..at least for black folks, I think. I don't think we'll get it until we see how close this thing really is.
« Prince is a homophobe | Main | Also on Prince » Here is how it will get done...18 Nov 2008 09:00 am Comments (26)
WifeRat showed this to me over the weekend, we both love Wanda. I hadn't ever really given much thought to Wanda's sexuality, all I know is that she's one of the funnier comedians out there. 
I was totally unaware that Wanda Sykes was gay. Is it possible I subconsciously put stock in her TV relationship with Krazy Eyez Killa? In any event, I think this is great of her and hearing this from someone that is a fairly mainstream entertainer will probably start changing some minds both within and without the African-American community. Bully.
"Is there a way to force this issue on our folks that doesn't involve having to push people who'd rather have their personal lives stay personal to discuss them in public?" I don't know who "our folks" are, but that's a choice a lot of gay people make to communicate to anyone who might listen. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a very private person--I had a friend at the house the night of the election, and I mentioned I had a twin. We've hung out, etc., for three years. She didn't know, and said: "And I thought I knew you." The point is, everyone has known I'm gay from the moment they met me. Why? Because I, like a lot of gay people, made a conscious choice to be visible. I can pass, but I recognize that people won't take the issue seriously unless they know we exist. I'd rather not be "Mr. Gay." But there are so many people who are still in the closet, or who refuse to discuss their sexuality unless they are directly confronted about it, that some of us have to be more out to compensate--at least until we have equal rights. Wanda's just saying she now recognizes that fact.
The reason nobody knew Wanda was gay is because her stand up always discussed relationships with men and she mentioned a husband, boyfriends, etc.
I think there's a line between 'pushing sexuality' and 'not being in the closet,' too. I mean, anyone who knows me IRL knows I have a husband, and I don't think I'm 'pushing' that on them. Being open doesn't always mean taking the megaphone. Also, goddamn do I love Wanda Sykes.
In most places, ‘coming out of the closet’ can literally mean becoming a martyr. I have great respect for gays who are ‘visible’, but I think that’s too much to ask of the average gay person. Homophobia is a failing of the straight community. The straight community should take the lead in addressing it.
Deleted. Now you don't have to come here at all. And to answer your question. Yes. this is a gay blog. A very gay blog.
The root of the problem is revealed in the courage we ascribe to coming out. Why does it take courage to acknowledge homosexual feelings? Because for far too it's dangerous. They could lose their dignity or their life. Those of us with courage need to fight for those who cannot or will not. I am not fit to be in the armed services - my talents are not military. But I seriously respect those warriors who put their life on the line for my right to fight for my rights. I do have the courage and will to confront ignorance and hate on both ends of the political spectrum, and I try to every day. I don't blame people for staying in the closet; but like any army, the LGBT community needs as many soldiers as are able to fight to enlist. And to do that, you have to 'come out'.
@ Assa- you could just ignore the "gay" posts, if it bothers you so much. Gee, I can't imagine why TNC would spend so much time focusing on the most prominent civil rights issue of our day. Why would anyone want to discuss that?
Sorry. I just reread my post and it sounds more militant than I intended (it's what happens when you write something when you're rushing out the door). I interpreted Jack T.'s comment as implying that Sykes didn't want to talk about something personal, but felt obligated to because she's AA and had to make sure people understood there were AA people in the LGBT community. What I was trying to say was that her comments weren't directed to the general public, but to the LGBT people in her audience. I think she was setting herself as an example--I too would just like to go on living my life without talking about this, but we have to force people to engage if we're going to make any progress on the issue. I guess I should also explain why I find it so necessary to talk up the gay when I first meet people. I'm 6'5". I weigh 230 pounds. People just have this mental block when it comes to believing I'm gay--a lot are convinced I'm just joking. I've had women try to pick me up in a gay bar in San Francisco. So making it part of my introduction is the only way I have of making it through this stereotype people have. Doesn't mean 'm in their face about it--just putting it out there.
Getting married is not that big of a civil rights issue to me. Its just symbolic, so let them have it...what's the threat? We're already sharing water fountains with them. So someone educate me on what beyond this is their big civil rights issue? The Gay community seem to have a better quality of life than most, so exactly what is their plight? They're not disportionately poor, jobless, or even the poster child for Aids anymore.
The Gay community seem to have a better quality of life than most, so exactly what is their plight? They're not disportionately poor, jobless..." The visible gay community may have a better quality of life than most - economic privilege does give people comfort to be out without worrying about losing their jobs, homes, etc. But there have been studies that show that gay people as a whole are disportionately poor precisely because they do not have access to spousal health care or the network of stability that marriage provides. Working class or poor gay people need the stability of marriage just as much as anyone else does.
Well, for one Shanilink, we're one of the only minority groups in this country where a person who in every other aspect is educated and progressive can write "the Gay community seems to have a better quality of life than most". First, though generalities really never work, they especially don't work with the Gay community, because there are homosexuals from every possible part of society you can imagine (and probably some you can't). Second, it's okay to rag on Gay people. Things that suck or are stupid are "Gay". Major politicians just stand right up and condemn us to hell on a daily basis. A majority of the country thinks that God hates us. The queeny bitchy fag, or the gay version of the minstrel show, permeates our popular culture. To say that someone is homosexual is considered to be the most debased of slanders; it has been successfully prosecuted as such. Have you ever listened to a rap song? Violence against gays is a favorite subject matter of many. At least MTV beeps and blurs "FAG" when it's used in a music video. Then, there's the violence. Not just the insane, psychotic murders like James Byrd or Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena, but the everyday torture that goes on in our nation's schools, or the gay bashing that goes unreported (a large percentage of it). The "I'm going to kill you FAG" screamed out of cars when someone feeling ambitious sees you kissing your boyfriend. -------- "Poster child for AIDS" is just so wrong. If you understood why Gays and Lesbians had to take up that cause, the plague and decimation of the 80s, you'd moderate your tone. Frankly, judging from how our politicians treated AIDS in the beginning, without the awareness building actions of the gay community the epidemic would be much, much worse across the board today. Essentially - all sexual humans in this country owe the gays and lesbians of the 80s a debt of gratitude for demanding medicine and care.
Wanda Sykes is a very funny person. She seems like one of those people who can't help but be funny. If she becomes a prominent spokesperson for this issue, then it'll be over very quickly, and not with a bang. Only a fool would challenge her in this arena. There are plenty of fools in This Life, but plenty more half-decent people who'd rather not be associated with fools. Bring it on, Wanda.
Thanks, Glol for giving me a serious answer. But speaking as a single person, I don't have the benefits of marriage either, and I'm not poor. At least I have a choice in the matter, which I agree is not fair. I'm not even going to get dragged into whatever John is smoking because I'm not in the crowd he's complaining about. I say if marriage is the final frontier of equality for gay people, great...let them have it. My only point is that I can't jump on a bandwagon by calling this the greatest human/civil rights issue today. Of course there are poor gay people but you can't isolate homosexuals and find some problem affecting them at a higher rate than the majority...can you? I think they've come a long way. Maybe acknowledging that isn't the best strategy for getting the appropriate laws passed for marital rights.
I'm with Shanilink. I support gay marriage, worked for it here in Massachusetts (where a lot of white gay men have zero interest in issues affecting black folks) and was disappointed in California. But, I'm sorry -- in no way is this the greatest human/civil rights issue in country today (let alone the world). That kind of hyperbole -- along with Andrew et al's relentless attack on black folks as the sudden baseline of all homophobia ("seething homophobia in much of black America" Really? Seriously? I'm done reading him) -- won't help things. Keep it up if you want, but it really, really won't.
I'm not sure that ranking civil rights issues is any more helpful that blaming entire groups of people for Prop 8. If it were a straight up choice, I'd choose equal educational opportunities for poor kids over gay marriage. But aside from what individuals choose to spend time and money advocating for, this is not a choice anyone has to make. Gay people have been pressing for equal rights for a long long time. There are court cases and ballot initiatives, etc. that makes the marriage issue particularly salient right now. Talking about the harm that marriage bans do to them, or their friends or family is not hyberbole but the truth. And, if in doing this, there is some hyberbole (not sure who you think is exaggerating so much) I don't think it would be enough to sway popular opinion against them.
While I'm waiting for my post to be moderated, something I noted on beyond marriage . com: In September 2005, Salt Lake City Mayor Ross Anderson signed an Executive Order enabling city employees to obtain health insurance benefits for their “domestic partners.” A few months later, trumping the executive order, the Salt Lake City Council enacted an ordinance allowing city employees to identify an “adult designee” who would be entitled to health insurance benefits in conjunction with the benefits provided to the employee. The requirements included living with the employee for more than a year, being at least 18 years old, and being economically dependent or interdependent. Benefits extend to children of the adult designee as well. While an employee’s same-sex or opposite-sex partner could qualify, this definition is broad enough to encompass many other household configurations. The ordinance has survived both a veto by the Mayor (who wanted to provide benefits only to “spousal like” relationships) and a lawsuit launched by anti-gay groups. The judge who ruled in the lawsuit wrote that “single employees may have relationships outside of marriage, whether motivated by family feeling, emotional attachment or practical considerations, which draw on their resources to provide the necessaries of life, including health care.” We advocate close attention to such efforts to provide material support for the widest possible range of household formations. See, Utah ain't all bad. Some of the "benefits" that come with marriage unfortunately aren't accessible to, say, a woman who lives with adult brother who has Downs Syndrome; an unmarried, unpartnered son caring for his elderly father; two friends, with no conjugal interests, raising their nephews in a shared household that combines financial and emotional resources; a woman who has divorced her husband still names him as her adult designee, ensuring that their co-adopted child would have access to these benefits without having to maintain a fiction of marriage.
I hear alot of commenters saying "Well, here are a host of issues that are so much more important than the gay marriage issue, so I just don't give a shit." What frustrates me about this is that they seem to have to make sweeping statements like "a lot of white gay men have zero interest in issues affecting black folks" and "I think they've (gays have) come a long way." I've never stated that I blame any specific ethnic group for Prop 8 - that is more a religious issue. But the derision of the LGBT struggle for civil rights that has become the meme of many of these comments raises alot of questions. The first question that comes to mind is: why is this a choice? It doesn't seem to be one. I am fully in support of programs designed to address poverty, class/race issues and discrimination in this country REGARDLESS of the group effected. The second question is: when I mention the serious issues facing gay and lesbian people in this country why am I "smoking" something? Just like the problems Blacks still face in this country, the LGBT community faces a great many challenges. To compare them is not only pointless, it's foolish. You may feel the need to downgrade gay marriage to a non-issue in order to focus on your own priorities. Personally, I will continue to support ALL civil rights for ALL people in the world. I will also continue to be in support of programs designed to alleviate the scourge of poverty. And I may do it all at the same time.
Religion? Check. Sexual orientation? Go pound sand. Civil rights are afforded and protected to religion, country of national origin, race, sex, disability, and age. The black movement for civil rights won civil rights. The women's movement for civil rights won civil rights. Protections are in place for religion and creed, discrimination based on parental status and age is often illegal, and there are increasing equal rights for disabled folks as a result of the disability movement. "Civil rights" do not belong to black people alone, Shanilink. The Civil Rights Movement was the black movement for civil rights. Legal equality has been achieved for blacks in the US. It has not been achieved for gay men and lesbian women, whether the gays and lesbians in question are white, black, Latino, or Asian. As long as gay people can be fired from jobs because they are gay; as long as gay people can be discriminated against at the workplace because they are gay; as long as gay people can be discriminated against in the housing market because they are gay; as long as gay people can be bashed with impunity specifically because they are gay; as long as the government, both state and federal, will not recognize the marriages of gay men and lesbians, or their families; as long as gay men and lesbians do not have equal standing when it comes to the law, on both a state and federal level, gay people do not have civil rights. Equating 'civil rights' with water fountains is myopic. Granted, gay people can vote and ride the bus in whatever seat they like, but if marriage is a bus, we ain't allowed even on the damn bus. You say we've come a long way? I say: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act still hasn't passed; the federal Defense of Marriage Act is still in place; Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still the policy for the military; and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill still hasn't passed. "We" won in the Lawrence v Texas case (and in the process, voided silly intrusive sex laws for the 13 remaining states that had them on the books, including 9 which covered heterosexuals as well...y'all welcome!). So our love and its physical expression is no longer criminal. But we are not legally equal citizens in this nation that claims that all men are created equal. I think you are confusing greater cultural visibility and social acceptance with civil rights. Yes, gays are on the teevee and in films, more (affluent) gays are out and have created some vibrant neighborhoods, there are even some gay elected officials locally and on up to Congress. But this cultural visibility (skewed representations, another matter) and social acceptance ('I have a gay friend who I go shopping with') has not translated into state recognition of our civil rights. Which other non-criminal groups of people in the United States of America are not afforded equality in the law? Which non-criminal group of people in the United States of America is discriminated against by the federal government and so many state governments? I'd like to know.
Stop putting words in my mouth Jimmy and John. What I wrote is on record. And who says I'm talking about black people? And where do I say the right to marry isn't a civil right? I think you want the small observation I made to be some anti gay black drama for you to rail against. I repeatedly write that gay people should have the right to marry. Everything you say is valid, its just doesn't relate to my comments. GLol on the other hand has a valid comeback.
Shanilink, you asked a question: "So someone educate me on what beyond this is their big civil rights issue?" I gave you an answer. I never put "words in your mouth:; if I did, I would have used quotation marks. Then, I asked questions.
I'm not intending to put words in your mouth in my first paragraph, Shanilink. If you felt that was what I was doing, then I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. However, as Jimmy points out, the statement "So someone educate me on what beyond this is their big civil rights issue?" has a dismissive quality that is hard to ignore. I was trying to address that dismissiveness in my response, though Jimmy did a far more effective and succinct job of it.
how long does it take for a post to be moderated? it's been 24 hours--should I repost?
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Love Wanda Sykes. I was completely unaware that she was gay. Was that common knowledge? Not important really. I just find it very odd that we are still at "love that dare not speak its name" stage. I understand why one might be reticent to discuss their sexual orientation but I just think its really weird when everyone knows the truth and just refuses to acknowledge it. I mean, is anybody fooled by Charlie Crist's faked up marriage? Did Clay Aiken really need to "come out?"
Posted by brent | November 18, 2008 9:42 AM