From one black man to the black community - stop the homophobic madness!

During last week’s legislative session in Maryland when lawmakers were pondering the idea of gay marriage, a few black lawmakers took the time to not only criticize gay marriage but also the notion of lgbt equality in general.

We’ve all heard the hurtful sayings before - “you can’t compare gay rights to black civil rights because you can hide being gay,” “gays and lesbians were never oppressed in the same manner in which blacks were oppressed,” etc., etc.

It would be an awful generalization to say that all in the African-American community have these beliefs. In Maryland many African-Americans, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, publicly supported marriage equality.

However, statements voiced by some Maryland lawmakers unfortunately stand out and not in a good way. In answer to these comments, I could go on about the many lives either crippled and lost at the hands of gay bashers like that of Matthew Shepard, or the wholesale genocide of lgbts by the Nazis in German, or the suicides of lgbt youth such as Tyler Clementi, or the present day usage of junk science by religious right groups to demonize the lgbt community.

But why bother. I’ve reached the point where I hate having to do it.

It’s sad how no one ever talks about how this tug of war between the African-American and lgbt community over equality can negatively affect us lgbts of color. For me personally, it’s an awful psychological rending, a forced dividing of myself into two halves which have no business separating in the first place.

And as a gay man, I especially hate it. I hate the idea of us lgbts having to put the history of our oppression on some sort of display. I hate the notion that lgbts are put on a witness stand where we have to list how many times we have been beaten, disrespected, or denied our basic humanity in order to somehow prove our “worthiness.”

It always leaves me wondering are the scars of the lgbt community deep enough? Is our humiliation painful enough? Have we shed enough blood to suit those who would judge on us on those things?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for understanding the aesthetic differences between the African-American struggle and lgbt struggle for equality. But there comes a time when we must recognize the folly of this constant struggle over whether the two are similar.

And that time is now.

It distresses me to no end that on the subject of lgbt equality, some African-Americans are taking on the guise of those who oppress them.

Those who oppressed (and continue to oppress) African-Americans have the belief that somehow blacks are inferior and will never measure up. Therefore they figure that black people are not deserving of certain basic rights. What’s more awful is how they use the Bible to justify their discrimination.

Now, it seems that some African-Americans have told members of the lgbt community that their suffering is inferior and will never measure up. And therefore, the lgbt community are not deserving of certain basic rights. And guess what? They too use the Bible to justify their discrimination .

It’s a nasty, stupid game. And those who choose to play it should know better.

Being oppressed is not a status symbol. Being oppressed is not a mark of achievement. It should never be used as a pedestal to somehow judge whether or not a group of people are “worthy” of being treated like basic human beings.

Know Your LGBT History - Milk

A movie which needs no introduction. Sean Penn rocked as Harvey Milk and won a well-deserved Oscar for Best Actor.

Now when is someone going to do a movie about Bayard Rustin?

Harvey Debates Senator Briggs
Milk at MOVIECLIPS.com

Gay Pride Rally Speech


Milk
at MOVIECLIPS.com

Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Family Research Council has no sense of logic and other Friday midday news briefs

Family Research Council's "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" Defies Logic - Just when did the Family Research Council and logic ever mix?

Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again) - And here is another piece about that FRC pamphlet written by yours truly.


Man Charged in West Village Hate Crime Says He's No 'Bigot' - I'm sure he feels that he isn't a bigot NOW. But that night when he acted as if he was got him into trouble.


Maryland Bi-National Same-Sex Couple Avoids Separation - Nice to see some good news today.

Gay couple hotel appeal withdrawn - Just in case religious right groups try to squeeze new lies from this old case, here is some clarification.

Should Christians be allowed to discriminate on the basis of personal beliefs?

Some religious right figures are giddy over comments by an English  historian regarding gay rights. From One News Now:

Homosexual activist David Starkey, who is an atheist, participated in a debate on BBC about bed-and-breakfast owners hauled into court when they refused homosexual couples based on their religious beliefs. "The way to do that is not to bound them, not to fine them," he stated. "It is for them simply to put up what seems to me to be a quite proper notice in a small privately run hotel which says, 'We are Christians and this is what we believe.'"

The activist says forcing someone to accept the homosexual lifestyle against their religious beliefs is "a new tyranny."

"Being nice and sweet about gays isn't wholly a good thing -- it really isn't," Starkey stated. "We live in a world of intense difficulty and plurality, and just having a hang-me-down, reach-me-down imposed morality is a very bad idea."

Two things are fascinating about that - Starkey has been described by Wikipedia as a English constitutional historian, a radio and television presenter, and a specialist in the Tudor dynasty and Tudor period. He is openly gay but that hardly makes him an activist. Of course that's in the real world. In the world of the religious right, any lgbt not in the closet is an "activist."

Secondly it's highly ironic that Starkey's comments about "forced morality" is being applauded by the same folks on the forefront of the battles against gay rights, women making choices about their own bodies, etc - and all because of the morality they want to impose on others.

The grand irony is that these folks want to attach Starkey's comments about situation with a privately owned business in another country (I'm not aware of all of the details regarding this controversy) to situations in America, which at times involve public tax dollars.

Like the Ocean Grove Pavilion for example.

The Ocean Grove Pavilion was a piece of property owned by a religious group in New Jersey. When a lesbian couple tried to use the pavilion to have a civil union ceremony, the group said no, citing religious beliefs against homosexuality.

The lesbian couple sued and won and just like that, the religious right had a new cause celebre, i.e. new so-called victims of gay rights overreach.

However, religious right groups repeating the story about this so-called injustice always omitted the fact that the religious group was getting tax breaks on this piece of property. And one of the requirements of the tax breaks was that they couldn't discriminate on who could use the property.

The real question here is how much should people be allowed discriminate based on personal religious beliefs.  Should this ability to discriminate be applied in cases where tax dollars are spent? Or how about in cases regarding business owners or service providers in general?

Just how much consideration should someone's "deeply held personal beliefs" be given over someone else's right to be able to find a place to live or attain necessities?

Lastly, if we open up the doors of anti-lgbt discrimination on the grounds of  "personal religious beliefs," then why not open the doors of racial discrimination? Or gender discrimination?

Strangely enough, these questions never seem to come up when religious right groups whine about how their rights are being taken away.

I wonder why is that?

Peter Sprigg PROVES why a defense of DOMA will fail

The rhetoric of the religious right used to drive me crazy because it's carefully tuned to distract and deceive.

Take for example the talking points of Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council. Today, he debated Freedom To Marry's Evan Wolfson on CNN. He said the following:

You’re not mandated to have kids if you get married but it makes no sense to extend the benefits of marriage to a type of relationship that is incapable of ever creating children. That undermines the whole purpose of the institution and it sends a message to society that, no, children don’t need a mother and a father.

And that’s simply false, the social science shows that children do best when they have a mother and father.

That's the old "gays and lesbians shouldn't marry because their relationships can't create children" dodge. And then Sprigg adds the claim that social science says that children are better suited in a home with a mother and a father.

Of course, like he always does on these occasions (I don't know why no one ever directly challenges him on this), Sprigg omits the fact that these "social science" studies only looked at two-parent homes in comparison to one-parent homes and same-sex households never factor in.

Though Wolfson didn't call Sprigg out, he did cite the common sense fact that many children being raised do well without the "mother and father" dynamic.

The web page Think Progress does Wolfson better:

Numerous studies have shown that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in different-sex households. In fact, a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, concluded that “children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” The researchers also found that “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

Reading that made me come to the simple realization of why folks like Sprigg have been successful in voting measures, but not in the courts. Talking points like his are naturally suited to sway folks because they are quick and catchy - albeit not altogether truthful. In spite of what Sprigg and folks like him may claim, those talking points don't come from basic ideas of morality and truth.

They are statements cynically crafted in board rooms by spin doctors who care less about America's moral survival than their fat paychecks.

They don't appeal to people's logic, but rather to their emotions. And in the courts, they just don't hold water. Or as Equality Matters puts it about the Prop 8 decision last year:

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger,  the 2010 federal court decision that ruled California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed concerns about the impact marriage  equality would have on procreation and the traditional family. Again, Judge Walker found that these arguments could not prove even a "rational basis" for marriage discrimination.

It's definitely something to remember the next time Sprigg is able to finagle an appearance on a news program in spite of his history of deliberate inaccuracies.  While he no doubt drives many lgbts to distraction with his ability to distort with a smug face, it's helpful to remember that smugness can't get you over when you have a habit of lying without impunity.

Sooner or later, you get caught. And when Sprigg's time comes - and when the Family Research Council's time comes - there is going to be a lot of champagne popping.

Kansas thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court and other Thursday midday news briefs

Boehner Announces Defense of DOMA - Surprising NO ONE. Go ahead and waste our money.

Gallagher Reveals Her Best Defense Of DOMA, But It's Already Been Rejected - Here is a little preview of how the court case for DOMA may go.

Kansas lawmakers stop repeal of law criminalizing gay relationships - That's right. Forget the Supreme Court's overturning of the sodomy laws.

Sign the Petition Demanding that Apple Remove Exodus’s Bigoted iPhone App - Freedom of speech has nothing to do with peddling potentially harmful bad science.

Religious right whining about 'threats' in Maryland

Regardless of how the marriage equality vote in Maryland will turn out, one thing is certain. The National Organization for Marriage and those against gay marriage in Maryland seem to be operating on fumes right now.

How else can one explain a recent article coming from the American Family Association's One News Now. The article pushes a phony assertion that the lgbt community and its allies engaged in "threats" to get the votes. The main snippet says the following:

Derek McCoy of the Association of Maryland Families says unscrupulous practices are being used to pressure lawmakers opposed to homosexual marriage to vote differently than their conscience. "We know those practices to be everything from threatening people's chairmanship, to one young man who was a delegate that changed his vote and then went back and changed it again because he already had had people starting to call his donors and asking for refunds from his campaign money."

McCoy is referring to the recent brouhaha regarding delegate Sam Arora who campaigned on the fact that he would support gay marriage in Maryland. Arora knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations while expressly saying that he supported marriage equality.

Then after the election, he announced that he changed his mind and would not support gay marriage.

Naturally the members of the lgbt community who supported him, who introduced him to their families, who told him their life stories and why this piece of legislation is important were furious.

And some in fact did ask  for their donations back. This led Arora to change his mind again and support the bill.

But I fail to see how this situation reaches the level of  "unscrupulous practices" that were alluded to in the article. Don't citizens have a right to contact their lawmakers and voice their support or displeasure?

Also, McCoy - and the article - conveniently forgot to mention NOM's recent pledge to spend $1 million defending Democratic senators voting against the gay marriage bill and opposing Republican senators who vote for the bill.


Seems to me that if McCoy thinks citizens contacting their lawmakers resembles "unscrupulous activities," then an organization - an out-of-town organization - using the power of the purse to sway legislators should really rank up there on the "threat chart."