My suspicion is that despite his campaign promise, Obama is genuinely conflicted about DOMA. In California, the fight against gay marriage was led by black churches, and Obama must have been exposed to that sentiment over the years. This is why this feels like the first instance of Obama behaving in a disingenuous way..I have a lot of respect for Hanna's reporting chops, and she may well have access to some info that I haven't seen. But I think given the relatively minuscule population of blacks in California (7 percent), given the organization and money that the Mormons lent to the effort, given the correctives we've seen on polling for Prop 8, the notion that black churches led the fight against gay marriage strikes me as wrong.
But not as wrong as the notion that Obama picked up some homophobic sentiment from the black church. Leaving aside the notion that the black church is somehow responsible for Obama's failings, it's a bad idea to draw conclusions from what black churches in Compton are alleged to have done, to what black churches in Chicago actually do.
I can't speak on the whole city, but in terms of Obama's most recent church, he likely belonged to one of the most progressive churches in the city on this issue. Look, Jeremiah Wright's Trinity may have been a lot of things--but anti- gay really isn't among them. On the contrary:
Of course this evidence hasn't stopped news orgs from simply assuming that Trinity must be, in fact, anti-gay.Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's controversial ex-pastor in Chicago has largely supported gay rights and has welcomed gays into his 8,000-member congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ, according to activists who know him...
With Obama competing with rival presidential contender Hillary Clinton for gay votes in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, revelations of Wright's controversial sermons have raised questions among some activists about whether Obama's longtime pastor was among the preachers who delivered fire-and-brimstone sermons attacking homosexuality.
"Absolutely not," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois, the Chicago-based state gay rights group.
"Trinity has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights," Garcia said. "I have the highest regard and admiration for Rev. Wright."
Gay Chicago resident Ronald Wadley, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, said Wright enthusiastically backed suggestions by gay church members to create a gay and lesbian singles ministry as part of the church's existing ministry to heterosexual singles.
"We call it the same-gender loving family ministry," Wadley said. "It's a ministry that was formed to allow people to have an outlet to reconcile their sexuality with their spirituality," he said.
I don't like how Obama's moving on gay rights, and I've said as much. But that really is on him--not the black church.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Coates, you've been saying for years that Black America is NOT ground zero for American homophobia, and that we are no more or less homophobic than American society is as a whole. Thanks for fighting that fight, hoss.
yeah, this a bad leap, my guess is that a lot of liberals are having a hard time getting their heads around the opposition of many conservative black christianists (to bring some clarity to this issue maybe we should put to rest the myth of there being such a singular-minded entity as "the black church") to the idea that gay rights issues are civil rights issues, check out this exchange from today on NPR:http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
Trinity is part of UCC, which has supported gay marriage as early as 2005.
Yeah, in 1996, I was married (in the religious sense) in the UCC church I was raised in, right there on the same altar that MLK preached from back in 1956.
The United Church of Christ has been fighting for whoever is socially endangered for almost 170 years now, first as the Congregational Church and then as the UCC. Abolitionists? Check. Underground Railroad? Check. Viet Nam moratorium? Check. Full ministry to LGBT people? Yeah, we got that too.
The cheek of this know-nothing, saying that Obama's a bigot 'cause he's black and black churches are hotbeds of exclusion...look, we dropped the ball on Prop 8 in failing to organize black churches, but that's got nothing to do with this situation.
I agree. I get very frustrated when I see stuff like what happened after Election Day - gay friends of mine were deflated by the loss of Prop 8 even though we were ecstatic that Obama won. And wouldn't you know it: some of my closest friends, who are gay white men, were buying into the "It's the black community's fault" meme hook, line and sinker. I think (I hope) they've realized by now that's not the case.
Just to expand on JAD1973's comments - gay men are single-issue voters. If we move to secondary issues, I'm convinced the majority of them would be Republicans. As a group, they're not particularly liberal: they swung +7 towards McCain while the electorate as a whole went +5 Obama.
There is no denying the racism in the gay community - but some gay men reluctantly voted for Obama anyways. Now they're not getting what they want, and they feel betrayed.
I'm sorry, but if you're a Republican at heart, don't vote for a Democrat and expect him to make your dreams come true. And don't expect real Democrats to get excited about the daily ups-and-downs of your single issue when you're opposed to all the other things we believe in.
If the GOP ever embraces all its closeted members, the Dems might lose "the" gay vote for GOOD! Of course the religious right would never stand for it.
Mark, as an over-50 gay man who was the proud owner of the first OBAMA 08 bumper sticker in town (right next to the Declaration of Peace dove), I kind of bristled at your comment. I marched against the war. I campaigned for Obama and against Prop 8. I'm obsessively reading Ezra's blog to try to understand health care reform. How dare you say gay men aren't liberal?
But then I thought of something else. I'm also a SINGLE gay man - a widower, for want of a better term. About a year ago, in a moment of loneliness, I signed up with Chemistry.com to see what kind of love match their fancy schmancy system could find for me (answer: nada). I thought about the profiles I read on there, how the men described themselves and their values, and their general reaction to mine. Dammit, I have to agree with you. BUT.... and it's a very important BUT... That tendency seems strongest in my age group (I have my own theory why that is). They younger guys are much less self-centered. And, of course, the Millennials don't even care about things like sexual orientation. Hope for the future.
Most of my gay friends are in their 40's and early 50's. While I know that most of them are Dems (one is clearly a Republican, which none of us understand), what you say makes sense. I myself am in my mid 30's, and I'm more of a mindset with the Millenials and younger Gen X'rs (my generation) than many of the younger Baby Boomers and older Gen X'rs. I'm not saying that my friends are self-centered, but they grew up in a time when self-centered was more the norm: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, fierce independence, do what you like, etc. But what you say makes some sense. It caught me by surprise because I hadn't thought about it.
A lot are, but I know that a lot of us are not. I was encouraged by Obama's stance on LGBT rights, but that's not at all why I voted for him. I voted for him because of his ideas on health care reform, the economy and (especially) working to restore America's cred throughout the world, especially in the Middle East. That and he seemed like a real uniter. As much as LGBT issues are important to me, those were really secondary. Of course, now that he's gone all "Speak to the hand" on LGBT issues, those issues are starting to pop into the forefront.
I do love what he's done for our rep around the world though, especially how he's handling the Iran protests.
I supported him for the same reasons, and continue to. And, given the massive pile-o-crap he's had to deal with since the Inaugural, I'm willing to cut him some slack. For a while. It's easier to be a little patient, of course, because neither DADT or marriage equality affect me personally, while things like the economy and health care reform do.
Self-centered may not have been the right way to put it. I think you got closer to it - self sufficiency taken to the extreme. We came out in the 1970s, and back then there was the real possibility of losing jobs, families, friends. That was something we had to be prepared for. After getting through that and starting to build networks of friends and settling in with life partners, AIDS hit. I think at that point some people came to the conclusion that they didn't want to risk that kind of pain anymore. Just a theory.
I'd like to ask why ignore lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people? Do you think gay men are the only political queers?
Regardless, I was marching against the Iraq invasion back before Obama was a blip on the political horizon, and I have NOTHING to prove to you. In fact, I suspect that you're probably a conservative troll trying to get a rise out of liberals.
Usually, I have no beef with Rosin, but this is irresponsible, off the cuff, and ignorant speculation unsupported by any facts at all.
Fail.
Was it not one year ago that the fact then Senator Obama sat in the pews of Trinity for 20 years made him some kind of black elite racist? Now Trinity made him a homophobe too? No wonder the poor man hasn't been able to find a church home yet. Anyway, I believe he will end DOMA and DADT, may not be until November 30, 2012 (after his re-election of course) but, it will happen. Until then, the gay community needs another Harvey Milk. Somebody smart, articulate, non-threatening, politically influential, handsome ( eye candy is never a bad thing gay or straight) and able to whip up a positive frenzy with the gay community and the straight community. And someone who is not already the President of the United States.
Sorry deva, my comment was for everyone not specifically your comment
It's a good comment, though. Moar leadership!
Why is it not also on the black church? Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but wasn't it a moral duty upon all of us who are white/living in the South to stand up for civil rights for our black brothers and sisters? Perhaps it's not an edict, but it's the moral and right thing to do.
Either this is a civil rights issue or it is not. Regardless of PC culture black churches (Southern Baptist - ironically) have been the harshest to the advancement of gay civil rights. It IS up to the black churches to stand up - regardless of what denomination or area you are from.
You are changing the subject. The debate isn't whether the black church should engage gay rights, it's whether the black church is primarily responsible for Obama's foot-dragging. If you can cite evidence of the latter, please do. But please engage the argument as its stated in the post.
The point is: it's not Obama's black church. Trinity is a leader on LGBT rights as a part of a comprehensive progressive theology. It's a UCC Church. The UCCers have performed gay marriages since the 90s. Whatever Obama might have "picked up" there regarding gay rights put him ahead of the moral curve not behind it.
Obama's first term has been pretty tepid so far. With the promising exception of Israel-Palestine, he's left foreign policy in the hands of the security establishment, and economic arrangements to the John Thain guys. Otherwise (e.g. gay rights, health care) he appears resigned to operate on terrain marked out by Reid-Pelosi-McConnell-Boehner.
In his first book, which I highly recommend, he more than once spoke disparagingly of people whom he saw as being 'naïve' about the scope of possible reform. He seems more of a facilitator than a leader, focused on the 'art of the possible'.
(I hasten to add that I think that Obama is nonetheless a million times better than Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin.)
Per Barbara Tuchman, successful politics IS mastering the art of the possible.
Clinton without the scandals. What I said from jump.
Thing is the logic says: compromise till you get a second term.
Not true. In the second term you are a lame duck. Its the first term where you have to earn your stripes and make the tough calls.
Clinton without the scandals.
Indeed. But with more discipline and more political smarts.
I believe Obama has reached the conclusion that --at least for the time being-- it is not in his broader agenda's interest to push on gay rights or any hot button social issue for that matter. And it so happens that the status quo is the worse possible for gay rights given the state of the public opinion. This I am sure has nothing to do with him being homophobic or any other garbage people want to come up. C'mon, the guy supported marriage rights for gays in 1994! In general we should stop trying to psychoanalyze politicians or try to find out what is in their hearts. It doesn't matter at all unless there is something very very important to them, say, Cheney and his daughter. Matter of fact, I don't think Bush is a bigot but he surely acted like one.
So now gay rights advocates must openly oppose him on gay rights. Make very clear to the progressive community what is happening. No donation in the name of gay rights groups. No cover for the admin: are you listening Barney? They need to be very smart, this is not Clinton we are dealing with, Obama could make us look like deranged not him like backtracking on his promises.
This is not to say that I don't like what Obama is doing with energy or foreign policy or the War on Drugs and a vast array of issues. That is not to say that I wont vote for him in 2012. But we gays will get nowhere if we don't push. He is a politician and he is doing his job. Let us do ours.
"Obama's first term has been pretty tepid so far."
Luckily he has 3 and 1/2 years left.
This. I'm seriously unhappy about DADT and DOMA (among other things), but. Dude. It's June.
Also I wouldnt call that stimulus package, stem cell reversal, Labor cabinet pick, or handling of foreign policy tepid.
But yes, progressives are fighting for face time with centrists.
They probably dont like that, and shouldnt, but it is what it is.
In California, the fight against gay marriage was led by black churches
This is just flat-out wrong.
Prop 8 was not only funded by the Mormons, but the people on the ground--like the young woman who called me asking for my support on Prop 8 and got an earful from a very angry dyke--included large numbers of people bussed in from Utah. Most of the other money came from big right-wing donors, like the mother of the guy who runs Blackwater.
the fight against gay marriage was led by black churches
Yes, and they were darned sneaky about it, too, dressing up as white Mormons and Catholics and adopting Salt Lake City accents...
There's a movie, or at least an SNL skit, in there....
Ha! Anyone in CA could testify that it was NOT black churches that led this fight, even if some of them were in it. The Mormons went whole hog.
For the win...
I have to admit, I'm scratching my head where The President and gays are concerned. outside of gay marriage, every other decision just makes no damn sense to me. And, don't put that on Jeremiah Wright, who caught hell for his stance on gays, but he did it. I don't get any of the decisions with regards to gays in the least.
Yeah, me too. What's the problem? All the polls are pointing toward more and more acceptance of gays in general and gay marriage in particular. So, what's the deal? I've tended to think he just doesn't want to get caught up in a big culture thing right now when he has tons of other stuff to handle. I don't know ... it just seems like every one is so impatient for their particular issue to be dealt with when he's only been in office for a few months. I am trying not to join that crowd. But I do wonder ...
Jennifer - I'm with you on this one. Culture wars are polarizing and he's budgeting his political capital. All presidents have to do this. Patience is a virtue.
"I have a lot of respect for Hanna's reporting chops"
I don't have a clue who Rosin is, but this is a prime example of someone literally pulling opinion out of their butt and - I guess because of some kind of track record (as I said, this is my first brush with this person) it appearing to be something other than ill-informed nonsense. Anyone who has elevated themselves to the point where an esteemed Atlantic blogger "respects their reporting chops" ought to stop and take themselves more seriously than this speculation and do at least a cursory investigation into Obama's own church experience (UCC being the most pro-gay among mainstream Protestant denominations, or any major churches for that matter) and into what happened in California and Prop 8, where black churches weren't a major player, much less "leaders."
Agree. Where was she last year? You are witting about freaking gay rights and don't know that Obama's ex-church is for gay rights? C'mon!
I'm with brucds on this. TNC, I'm sure you know Ms. Rosin or at least her work better than I do, but this shows virtually no reporting chops at all. Just from reading your blog and following a few links I know this is just an off-the-cuff assumption masquerading as journalism.
My only other experience with Ms. Rosin's work is her article on motherhood and breastfeeding in a recent Atlantic, and it was one of the worst articles I have ever read (especially when compared to an article on the same subject published not long before by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker). So, this claim about black churches, homophobia, and Obama seems of a piece with her other work to me.
I recognize this isn't a thread about Ms. Rosin. But this bugs me: it's irresponsible journalism. It does a lot of damage to continue the assumption that blacks and black churches are fighting against gay rights.
OK, so what would you have me do. I pointed out the problem with the story. I have repeatedly called out this line of reasoning and attacked people (many of them my respected colleagues) for invoking it. I'm not going to rip people's heads off. It's hard job. People fuck up--and they should get called on it when they do. But I can't see what an extra helping of venom accomplishes
As for Rosin, I loved her piece on kids who cross-dress. Read it, and think about what it takes to sit with families like that, and get at what's going through their heads.
But really, she doesn't need me to defend her. We live in an internet age. Google her name. Read some of her work. And then form your own opinion. Moreover, if you don't think I'm going hard enough, get a blog. Go even harder. Your first link will be from me.
Ms. Rosin's comments were absurd, no doubt, but will you all grow up? Obama has been president for about five months. Are you seriously expecting gay issues to be solved over night? Frankly, he has to save an economy, negotiate two wars, tend to Iran (which is never been more unpredictable right now), shepherd a healthcare bill, and reform energy in this country. But yeah--he could knock out gay rights in about a weekend!
Again, grow up. He has 4 years not 1.
I'd very respectfully ask that you adjust your tone. The substance of your argument is legitimate, and invites legitimate debate. Telling people to "grow up," not so much. Let's try not to incite the flame-wars.
DADT should be one of the top items on Obama's agenda, if that's your opinion. We have two wars and unrest in Iran, and we're firing qualified soldiers and translators on the basis of a policy that the majority of Americans-- in and out of the military-- oppose.
As Ta-Nehisi has already smacked you down on the rest of it, I'll just leave it at that.
The thing is that fixing the economy, negotiating with foreign leaders, trying not to get into wars in Iran and North Korea, etc. is all pretty difficult. Yeah, it takes a lot of time to figure out exactly how to fix health care even if it is your top priority.
But you know what wouldn't be difficult if the political will were there? Repealing DADT. He could do the work on that while waiting to get a phone call returned if he really wanted to.
You know what else would be a quick, easy assignment? Telling a staffer to come up with something he could say that would at least show some support for states making their own choices on gay marriage. Actively supporting it on a federal level would be politically difficult in a way that allowing gays in the military wouldn't be, but he could at least give people some words of encouragement.
When he compares you to pedophiles in a legal brief defending bigotry, you can talk.
yea, what the hell was that about? Has anyone asked him about that yet? I haven't seen anything...
The black church did not lead the fight against gay marriage. There were black churches on both sides of the issue.
***
Now to address the whole Obama and gay rights thing that has been brewing, I don't care how much is on Obama's plate. The fact of the matter is that so far the gay community has not even gotten any crumbs from his plate, so far all he has done is swept up some crumbs that fell on the floor from previous administrations and handed them to use telling us to be patient. Meanwhile gays have been starving for some real action out of Washington.
Obama and his supporters are saying "trust us" but that is not good enough since we heard the same from Clinton and ended up watching him get outmanuevered and sign DADT and DOMA. He signed them and said he supported them. So yeah, we are bit jaded to the whole, support the Democratic coalition and it will support you happy talk. Stack up what the Democrats have delivered out of Washington (which includes DOMA and DADT) and tell me what the net gain to the gay community has been from Democratic control in Washington. If memory survives me correctly DADT passed when the Democrats had the house and senate. Yet the gays still voted over 70% for Obama, so I do not want to hear any of this garbage that gays are just one issue voters, if we were we would not be voting for Democrats or Republicans.
Not to mention that the Democratic Party is still using the gay community as an ATM. The few crumbs we got this week happened because there were going to be protesters outside a big gay fundraising event, and Biden didn't want to answer awkward questions about the DOMA brief.
not against the gay community closing their pocketbook SHUT until they get something CONCRETE.
Money talks, bull..well you know.
Was their a newsletter I missed out on? I noticed all of a sudden there is this Gay Atm theme going on at various blogs. How much money do gays contribute and how much impact will that have? There seems to be this assumption that Democrats rely on money from gay voters.
Eduardo answers this downthread. Also remember that politically active gays generally are high-income and that the Dems finally have a financial advantage over the Republicans-- for the moment.
What do you propose the Pres do exactly? If I'm not mistaken that branch of the government doesn't make laws unless you want him to break them like Bush...
Whats the plan?
The plan is Stop pissing down my leg and telling me it's raining.
If you can't do what you said you would do this week, that's cool.
Hitting us upside the head with that DOMA brief was the act of a contemptuous ignoramus who didn't think the multiplying federal suits on marriage needed a team of DOJ lawyers who know how to say 'not right now' as opposed to 'that ain't right'.
And until that plan is enacted: The gAyTM is broken.
Amen.
Beautifully said. That DOMA brief was downright shameful on the part of the Obama administration.
I already closed my wallet to Obama and OFA/DNC over a month ago. When Obama pretty much ignored the Prop 8 ruling when speaking at a fundraiser in Los Angeles the day after it was upheld I decided right then that I was going to donate only to groups working for gay rights. I then unsubscribed to the OFA email list and also returned the OFA health care effort fundraising letter and let them know they will not get any of my money until after DOMA and DADT are repealed. I've already seen from 6 years of Republicans controlling Congress that they don't have the votes to take away any gay rights gains, so until the Democrats prove that they are actually going to deliver on gay equality their do nothing stance is effectively equal to the Republicans, although the Dem's pretend to care.
Obama personally whipped votes this week to get the IMF Eurobank bail-out money. And likewise to get Bush and Paulson their bail-out money before BHO even took office. AFAIK he hasn't done that on other issues.
One of these days I will come to this site and find an intellegent discussion of the President and the good he has done during his less than 5 months in office instead of the constand nit-picking and whinning that usually occures here.
I will probably have a heart attact at that very moment.
Or you could just get on his press list, and get his press releases.
But if you're looking for praise here, all you've gotta do is go through the archives:
On his handling of Iran:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/american_power.php
On his handling of race and the beauty of his Cairo speech:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/my_president_is_black.php
On the courage and canniness of appointing Sotomayor:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/sotamayor_to_the_supreme_court.php
On the brilliance of his abortion speech, and his political chops in general:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/making_your_enemies_look_petty.php
And so on...
But on the contrilly I pack the Mac milly...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Nice work, TNC. Guess if Sammy wanted to argue for Obama's maneuvering on gay/civil rights issues, she or he would have to articulate something...rather than misrepresent the discussions on your blog.
Didn't you guys know? Black people all go to the same church called "The Black Church," and based on the Prop 8. vote, black people are more homophobic. Obama went to a "Black Church" and that is probably where he was taught to be a homophobe.
But this is what I honestly think based on my experience. Blacks are not very tolerant about effeminate men. That's why Obama is cool with Omar from the Wire.
Conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage because it is central to their entire world view. You can be a laid off auto worker but you can still get a bunch of friends together, get drunk, get married, screw, and have babies. It is something very important to them and they feel like a bunch of perverts are trying to take it away from them. Its like the North trying to take away the Southern Plantation culture - maybe not that serious but you get the idea.
Actually, Hal, a lot of money. Dean campaign was at the beginning fueled by gay money. I have read --too lazy now to check-- that gays contributed around 10% to the Obama campaign.
I'm only halfway through reading it right now, but E. Patrick Johnson's book SWEET TEA: BLACK GAY MEN OF THE SOUTH, AN ORAL HISTORY (UNC Press, 2008) is a must-read for anyone who wants to continue to spew this "black people are more homophobic / the black church is super homophobic" stuff without thinking.
Johnson's book is, as its title suggests, a collection of oral history interviews with southern black gay men. And the book's third chapter, "Church Sissies: Gayness and the Black Church," gets knee-deep in the contradictions and surprises of southern black gay men's experiences with organized religion.
(And . . . as many posters here have pointed out, and as Johnson is conscious of throughout his book, the phrase "The Black Church" is problematic and seems to imply that there's only ONE church that ALL black people attend.)
The short version of the story that emerges from SWEET TEA is this: yes, black churches often preach homophobic rhetoric and take official positions that are homophobic. But, as Johnson's interview subjects make clear again and again, black churches are also havens for southern black gay men. For example, the theatricality and musicality of the choir are often a way for southern black gay men with a performative bent to express themselves, and many black gay men find a sense of affirming community within their churches. Hell, some narrators in the book even talk about using the church as a place to meet other gay men!
In other words, it's a mixed bag: southern black churches are officially homophobic institutions which nonetheless count many gay men in their memberships and provide some kinds of quiet acceptance for them, while also depending on their talents and hard work (as choir members, choir directors, preachers, ushers, etc.) to keep the institution running. Johnson (and his many narrators) articulate this far better than I have here. It's a great book, a really important book, and this kind of easy, stupid "black people are more homophobic than anyone else" sort of stuff makes hearing what Johnson's narrators say all the more important.
Oh, and thanks Ta-Nehisi. I've been loving your blog for many, many months now. Long time reader, first time poster, I guess.
That looks like a moving but probably funny as hell book.
"In other words, it's a mixed bag: southern black churches are officially homophobic institutions which nonetheless count many gay men in their memberships and provide some kinds of quiet acceptance for them, while also depending on their talents and hard work (as choir members, choir directors, preachers, ushers, etc.) to keep the institution running."
I am curious about that because I think this happen in some White churches, too? A friend of my cousin in Atlanta goes to a Southern White Baptist church. He is the choir director. He is very, very involved in the Church. And man is he gay! The kind that help my cousin and my aunt to shop for clothes...
SWEET TEA is indeed deeply funny.
I laughed out loud when I read one narrator (born 1945) saying: "I'm from the generation where men were men, women were women, and sissies were women."
What I really like about the book though, is how Johnson manages to keep complexity alive. He acknowledges the homophobia of the south and of some black churches, but he also stresses the sense of community and belonging (and sometimes the sex!) that his narrators have found with southern black churches. He doesn't ignore or downplay the pain of southern racism / homophobia in his narrators' lives, but he also doesn't let the book slip into "Oh, the south is just ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME TERRIBLE for black people" or "Oh, black churches are just ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME TERRIBLE for gay black men."
It's sad how rare the ability to keep that kind of complex, nuanced thinking is . . . even in a lot of academic scholarship.
And as for whether the same sort of thing happens in white churches? I'd bet money that it does.
I was driving to work this morning and passed by a guy in our town who's a wonderful, sweet, lifelong bachelor. And he's older than my mom, and no one ever even asks the question. He might not be gay, don't get me wrong; he might be asexual or things just never worked out for him. But I think there's a lot of denial going on. (I'm in the Northeast in a majority white community.)
Thats actually what drives me crazy about the Black church, it offends my sense of justice. These closeted men are busting their butts (pause) for your institution and you reward them by excoriating them from the pulpit.
Its that kind of cognitive dissonance that keeps so many in the closet.
And in the closet only leads to high HIV rates in the community from men leading double lives and having irresponsible / self-loathing behavior like heavy drinking and drug use and promiscuity.
If the church is really about promoting justice and ministering to suffering, it would be far healthier and loving to marry their gays than attack them.
Real change and equality are coming. It will not happen with the stroke of President Obama's pen, but will take a multi-front effort:
1) Small victories, such as "some" federal benefits extended to same-sex couples
2) State-by-state Gay Marriage such as in Massachussetts, Vermont, New Hampshire (keep working in your state)
3) Challenges to anti-gay amendments and DOMA and DADT that make their way to the Supreme Court
4) A split Supreme Court as we have now will pass judgement on a case as historical as Brown v. Board of Education that will lead to...
5) Legislation in Congress establishing equal protections for the LGBT community
In this manner, our rights will be solidified as working through our Constitutional system, not as being dictated down to the People by a "liberal" President.
Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks... they had patience and the spirit of non-violence (non-confrontational) that validated the simple statement worn by picketers in Birmingham -- "I am a man."
With this same commitment and perseverance, we will also be able to stand and say "I am a human." and deserve equal rights.
Patience and perseverance. Our time will come. Freedom will ring.
So if gay rights have to wait for implementation of a broader agenda, what's on that priority agenda? If health care is an example, Obama's advocacy has been anything but fierce. More like jello.
I think that so far, O's contribution has been in establishing an environment of civility and respect, and in not having done some of the horrendous things that we know that McCain-Palin would have done.
Ta-Nehisi's last sentence hits the nail on the head. This is on the Pres. Time to take some personal responsibility. No matter how many pollsters, pr people and various hacks (redundant, I know) are pulling him in different directions bc of this or that constituency, at the end of the day it is he that has to take responsibility for what his administration says and does. And we need to not let the Pres wiggle out of responsibility by us placing blame on other parties.
I think the evidence I have actually points to the opposite conclusion - that down deep, Obama supports same-sex marriage, but claims he doesn't in order to win. The evidence?
1. In a 1996 gay newspaper questionnaire (when Obama was running for state Senate) he said he supported full marriage equality. (cite)
2. The man is smart - plenty smart enough to know that if you think queer people should be equal before the law, you need to oppose "separate but equal" institutions. We know he's smart and empathetic because all his other positions are smart and empathetic.
3. The man is also ruthless. He's willing to triangulate, and he's not going to let his career go down because he took an inconvenient position. He has plenty of incentive to back civil unions instead of marriage.
To me, this all suggests that Obama changed his position on marriage for political reasons. And much as I like Obama in general, I also think that the flap about queer issues demonstrates that they're not a priority for him. Which is fine - I had some hopes otherwise, but as long as he'll pay attention to political incentives, I'm perfectly happy to get to work manufacturing political incentives.
Side note: yeah, wealthy white gay men are conservative. What do you expect? Ta-Nehisi has pointed out for years that being oppressed in one way doesn't make a group of people nobler or smarter or more empathetic in other ways.
The sunshine here.
Here is
the sunshine,
with delicate
rays and the
sound of a
light breeze:
and this is
my care, when
everything
shines and the
night fades
away.
Francesco Sinibaldi