.

If you read through the HuffPost column, POC who were anti-gay tried repeatedly to turn the argument around to “what about racism in the white LGBT community?”. That’s not an answer to the question being asked (and I’ve covered that before anyway), nor does it explain away the problem at hand. No one is denying the racism exists in that sphere, it’s about pointing out that it’s not one way either. You can’t address the problem if it’s not acknowledged or if it is deflected by tossing out a different question. The bottom line is a good number homophobic POC want to change the subject rather than own up to the problem that is costing those community lives—exploding HIV/AIDS rates—because of their silence and promotion of homophobia in the pews.

***

NOTE: These discussions are essential and The Dallas Principles are something to keep in mind when you are facing this uphill battle, particularly 3-6 in this context. Kevin and his boyfriend are participating in the kind of activism that does change hearts and minds. Even for those who disagree, they have been in engaged in a way that forces them to confront their biases.

1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now.  Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2. We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3. Separate is never equal.

4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5. The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6. Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7. Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8. Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Related: Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’

Just last week, Denver Post and Reason.com columnist David Harsanyi asked, "Is The Abortion Debate Changing?" Based on a recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life" for the first time since the question started being asked in 1995, Harsanyi suggested "that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue" after decades of legalized abortion. And, he argued, the morality of abortion is a lot more complicated than most pro- or anti-abortion slogans let on.

Earlier today, in response to killing of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Jacob Sullum asked why anti-abortion activists rushed to condemn the death of a man who by their own accounts was slaughtering innocents. Jacob understands why the activists might say that, but argues that it's really a tactical response: That they need to distance themselves from murderous extremists.

So what do Reason readers think? Will the killing of George Tiller push more Americans to identify as pro-life? Or will it push voters in the other direction? Does it matter that Tiller was known for doing late-term abortions, which are statistically rare but gruesome?

You go back to that Gallup Poll and one thing sticks out on the basic question of whether abortion should be legal under some circumstances: Since 1976, the percentage answering yes has been around 50 percent or higher (there are a few years where it dipped into the high 40s). That is, it's been pretty stable at or around a majority number.

And the percentage of people saying abortion should be illegal under all circumstances has rarely cracked the 20 percent figure (though it has again in recent years). Similarly, the percentage saying abortion should be legal under all circumstances, which peaked at 34 percent in the early 1990s, has always been a minority position (which currently stands at 22 percent and has been dropping lately).

I suspect that as abortion becomes rarer (as Reason's Ron Bailey pointed out in 2006, abortion has been getting rarer since the 1990s and also occurs earlier in pregnancies than before), it's quite possible that the either/or positions might change, but that their movement will have little effect on the middle position of abortion staying legal under some circumstances. Even those, such as Harsanyi, who is plainly troubled by the logic of abortion, generally concede that prohibition would cause more problems than it would fix ("I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.").

Back in 2003, on the occasion of Roe v. Wade's 30th anniversary, I argued that regarding abortion the country had reached a consensus that

has little to do with morality per se, much less with enforcing a single standard of morality. It's about a workable, pragmatic compromise that allows people to live their lives on their own terms and peaceably argue for their point of view....

This isn't to say that the debate about abortion is "over"-or that laws governing the specifics of abortion won't continue to change over time in ways that bother ardent pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. But taking a longer view, it does seem as if the extremes of the abortion debate - extremes that included incendiary language (including calls for the murder of abortion providers) - have largely subsided in the wake of a widely accepted consensus. Part of this is surely due to the massive increases in reproduction technologies that allow women far more control over all aspects of their bodies (even as some of those technologies challenge conventional definitions of human life).

That isn't an outcome that is particularly satisfying to activists on either side of the issue or to people who want something approaching rational analysis in public policy. But it's still where we're at and it's unlikely the Tiller case will do much to move things one way or the other. The one thing that would likely change it would be if there was a massive shift toward later-term abortions, which seems unlikely based on long-term trendlines and technological innovations.

"Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down at his church in Kansas Sunday morning in a thoroughly evil, cold-blooded act of domestic terrorism. Yes, terrorism. Not 'extremism,'" - Michelle Malkin.

Sonia Sotomayor, Pres. Obama's pick for the SCOTUS, heads to the Hill tomorrow for meetings with members. Per the WH, here is her busy itinerary:

Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

It's not surprising when Vice President Dick Cheney disagrees with President Obama. But it is surprising when he takes a more progressive position than the president.

Said Cheney: "I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."