Editor’s note: Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week. Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend is guest-blogging today.
“At the Intersection: Race, Sexuality, and Gender,” a comprehensive report released this week by the The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, is an excellent look at some of the third rails of cultural discussion that usually results in most conversations falling into silence for fear of conflict, offending someone, or having to realize one’s own biases in front of others.’
One cannot develop cultural competency if the conversation is encouraged, but not taken in by those who need to listen and absorb the information to break down barriers. We saw the schism in the last election.
The November 2008 passage of Proposition 8 in California clearly showed what could happen when a group listens solely so it can repress others. Research has revealed that organizing efforts by religious and conservative forces were extensive, proactive and heavily funded. Such an observation is important because it also reveals that progressive — or in this case, LGBT-specific — organizing efforts were less effective at listening, canvassing, targeting and activating Californians in the same ways that conservative forces were. This ineffectiveness was a result of many significant forces, some of which included lack of access to populations historically left out of debates, basic information about these populations, and the resources — including cultural competency needed — to effectively reach the targeted populations.
The key findings of the report:
* Nearly all LGBT people of color say protections from violence and workplace discrimination are important; issues strong majorities of all Americans support in opinion polls. Violence and discrimination are also the most salient issues that connect three critical groups — non-LGBT people, communities of color and white LGBT communities.
* Religious attitudes are a major source of sexual prejudice. For LGBT people of color, many of whom are regular churchgoers, the conflict is acute. More than half of LGBT people of color interviewed feel treated like sinners by their ethnic and racial communities, and faith communities are among the places LGBT people of color feel least accepted;
* LGBT people of color view the world first from the point of view of race and gender. Most feel there is as much racism and sexism among LGBT people as there is among non-LGBT people, and racially motivated violence and discrimination are more prevalent than violence or prejudice based on sexual orientation;
* LGBT people of color are serious media consumers, but they do not find enough information or see accurate media representations of themselves; “This report is a catalyst for the continuing conversations we all know are necessary to turn the reality of our diversity into inclusion of every member of the LGBT community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “There are no simple ‘answers’ to the challenge of inclusion but creating a space where diverse voices can be a part of a dialogue presents opportunities for us to grow as a movement.”
The findings are no surprise to me and are not probably a surprise to others, but where there is little agreement is the matter of who is responsible for effecting change (does this fall solely on the shoulders of out LGBTs of color, something tossed out there quite frequently when I raise the issue) and what are the methods of bridge building that need to be implemented. Take the quandry of the conservative black church, for instance.
Already fearful of losing connections, friendship and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church now know that the homophobes in the pews and choirs, along with the bigoted pastors spewing hate from the pulpit, feel empowered to destroy those ties because of their own fear and ignorance. It makes you want to weep. One of Washington’s largest black Baptist churches was upended several months ago by a female member of its choir who e-mailed messages to anti-gay Bishop Alfred Owens Jr. of the DC-based Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church outing more than 100 church members as gay, mostly male choir members, saying “I will be leaving the choir at the top of the year because 80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than I do.” That’s so raw that you don’t even know where to begin.
Also, the fact that religious opposition to civil marriage equality is irrelevant seems to escape some in the religious communities of color, even when they hold public office. I experienced this alternate reality first-hand when I participated in an Equality NC Day of Action at my state legislature and spoke with members of the Black Legislative Caucus about LGBT equality issues. One was a supporter of a state marriage amendment to ban gays and lesbians from marrying (and ban civil unions as well as domestic partnerships). I was with a small group of black LGBTs that came up to this legislator and asked her why she could promote institutionalized discrimination. Her reasons?
1) Because it’s a “personal issue” for her. Her constituent pointed out that she is in the office because the voters in her district sent her to the General Assembly to represent them, not her personal feelings about legislation. That led the lawmaker to move on to the next reason…
2) “I’m a minister.” She made it clear that she didn’t want to have to disclose this bit of business, but since #1 didn’t work out very well, this was the next hurdle to put up. The constituent, to her credit, challenged her on the issue of church-state separation, but the elected official wouldn’t budge. Trying to have a reality-based conversation with someone who feels so strongly that there is no line between the two is like hitting a wall.
One of the black LGBTs with the group, in order to try to connect by humanizing the issue, told the story of friends of hers, a lesbian couple raising a child. One of the mothers is dying of a chronic illness, and in North Carolina there’s nothing to legally protect them as a unit — any will drawn up can be challenged by a homophobic family member, custody could be in jeopardy, and obviously there are myriad issues that are in play because of the lack of any kind of legal recognition.
The legislator was visibly moved by this story, but you could tell it left her in a quandry. That led to explanation #3.
3) “I’m not against anyone, one to one”. She said this several times, as if to suggest that she’s only protecting marriage by favoring the amendment, but is sympathetic to the concerns raised by the story of the lesbian couple. It’s the classic “I’m really not a bigot” defense. No one wants to have that label placed upon them. Unfortunately that led Rep. Parmon to ramble into territory that was perilously close to civil unions without saying those words specifically. The problem, even if she only supports some limited legal recognition, is that the marriage amendment she supports says:
Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.
That means no civil unions, no domestic partnerships, nada. It’s written so broadly that even private company benefits offered to “same-sex spousal equivalents” could be jeopardized. If she supports some kind of way for that lesbian couple to protect their family unit if one passes away, she’s negating any possible solution by supporting the amendment.
Afterwards we all commented how hurtful it was to be rendered “less-than” to our faces by this respected lawmaker, who, if she stepped into a time machine that took her only a few generations back in time, couldn’t marry a person of the same race, let alone someone of another race — and the bible was used to justify that. She looked at the people in her office in the eye and said that she “respects you as a person”, but would, without any guilt, vote to ensure you aren’t equal in the eyes of the law. It was painful, just painful. So we, as LGBTs of color, have a long way to go to if we’re to build those internal bridges. But on the other side of the fence, the sense I gather from the reticence to date of the white LGBT community to do outreach in this arena seems to revolve around a couple of things based on the discussions on my blog:
* A surface assumption that all minorities or all POC LGBTs are somehow a cultural monolith any more than the white LGBT community is — as in all are churched or all poor or working class, for instance and we’re responsible for “fixing” the problem because they “can’t”. And the “can’t” stems from…
* A reluctance to immerse themselves in outreach that challenges their own inherent biases and cultural ignorance of various communities of color for fear of rejection or embarrassment. It’s an unfamiliar and uncomfortable position to be placed on the defensive, wary and feeling outnumbered — something people of color have to deal with as a reality all the time. But minorities don’t have the luxury of deciding whether we need to be competent regarding the dominant culture.
And the thing is, my blackness clearly doesn’t provide any cover when addressing homophobia either. Just witness the scathing, sad, and quite frankly, ignorant comments in a piece I cross posted at HuffPost. Here’s one of my favorites:
The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what’s the problem! Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad. I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything— I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!.
My response:
You can’t be serious with that statement. If we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama’s parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget. That’s the level of ignorance I’m talking about; others made the quite accurate point that the LGBT community rarely gets behind social justice issues of concern to minorities. Honestly, this card can be played legitimately – because it’s true.
I mean how elementary is it that if you want support from a community that you actually have to communicate with them to get your point across and win hearts and minds over. And that was one of the failures of Prop 8. And people have admitted as much, as efforts to get it overturned begin to gain support for another ballot initiative.
Organizers hope to reach Latinos, faith communities and African Americans, constituencies into which they previously failed to make in-roads. Their approach aims to blend slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk’s put-a-human-face-on-the-issue activism with Barack Obama’s neighbor-to-neighbor organizing.
What a lack of cross-community dialogue means for out minority LGBTs is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, non-POC LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back. I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from “I’ll be called a racist” or “it doesn’t feel safe to do this” or “it isn’t my place to do it.” And many of these excuses are from people who have the anonymity of the Internet to protect them. Now that’s bad.
Well, it doesn’t feel great to have your “black card” revoked any more than it feels to be called racist — and I don’t have the cover of anonymity. Of course that’s my choice, but the work is so important; I hate to see the rancor and misunderstandings go on and on with the parties talking past one another. The sad thing is that so few black LGBTs are willing to live out, be out and challenge misguided assumptions that it makes it doubly difficult for those of color who do want to challenge the homophobia.
The thing is that are plenty of allies and leaders from the black community who do support full civil rights for LGBTs who can be cited when dealing with this issue – John Lewis, Julian Bond, Leonard Pitts, Al Sharpton, Gov. Deval Patrick, Gov. David Paterson, to name a few. Members of black community who consistently oppose LGBT rights conveniently choose to ignore these leaders — they have to be called out on it.
And that’s why “At the Intersection: Race, Sexuality, and Gender,” is a must read.
HRC will host a live national conversation via webchat on Thursday, August 13th, at 3PM Eastern to spur commentary about the intersections of race, sexuality, and gender. Panelists include LZ Granderson (one of few out gay sports commentators on ESPN and the author of the CNN opinion piece “Gay is not the new black”), Rinku Sen, Bishop Rainey Cheeks, and Joshua Ulibarri. The moderator is the leader of this pioneering research Che-Ruddell Tabisola.
Editor’s note: Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week. Pam Spaulding is guest-blogging today.
Longtime readers of the my blog know that I’ve taken on the subject of the politics of black hair (or to be precise, kinky hair) several times, commenting on the travails of black women who are culturally addicted to “creamy crack” — the horrid, toxic relaxers used to chemically straighten hair. It’s all in order to avoid any natural naps showing at the root, and the billion-dollar industry that caters to this beauty choice based on loathing the natural texture of one’s hair that has roots back to the days of slavery and the definition of what is “good hair.”
Lots of people were interested in these posts, others pooh-poohed the notion that the politics of hair had any significance in “post-racial America” or reflected any socio-pathologies that needed to be addressed. In the black community, it’s almost taboo to discuss the issue, and, quite frankly, I am grateful that the brilliant Chris Rock has written and stars in the documentary “Good Hair” directed by Jeff Stilson (co-writers are Jeff Stilson, Lance Crouther and Chuck Sklar). If there’s any way to break down the walls of silence to discuss this topic with candor, Rock can do it.
An exposé of comic proportions that only Chris Rock could pull off, “Good Hair” visits beauty salons and hairstyling battles, scientific laboratories and Indian temples to explore the way hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships, and self-esteem of the black community. Director Jeff Stilson follows Chris Rock on this raucous adventure prompted by Rock’s daughter approaching him and asking, “Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?” Haircare professionals, beautyshop and barbershop patrons, as well as celebrities including Ice-T, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven Symone, Dr. Maya Angelou, Salt n Pepa, Eve and Reverend Al Sharpton all candidly offer their stories and observations to Rock while he struggles with the task of figuring out how to respond to his daughter’s question.
What can you say when Essence Magazine featured the Top Ten Celeb Hair Moments a couple of years ago and nine out of the 10 women selected had processed, straightened hair? Can you name many well-known black female celebrities who break the processed hair mold (aside from Whoopi Goldberg?). The images we see on film and TV affirm the misguided notion that there is less beauty to be found in naturally kinky hair. And Essence, btw, is a magazine that actually does frequently contain images of black women in natural hairstyles — the editors obviously didn’t have a lot of high-profile black actresses or singers to select from. The lye is a hard habit to break. “I tell my daughters I love them 70 times a day,” [Rock] says. “I hug them and I kiss them — I’m that kind of dad. To hear my daughter did not like something about herself when I’m telling her she’s beautiful every single minute of the day really had me thinking about hair again. “She was only five at the time,” he continues, “and she was already having concerns about her hair — she’s already having hair envy. I felt I needed to understand more deeply how these issues are related: African-American women and their hair. And then I remembered the idea for a documentary.”
…”In our world, the issues of beauty and conformity run very deep — and men don’t always understand how truly deep those issues go for women,” says executive producer Nelson George. “It reaches all women: Asian, Hispanic, black, and white.” And for black women, the issue can be incredibly polarizing, affecting other areas of their lives — there’s a segment in the film where men discuss not ever having touched their wives’ hair. “One thing we didn’t really know when we started,” says George, “was how deeply we would get into this whole question of black men and women, and the financial considerations and intimacy issues that evolve with taking care of a woman’s hair. That was something we discovered — literally, Chris is amazed on screen to touch a black woman’s hair AND REALIZES HOW LOADED THAT MOMENT IS. That’s the moment it hit him. The film really builds on this issue of intimacy and how something like hair can affect how people love each other.” One of the most revealing questions raised in the film is summed up by actress Tracie Thoms, one of “Good Hair”‘s interviewees. Thoms has chosen to wear her hair “natural,” but she admits how strong her conviction must be to keep it that way. “There are so many pressures to straighten your hair. To keep my hair the same texture as it grows out of my head is looked at as revolutionary. Why is that?”
Full freedom for me finally came when I decided in the ’90s to toss out the relaxer and cut the dry damaged hair off. I wore a short natural for several years. I began the process of growing locs in November 2000, a style I wear today. Free from the burning hot comb sizzling my scalp, curling irons, flat irons or other instruments of hair torture. I talked about this when I was interviewed for a documentary about the politics of hair back in 2005. The status quo is still straightened hair, even though we see more natural styles in vogue now. Black women are unfortunately still chastised by family and significant others not to 1) cut their hair or 2) let it be kinky. It’s one of those “dirty laundry” matters that people don’t want to discuss openly, but when you have such poisonous, enabled self-loathing, it needs sunlight upon it. Look at this ad. It implies that the woman got the job because her hair was chemically straightened. The self-loathing is so culturally ingrained, so pathological — there is nothing wrong with our hair, but nearly every signal received by the dominant culture is that it needs to be “corrected.”
Editor’s note: Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week. Pam Spaulding is guest-blogging today.
With the whole debate about healthcare reform swirling about, for the lay person, the level of misinformation, scare tactics and political posturing on both sides is tiresome. I discussed it earlier this month over at my blog (“Healthcare in the U.S. — stop bickering and fix it”). I’ll share a few snippets of that here.
Those of us who do have decent insurance are rightfully concerned that government mucking around in the system and playing politics with something that should be a right — equal access to GOOD medical care for all — is going to end up a big mess.
I’m not going to debate the merits of one plan or another here; I’m just looking at healthcare as a “frequent flyer” consumer with pre-existing conditions who sees doctors and specialists several times a year, and has adequate insurance that still has left me with long waits to see a specialist (3 months is not unheard of), and dealt with substandard care.
In our current system nearly everyone has horror stories about waiting for insurance to approve the most basic common sense things — like one extra day in the hospital after a c-section, or trying to get a medication not yet in generic form that you and your doctor know works and the insurance company insists on a different generic substitute or you pay outright. The number and type of what I call “drive-by” surgeries, where they kick you to the curb a couple of hours after you’ve been opened up on the table is astonishing — they wanted to do that for my gall bladder surgery and I begged to stay overnight because I’ve had complications after ambulatory surgery before that landed me back in the ER the next day. Thankfully it was approved, because I was right — I developed a fever and had serious difficulties that I wouldn’t have been able to manage at home.
But what if the insurance company had said no. That happens all the time. It happened to me several years ago, I wasn’t able to stay overnight and went into the drive-through surgery; I developed a serious staph infection. It required a second surgery a couple of weeks later. A little time and attention would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
A lot of average people out there just want to see the basics laid out in a clear manner by the administration (and the other side, which, sadly and predictably, has nothing rational to offer given the gravity of the situation). The President has traveled the country, and now members of Congress are back home in their districts to address the concerns of people who do have coverage, and citizens wonder what will happen to employer-based, private plans with an overhaul of the system. Obviously we need to do something — the system is broken even for those of us with coverage; it’s painfully apparent. While getting care for the uninsured is a major problem, the urgency of addressing the under-insured, who think they are in the clear until the insurance company rejections start coming — and the bills threaten to bankrupt them — is clear.
However, I don’t see how we can get to a public option any time soon with one side skittish and the other completely opposed to the point of acting like jackbooted thugs at town halls — it would be optimal if the U.S. could do it right. We already do it with Medicare; the GOP seems to ignore it exists in its screams about “socialism”, and I’m sure they wouldn’t want it taken away from their grandmas and grandpas.
If you have surgery, it’s always interesting to see the bill, just to look at the outrageous upcharging for the most basic supplies or administration of common OTC medications, you know, like the $150 bandage or $12 Tylenol. This bill was for an emergency room visit back in 2001 for a kidney stone attack; back then the deductible was a mere $75; today it would be $150; I imagine the whole bill today would double. Basically I spent a few hours on an IV getting fluids and morphine in the ER along with some bloodwork done, then sent home with painkillers.
Anyway, all of this is obviously pushing the cost of treating the uninsured, something the GOP seems to ignore when they say that leaving it all to market forces will work, including the creation of some kind of co-op where people can band together to obtain group coverage from a private insurance company. First, let’s look at some pretty sobering numbers regarding the current state of affairs.
National Healthcare Spending
* In 2008, healthcare spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Healthcare spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
* Healthcare spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on healthcare than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
* Healthcare spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs
* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
* The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
* Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
* Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
* Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
* A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
Fine, so let’s do some magical thinking (the right wing knows an awful lot about that) and assume Congress and the President fold like a house of cards and we skip a public option, keep private and employer-based plans in place and do something like co-ops — how do people in remote, less-populated areas do the latter effectively? These people are already screwed by lack of access to decent care and specialists. You can’t cut across state lines to form a co-op because each state has its own laws governing how insurance companies operate. Let’s say they figure all of this out this out and everyone in the U.S. (except undocumented people, which is a huge elephant in the room — it’s not as if these people are going away and won’t ever need healthcare services again).
I want all of the members of Congress to answer one question: do they believe every person in the country is entitled to the same healthcare choices and offerings that they receive? If not, why not? It’s too expensive” is not a legitimate answer.
That answer conveys a lot — it says that our healthcare system should be a tiered level of care, some sort of meritocracy — that some people are deserving of A+ quality care with all options and access available to them, and some are not. Those on the second and third tier (assuming the latter represents the current unemployed and uninsured) should be satisfied with something less, with fewer options, and limited access, lest they bleed the taxpayers dry. If this is the case, put that card on the table now so we can stop pretending there’s an altruistic political endgame waiting for us out there.
* What does “holding costs down” really mean — rationing services, improving digital recordkeeping, eliminated waste and duplication? Rationing or “streamlining” services is not unreasonable, but it’s also not unreasonable to get an answer to what that looks like in real terms. Will your doctor be limited in the options of care available to someone based on cost not efficacy? What method of appeal would there be if there’s a disagreement ? This question is relevant whether it is government-run or a private medical practice, because insurance companies already ration care now.
* How would a revamped system get more general practitioners and family physicians into the system? Right now there’s little financial incentive to be a GP; and people out there know how hard it is to find a good one. Expensive specialists abound.
* Conversely, how would a reformed system funnel more doctors of any kind into rural areas, where — third rail power up — women’s health services, for example, are limited?
Given our dog-eat-dog mentality here in the U.S., it’s hard to imagine a public/private/co-op system emerging that will 1) hold down costs, and 2) provide first-class care in a timely manner to everyone that compares to the best private insurance out there now or what someone with deep pockets can buy. Polls show Americans want a universal healthcare that is comprehensive — but no one wants to pay for it, of course. We can’t have it both ways, and Congress knows that. To the layperson out there, all of the parties out there have a lot to lose and nothing to gain in an overhaul that is drenched in partisan politics that will result in compromise that satisfies no one.
However, the Barack Obama campaign’s continued miscalculations on the Donnie McClurkin mess keep the e-mails flooding into my in box, so that I must follow up on my earlier post. So here you go …
The Obama campaign, in an effort to shore up support in the LGBT community after inviting recloseted, antigay, Grammy-winning gospel singer McClurkin, seems to be completely off the P.R. rails today. The “Embrace the Change” concerts in South Carolina this weekend are supposed to woo a slice of the religious black vote. The camp recruited the Rev. Andy Sidden, pastor of Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, S.C., an openly gay minister, to deliver a message of tolerance to the black audiences at the concerts, there to see a few luminaries of the gospel world. The problem is that Sidden is white. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in the abstract. (In fact, when I saw his picture I actually thought he was a light-skinned black man; I’ve got family members lighter than he is, so I never gave it a second thought.) I’m convinced that Sidden will share a message that is sensitive and entirely appropriate, but given this situation, it’s mind-boggling that the campaign would select a white pastor to address homophobia in the religious black community. We’re talking Politics 101.
I feel for the Rev. Sidden, though — he’s caught in the middle of a Category 5 hurricane. He appeared on “The Michelangelo Signorile Show” Thursday, and it was an interesting chat, to say the least. Mike gave Sidden ample opportunity to confirm whether or not he was white during the interview (the exchange occurs about eight minutes into the audio below), and he didn’t say. (On Friday afternoon, I called and spoke with the Rev. Sidden, and he confirmed that he is white.)
Here’s the segment (use the player below or this link):
He’s a nice guy and was gracious and happy to come on my show yesterday — at least, that was in the morning, when my producer, David Guggenheim, booked him. Later on, he was reticent, almost canceled, clearly getting pressure from the Obama campaign not to do it (he mentioned a name of someone at the campaign — Joshua — and this was shortly after someone called us to cancel for him, but we could not, bizarrely, identify who that was; the Obama campaign later wrote my producer to say that no one at the campaign had called to cancel for him, but the call came on our guest hotline, which general listeners do not have). The question is, why were they trying to stop him from coming on? One of the reasons might have to do with this: On the show he did not deny African-American lesbian blogger Jasmyne Cannick’s description of him as white. I must say that this was baffling. I did not even think for a minute that the Obama campaign would choose a white minister to bring the message of acceptance of homosexuality to a black audience at a gospel concert featuring a hugely popular antigay black gospel singer. I assumed from his photo that the Rev. Sidden was black and light-skinned, or biracial. Sidden also told me he was not an Obama supporter, and accepted the invitation because he’d never turn away someone who asked him to pray.
The last thing a crowd of black folks who have a problem with homosexuality needs is: 1) to be “told” by the Obama campaign that a message about tolerance must be delivered from a white voice of faith, and 2) to have their beliefs confirmed that being gay is “a white man’s perversion.” Coming from a white pastor under these circumstances, can only be seen as paternalistic and patronizing; the shields of defensiveness will go up, the message will be ignored.
That’s the reality, and it’s one that pains me because we should be able to discuss race matters across the board. I try to foster a safe space on my blog for people of all colors to weigh in on these third-rail topics, and even so, if I post on a race-related issue, commenting is inevitably lighter because our society has made it difficult to have these conversations without a good number of blacks feeling patronized and progressive whites afraid that they are going to be flamed for daring to offer an opinion. This is the state of things, and it isn’t pretty or productive, so we’re dealing with the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be.
The stinging message that the Obama campaign has sent is that they apparently didn’t see the relevance or necessity of removing the ability of religious blacks to stay in denial, that somehow there is not an intersection of being black and gay. This move renders us invisible yet again, as politically expendable, because it telegraphs that it’s too politically volatile to address the division in the community by having them confront one of their own — black gay and gay-affirming ministers — when it comes to looking at bigotry.
I have been following the reaction in the black gay community, and many but not all of the commenters are outraged by the decision. It was bad enough that McClurkin was invited in the first place, but it only adds insult to injury to ignore the longstanding concerns of the black gay community by not talking to people in the black gay community themselves. And if someone had to be invited, why not invite someone in the black gay community? Or why not invite a black mother of a gay or lesbian child? Or a local black pastor who supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians?
… Barack Obama is a good guy who supports the gay and lesbian community. I think his campaign did not serve him well by putting him into this very difficult situation. But now he’s got to figure out what to do. This will all be over in a week, but in the meantime he’s provided a convenient excuse for the Obama-haters to attack him.
The truth is that McClurkin can bring in the element of the Democratic party that openly despise and actively support legalizing discrimination against the community Rev. Sidden’s addition to the program is supposed to mollify. What’s unsaid here is that the LGBT community, and our families, are less important to Obama and — let’s just say it — to the Democrats than the constituency that McClurkin’s participation represents and is intended to attract. We are as much an afterthought as the belated addition of Rev. Sidden to the tour.
And the message is that we’d best accept our position in the back of the bus for now, until everyone and everything else is taken care of. Then maybe, just maybe, we will have earned a spot closer to the front of the bus.
What’s clear is that Obama, and I think the Democrats in general, want to have it both ways, and to somehow bring the Donnie McClurkins of the world and the LGBT community to the same table. But that can’t happen without someone getting a better seat, closer to the head of the table, along with the access and influence that come with it. If the LGBT community accepts this from Obama, the Democrats, or progressives we risk becoming something akin to “Log Cabin Democrats,” along with all that status implies. If we allow them to have it both ways.
(Ouch. I tell you, that was a wicked swipe at the Log Cabin Republicans — a group of gay conservatives that has been trying to bring moderation on gay issues to the fundamentalist-dependent antigay GOP without much success.)
My issue is that there are notable and respected gay and gay-affirming black ministers who could have been tapped; was the Obama campaign not able to type Google.com in its browsers?
Here are four right here, who appeared at the National Black Justice Coalition’s National Black Church Summit in March …
Over at my place, Unclaimed Territory commenter Ktwdawg surfed over to ask my views on church-state separation, based on the views I’ve expressed here.
Hey Pam, this is the self-same Ktwdawg from Salon. I was wondering what your take on the separation of Church and State is — obviously pertaining to candidates for high political office. You seem to want Obama to speak to the black christian community about their homophobia and — while I know he opens some room to maneuver on the C&S issue simply by organizing an event around Gospel artists deeply connected to that constituency — I can’t help but feel like you are treading a very thin line in what you’re asking Obama to do. Of course, that’s according to my interpretation of where the line should be drawn between a candidate engaging a specific religious constituency on political matters, and a candidate wading full-steam into a cultural battle that embroils the THREE hot-rails of contemporary politics: Race, Religion, and Equal Rights for the LGBT community. That’s why I’m very interested to know [what] your interpretation of the Church/State/political candidate dynamic is; a bigger political boondoggle could not be invented by Karl Rove, etc. if he tried his damnedest.
I want to say that I do fully support rights for LGBT citizens — though I have the same reservations about federal language dealing with the term “marriage” as Obama does. I’m a 26 year-old white male “breeder,” and none of this is neither here nor there for me, however, as my concerns are mostly with the delineation of the problem of homophobia in the black community, its undeniable roots in the black Church, and what the appropriate strategies for change are — especially concerning the involvement of a political candidate in a deeply religious issue.
The real rock-and-hard place that Obama finds himself between is the expectations of a progressive black leader in the middle of a heated contest for the Presidential nomination, that demands special attention to his “own” demographic (since, I think, he has been found “black enough”), all of which includes the issue of LGBT rights and the tightly bound problems within the (black) Church.
I think we can both agree that the best thing would have been for Obama not to have put him in this situation, but now that he’s here — do you think it is fair to him, and appropriate within your understanding of the lines between C&S, to be attacked unilaterally, without pluralistic caveat — especially considering his record on LGBT issues?
Thanks, Kw
My response was that of course I believe in church-state separation. Unfortunately the right (and some on the left, albeit with less malice) tries to have it both ways. And as far as the right goes, it has chosen to cross the line by trying to deny civil rights to LGBTs, citing religious reasons as a basis for doing so.
The problem with the top-tier Democratic candidates is that they have voluntarily sought the religious vote by citing their religious beliefs as a reason to deny civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Not only that, the Democratic Party has spent a lot of time, energy and money trying to find out how to court the religious (specifically evangelical) vote. Religion holds no place in the campaign, or in government, other than to support the right of people to practice and exercise it.
Obama has been a friend to the LGBT community (other than his lack of support for civil marriage for gays and lesbians). That doesn’t let him off the hook for being surrounded by complete ineptitude on this issue with McClurkin.
I’m only pointing out that once he opened the Pandora’s box of personal religious convictions, Obama — or any candidate — cannot then step back and pretend he holds no responsibility for crossing that line when the going gets tough.
Mitt Romney certainly vacillates in the same way regarding his Mormonism.
Completely changing the subject, since I’d rather end with something to laugh at …
I really don’t understand the followers of faith-healing televangelists. These clowns of the cloth enthusiastically use scams to separate cash from the wallets of the faithful. You know, the folks ready to give their last dime to prosperity gospel pastors in the pulpit.
[It] is the belief that God wants Christians to be financially rich. It is promoted by many conservative evangelists, especially televangelists. This gospel appeals to people from various incomes. It confirms to the wealthy that their wealth is proof God loves them, and that it’s OK to pursue wealth, even to make it top priority. It appeals to the poor because it seems like a way out of poverty.
What better message absolves yourself of guilt as you step over the homeless person when you walk down the street in your new threads.
But the faithful keep on giving …
One of my favorite videos ever is this one of televangelist and scam artist “faith healer” Benny Hinn doing what he does best … letting the bodies hit the floor:
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families — including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson — we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech.
David Poteat: “I had good kids. We had one of each sex — when my kids were growing up, I said ‘God, please don’t let my son grow up to be a faggot and my daughter a slut.’ And he did not. He did not do that. He reversed it.”
Brenda Poteat: “I can’t say where in the scheme of things that I saw this talk show ['The Phil Donahue Show'] and I realized that what I was embarrassed about was that I was thinking totally of how she was having sex and not about her as a person. When I saw the talk show with two guys — buff, good looking guys — and they were asked the question ‘which one of you guys takes on the female role in the relationship’ and they said ‘neither one of us, we are attracted to men, if we were attracted to women, we’d be with women,’ “I’m sitting there thinking, but what about the ones that twist their butts and act like women, what are they attracted to? Who are they? And I’m thinking ‘but that’s all you’ve ever seen.’ That’s what comes to mind when you hear ‘homosexual’: you think of the girlfriend-acting fellow, the butch dykey-acting woman. You don’t think about everyday people, and there are ‘everyday people’ who are gay, and you’re thinking about how they’re having sex.
“I had to realize that she was my daughter: she had the same personality, she enjoyed the same things that she did before I knew she was gay. Then I had to stop thinking about Tonia that way. Although I still do not approve of the lifestyle, it was a big burden off me, that I could relate to her better and I stopped trying to push her.”
“I’ve fallen in love with all of the families in the film,” Karslake reports, “but I have a huge amount of respect for how honest and forthright the Poteats were with me. When Brenda Poteat shares that she was hung up on the sex, I really think she speaks for 80 percent of Americans and what being gay first means to them. Coming from her, that’s a huge breakthrough.”
After the screening, I chatted with the Rev. David Poteat, who participated in a Q&A session with Karslake at the Durham screening. He and his wife, Brenda (also a minister), are the one family shown on camera still struggling to accept their daughter Tonia’s sexual orientation — you can tell that they love her, but just can't get over the hurdle.
The Revs. Poteat preach at Faith Harvest Church Ministries in Burlington, N.C. (about 35 miles from Durham). It's interesting that the Poteats are the only black family featured in the film; all of the families featured have deep roots and connections to their faith communities. In the case of the Poteats, it was difficult to watch them in turmoil, wanting to love their daughter and still hold fast to their Bible-based condemnation of homosexuality. It plays itself out in painful ways on-screen.
In my conversation with the Rev. Poteat, it was clear that, months after filming ended, and now on the tour with Karslake at festivals, the experience has really opened his eyes. He has seen the reaction of audiences to the film and how it has moved them. He hopes that his family’s participation in the documentary will change hearts and minds, and not allow people to turn their backs on their gay or lesbian child.
It’s too bad that Karslake didn’t get a chance to interview the Rev. Reggie Longcrier for the film. Pastor of Exodus Missionary Outreach Church in Hickory, N.C., Longcrier submitted a question on marriage equality (addressed to John Edwards) for CNN’s YouTube Democratic presidential debate. It’s a powerful, short and simple video.
Sen. Edwards has said his opposition to gay marriage has been influenced by his Southern Baptist background. We know religion was once used to justify slavery, segregation and women not being allowed to vote, all of which today are recognized as unconstitutional and socially and morally wrong. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to justify denying gay and lesbian American their full and equal rights?
That could have been asked of any of the Democratic candidates (including Barack Obama, who is currently dealing with the conflict in the religious black community regarding faith and discrimination and the gay community). They have all, save Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, cited personal faith as a reason to deny civil marriage, for instance, to gays and lesbians.
“For the Bible Tells Me So” clearly communicates the challenge in families that have interpreted holy texts and lifelong religious teachings in ways to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians. When confronted with a gay child who has spent years in fear first coming out to himself or herself, then musters up the courage to have “the conversation” with their parents, it creates emotional chaos, doubt, anguish and eventually, for most of these families, acceptance (including the Gephardt family, featured with out daughter Chrissy). In the Poteats’ case, while we see the impact of the coming-out roller coaster over the course of the film, we’re left yearning for a clear resolution and reconciliation, hopeful that, in time, it will happen.
The Rev. Jimmy Creech appears in the film as well. He is the executive director of Faith in America, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to educating people about the history of religion-based bigotry and how it is being used today to justify discrimination. The founder of the organization, Mitchell Gold, was named a Person of the Year by the Advocate. The chairman of Hickory, N.C.-based furniture powerhouse Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams felt that it was time to have these difficult discussions about religion-based bigotry, and has used Faith in America to start those conversations: “Misguided religious teaching throughout our history has blinded Americans to the injustice of discrimination against minorities such as African-Americans, women and interracial couples. It is why many cannot see the suffering of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in America today.” One of the Faith in America campaigns that mirrors the issues raised in Karslake’s documentary is a series of ads like these (click to enlarge).
The fact is that there are many people of faith who simply don’t know anyone who is openly LGBT; change occurs when people they know and love come out. “For the Bible Tells Me So” is a compelling documentary that illustrates this beautifully. The Poteat family’s journey shows that a personal connection to someone can have a real impact over time when it comes to reconciling faith, family and community — but it is never simple; there is benefit in wrestling with these issues rather than avoiding them.
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama and his campaign have just stepped on the third rail of black homophobia and gotten a jolt that has landed the candidate flat on his back.
His campaign is sponsoring a gospel concert series in South Carolina called “Embrace the Change Tour,” an important state in which to make headway with black voters. It features extremely popular recording artist and “former homosexual” Donnie McClurkin. The problem is that it appears that no one on Team Obama bothered to read up on the well-known homophobia of the recloseted singer, who demonizes gays and lesbians, comparing them to liars.
McClurkin explains, “There are certain things like, you know, anybody who has a lying problem; they get to the point where they hate being so, having such a lack of character that they make a change.”
And McClurkin has declared war on gays and lesbians as well:
The gloves are off and if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose. I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.
The subject of homophobia in the black community is something that Obama has actually touched upon in the past; it makes the current fracas perplexing. In the Tavis Smiley/PBS presidential forum earlier this year, he took the opportunity to call it out:
One of the things we’ve got to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities. We don’t talk about this. We don’t talk about it in schools. Sometimes we don’t talk about it in churches. It has been an aspect sometimes of our homophobia that we don’t address this issue as clearly as it needs to be.
It should be noted that none of his fellow contenders for the White House have gone anywhere near this third rail, but in Obama’s case, how soon we forget the magnitude of the problem.
The decision by the Obama campaign to issue a mealy-mouthed statement condemning the singer’s views — but leaving McClurkin as part of the tour — only revealed how fine a line the presidential candidate is walking between his LGBT supporters and the black religious voters he covets.
My guess is that the political cost of throwing the LGBT community on the bus was considered a fair price to pay to pick up some votes in the Palmetto State — the gamble being it would be far less likely to rise to a significant level of controversy in the mainstream media. For him to have asked McClurkin to withdraw would have set off a firestorm of bad press in the black media, which has conveniently failed to acknowledge that one can be both black and gay. Neither choice at this point is a good one.
Placing the Obama situation aside for the moment, it’s worth noting that some members of the black community are taking this bull by the horns. Last March I attended and live-blogged the National Black Justice Coalition‘s Second Annual Black Church Summit, which tackled this topic in a one-day forum. The NBJC is dedicated to empowering black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
One of the speakers was the Rev. Michael Eric Dyson. In the video below, he describes the success of the white evangelical movement in using homophobia in the black church to its advantage, and how churches should be wary of bedding down with a movement that otherwise wants nothing to do with black issues.
One of the other speakers at the event was Bishop Harry Jackson of the High Impact Coalition, a favorite of white evangelicals when they want to bring in a spot of color to show the “broad coalition” of “pro-family” supporters. His organization was responsible for this outrageous disinformation ad against hate-crimes legislation:
If you think the above is bad, you’ve not even scratched the surface of the pathology. Witness this bit of a sermon by Willie Wilson, pastor of Union Temple Baptist Church in Southeast D.C. Imagine young children sitting in the pews as he uttered this (and there’s must-hear audio):
You got blood vessels and membranes in your behind. And if you put something unnatural in there, it breaks them all up. No wonder your behind is bleeding. It’s destroying us. Can’t make no connection with a screw and another screw. The Bible says God made them male and female. The Hebrew word negade, which means complementary nature — there is something unique to man and unique to woman and it takes those two things to complement each other. You can’t make a connection with two screws. It takes a screw and a nut! [shouting]
On Monday, the National Black Justice Coalition sent Obama a letter requesting to meet with him. Wrote chief executive officer H. Alexander Robinson:
On behalf of the National Black Justice Coalition, I am writing to request a face-to-face meeting to discuss an urgent matter regarding your recent decision to continue to promote the Embrace The Courage Tour which headlines three of gospel music’s most openly homophobic artists; the most volatile of which is the Rev. Donnie McClurkin. While we appreciate your recent statement reassuring the public that “… gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens,” we must also remind you that actions speak much louder than words.
Your willingness to share a stage with Rev. Donnie McClurkin is alarming and frankly deeply disappointing. Rev. McClurkin has consistently disparaged gay men and lesbians, spread half truths and unproven theories about our lives and has shown a willingness to work with those who would use the rights of gay Americans as a wedge issue to divide black families for their own cynical political objectives. The fact that Rev. McClurkin uses his religious beliefs to justify bigotry and discrimination is so damaging that it cannot be addressed with a simple media statement no matter how heartfelt or sincere. As representatives of thousands of black LGBT families, hundreds of open and affirming congregations and parents, friends and neighbors we feel it is imperative that we meet with you directly as soon as possible to address the way forward to realizing a truly inclusive America. We look forward to hearing from you.
As I said, I’m just scratching the surface of the problem. In fact, the “Embrace the Change! Gospel Series” has another act that condemns gays and lesbians — couched in rationalizations that many in the religious black community will find familiar. The gospel group Mary Mary has a large gay following. It’s too bad that the two sisters, Erica and Tina Atkins, view their gay fans as, well, just read:
How do I feel about homosexuality? I feel how God feels about it, but I still love them. I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but I love them. They can come to the concert; I’m going to hug them just like I hug everybody else. They have issues and need someone to encourage them like everybody else — just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute — everybody needs God. What your struggle is may not be what my struggle is, but we all need Him. So, that’s why our music is about giving and God, not to condone the lifestyle or to say, Oh it’s okay, but not to bash — but just to give them God.
It’s about praying away the gay to save souls, since gays are clearly more like a homicidal prostitute than your next-door neighbor.
This is what Obama is up against. If he wants to present leadership and stimulate dialogue on this difficult topic, he wouldn’t have to call for McClurkin’s withdrawal; a better approach would be for the Illinois senator to actually attend the concerts, and give a short speech at each stop about how homophobia has no place at the concert, in churches or in the hearts of a people who have suffered mightily at the hands of those using religion-based bigotry.
