« Dancing while gay America burns | Main | Toward more perfect civil unions »
November 20, 2008
Back to the future on gay rights?
Posted by: Chris
Even the most rabid anti-gay conservatives rarely trot out the tired old chesnut about a looming "gay agenda." Anyone with access to the Internet can see that we can't even agree on who are enemies are, much less what it is we want from government.
Take this essay in the Advocate by young D.C. activist Lane Hudson, the former Human Rights Campaign staffer made famous by the anonymous website that outed Mark Foley's instant message shenanigans.
No one appreciates more than me Lane's initial observations about the failure of our movement "leadership" to raise expectations beyond what has already been promised and not delivered for more than a decade now:
The Human Rights Campaign Fund began in 1980 with the purpose of lobbying Congress for this very reason. Since then, no major piece of legislation has been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. On the contrary, we have seen a ban on gays in the military and the Defense of Marriage Act passed. Our only successful defensive maneuver was to prevent the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Given our record, a change in strategy is warranted. The "stay the course" crowd's response to this is usually a "let's wait our turn" attitude. Our time at the back of the bus must end. Now.
Hudson's actually too young to remember firsthand the history he's reciting, but he's dead-on about the consensus outside the Beltway that hate crimes and ENDA are not nearly enough. His solution -- and one I've heard knocked around by some of my liberal friends in the gay media biz -- is back to basics:
Rather than ask for a version of ENDA that is vastly watered down from the version originally introduced by representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch 30 years ago, we will honor their leadership and ourselves by insisting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This will grant sweeping protections enjoyed by other minorities in America, in employment, credit, and housing, among other fields.
I admire Lane's pluck, but this idea of amending the Civil Rights Act is, unfortunately, a solution in search of a problem, and one that would create a whole new around of headaches.
Put aside that 20 states already ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 7 of those (and D.C.) include gender identity protections as well. Put aside that earlier this year yet another federal court ruled that anti-trans discrimination is already illegal under Title VII (albeit a non-universal conclusion). Put aside the "third rail" nature of tinkering with the Civil Rights Act, and the further strain that will put on our already frayed relationship with many African Americans.
The fact is that the significance of such legislation would be largely symbolic. No one is marching in the street because we're refused rooms at hotels, service in restaurants and lunch counters or seats at the front of the bus. Has anyone ever seen a "queer-only" water fountain?
Many African Americans would justifiably find it downright offensive to suggest we are denied fair access to housing loans when they've witnessed how white gays gentrify their neighborhoods, flip their houses and leave behind sky-high property taxes.
The Civil Rights Act also brings with it disparate impact suits -- where employees can sue for discrimination based on percentage representation in the workforce and management. Given how personal and private many gays view their sexual orientation (and trans folk their gender identity), this presents enormous problems of its own.
And what about affirmative action goals for gays and gender-nonconformists -- is that really on anyone's agenda? It's a trainwreck only a mole for James Dobson would suggest!
Besides, look at the kinds of cases we see in states where such broad-based non-discrimination laws exist -- like today's eHarmony settlement in New Jersey, where our "victory" is a separate website to match-make for gays, as if any self-respecting homo should trust their love-connection to admitted homophobes.
No doubt real discrimination exists in housing and public accommodations, and in states where there's no existing legal remedy. For those cases, as they say, "there oughta be a law."
But why pick the speck out of the private sector's eye -- risking critical civil rights alliances -- when there is a giant log in our own government's? Our very own federal government won't let gays serve openly in the military and engages in blatant discrimination against same-sex couples in more than 1,200 ways.
What's more, the Obama-Biden transition team is already on board with a solution, whether it is full or half-repeal of DOMA or a full-fledged federal civil unions law. Measured almost any way -- number of people affected, political viability, scope of rights won, government vs private sector discrimination -- there is more important work to be done.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e201053609750a970b
Comments
-
It's amusing how some gays admit that alliances would be disrupted because some people would rather not be associated with queers.
How about straight bars? Currently, they can kick out any person for "appearing gay". I'm sure there would be outrage for kicking out a woman or someone for looking "black".
Ours is a civil rights struggle. Our segregation may be different, but it IS segregation nonetheless...
-
Hmmm. Who is anyone to say that their struggles are worse than mine? Sure, there were never any "queers only" water fountains (although I'm surprised that there WEREN'T, at the height of the AIDS panic), but how many members of racial or gender minorities have had to lie about a fundamental part of themselves to their own family and everyone around them? All minorities have had great struggles, and I do not intend to diminish what any group has been through, but to even suggest that ours is less because it was less systematic is thoughtless. For better or for worse, those other groups were never pretended with an option to hide their status as minorities, and so were never presented with the choice: a functional life of possible privilege based on a fundamental, gnawing lie, or an honesty about oneself that could result in ostracism, physical harm, or possibly death. An awful choice to have to make.
They may want to tell us that we've suffered less, but I'm not buying it. I don't think it's anyone's place to say that until they've been through what we've been through, and I think it's a big mistake to toss out our suffering as if we honestly believe its been less than others.
-
Charlie, there was actually segregation against gay people during the AIDS epidemic. People would burn books outside schools that contained homosexual teachers, and straight people in general avoided us like the plague.
Besides, we were not so visibly attacked because we had NO visibility whatsoever. To have visibility would mean years in jail due to sodomy life, not to mention social ostracizing and lynching.
-
I think we have part of our answer today. Once again, under the bus we go...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
(forgive me but I don't know how to make HTML work...)
-
I just went to the link that Bob kindly provided.
In the words of Chester A. Riley in the Golden Days of Radio,
"What a revoltin' development this is."
-
I just went to the link that Bob kindly provided.
In the words of Chester A. Riley in the Golden Days of Radio,
"What a revoltin' development this is."
-
Yeah, good luck with trying to "tinker" with the Black movement and expecting to win. LOL!
Racists is what you are. I hope you continue to fail until you realize that everyone has right and you don't have the right to shit on them. In fact, I know you will.
-
And just how did critical civil rights alliances help in the defeat of Prop 8? Oh, right, they were largely silent, and it passed. I find most arguments about how we cannot have sexual orientation added to the Civil Rights Act specious at best. They very people who would tell us that it's too dangerous have from time to time wanted to add pregnant women, breast-feeding women, school teachers and police officers. Somehow these groups are worthy but gay people are not.
As distracting are the arguments that adding sexual orientation would lead to quotas, affirmative action and lawsuits. Of all the covered classes, utilization is tracked only on race/ethnicity and gender, with age observed in some circumstances. No one has ever suggested measuring utilization on religion, national origin or any of the other protected classes. Adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act would no more encourage lawsuits than would the passage of ENDA.
We need to stop being satisfied with gaining equal rights in a piecemeal fashion. Blacks are not the only group who have civil rights. The Civil Rights Act is not their private club.
-
You know, "racist" is one of those words that is on the verge of losing all meaning due to overuse, like "nazi" and "fascist." If you use it too broadly, you dilute its power, and may regret it.
-
I don't think I'll regret using the word racist to describe the condoning or participating in beating up Blacks for exercising their right to vote. Because it's accurate. I also don't regret using the word racist to describe a group of white people--gay or not--who think that it is ok to disrespect the Black movement and people when it suits them. It applies.
Civil Rights are for everyone.Pilfering the Black movement, rhetoric and insisting Blacks should feel your pain because in essence you think that they are at the bottom of the totem pole (who are THEY to vote against you, right?...They have no right!),is racist and disrespectful. There is a difference. I hope for your sake you are able to one day discern it. Judging from the demographic makeup nd behavior of your most ardent "activists" you have more in common with the Klan than any Civil Rights groups. Progressive?
Go to court, get your rights and stop using people involuntarily. Gay rights is a movement with its own unique merit. Celebrate it. Embrace it. Do more diverse outreach to gain support. And use that merit to win. You current "Civil Rights" approach, in case you haven't noticed, isn't working...And while you are at it, self-examine...b/c you have a ton of isms. Very ugly.
-
PS-54% of gay Blacks voted yes on Prop 8. 80% of Black gay men say that "the gay community is just as racist as mainstream America" Why is that?
Start cleaning and healing at home.
-
Civil rights are for everyone. Everyone. How can we "pilfer" a movement that is intended for everyone? That's like me saying that black people are pilfering freedom of speech because the Constitution was written by white people. Yeah, that argument got used hundreds of years ago. Aren't we past that now?
Black people have every right to vote however they see fit. If they vote as an overwhelming majority to take away anyone's rights, I'm going to wonder what is going on in their communities that they think such behavior is acceptable. It's not that I think they are lower on the totem pole. There is no totem pole. I'd say the same about any group that voted so overwhelmingly to strip another group of rights, but a group that has endured a long battle for their own rights, well, they should know better.
That being said, I agree that anger at black people for this is profoundly counterproductive. It was understandable as a kneejerk reaction for the first twelve hours, maybe, but beyond that it's pointless. And I agree that our movement hasn't gotten anywhere fast, and certainly needs an overhaul. Prop 8 didn't pass because of black people, it passed because we let it.
PS-54% of gay Blacks voted yes on Prop 8. 80% of Black gay men say that "the gay community is just as racist as mainstream America" Why is that?
Both these facts are sad. It's not a good sign that 54% of black gays would actually vote against their own rights, but I cannot speak to their experience or judge them. It's no secret that the gay community is deeply racist, but I wonder if its the same racism as mainstream america, the "scared to get in an elevator with a black man" racism and the same steretotypes. Or is referring to a different set of racist behaviors? Interestingly, you never hear the phrase "sexual racism" applied to straight people.
But to go back to my original point, about the word racist... it is overused. I am not saying that racism isn't rampant and alive. I am saying that the word should not be applied every time that white people criticize black people. Like in this case, the black community voted overwhelmingly to defeat our rights. It is not racist to be angry at them for that, because we are also angry at white mormons, white evangelics, white catholics, etc. It is perfectly fair for us to be angry. It doesn't accomplish anything, but it's still a fair reaction.
-
Civil Rights are for everybody. The history, rhetoric and spirit of the BLACK movement is for, by and about Blacks. Period. Go for the rights, drop the one-sided, unrequited, disrespectul comparisons (that you only seem to make with the Black movement) and pilfering of well-known Black movement rhetoric to make your point. Does that clear up your considerable confusion?
Re: Racist
So you have a right to be angry at a legal vote and beat up Black people but you have not oh-great-white-one granted me the right to be angry about it and call it what it is? Racist.Excuse me, massa gay...whoop muh.
You're a racist. Many of you are. Look how you vote, behave and dialogue. Now let me go rustle you up some tasty white people vittles! Cuz youse superiah!
-
Re : "It's no secret that the gay community is deeply racist, but I wonder if its the same racism as mainstream america, the "scared to get in an elevator with a black man" racism and the same steretotypes. Or is referring to a different set of racist behaviors? Interestingly, you never hear the phrase "sexual racism" applied to straight people.
"Keep dancing! (around the racism, that is).
Love the "so what if we are racist, so are straights, anyway, back to my gay white plight" logic. smh.
-
PS-"sexual racism" Your preference is not race. smh.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Strict Scrutiny on Nov 20, 2008 8:45:54 PM:
Chris,
I'm disappointed. I know you feel that marriage/ partnership rights are the end-all-be-all, golden ticket of gay rights issues. But it seems that you frequently minimize other rights we might acquire. Why?
The notion that ENDA and other forms of civil rights protection are unnecessary or purely symbolic is silly...
this idea of amending the Civil Rights Act is, unfortunately, a solution in search of a problem, and one that would create a whole new around of headaches.
No way. In fact, I prefer this solution to ENDA. GLBT people do face job discrimination and its sad that there is no federal legal remedy for gay folks in the most anti-gay states (e.g. Texas, Kansas, Datkotas, etc). Let's face it -- Oklahoma won't be adding "gay" to its list of protected classes anytime soon.
Your argument that 20 states already have state level protections is beside the point. So what? That leaves 30 states without any protections. Multiple layers and redundancies in the law to give legitimately aggrieved individuals more options and remedies. This is a good thing.
If African Americans or anyone else has a problem with the GLBT community "tinkering" with Title VII, that's their problem. African Americans do not own Title VII. Neither do women. Neither do religious minorties. Neither does anyone else. Title VII belongs to every American.
No one is marching in the street because we're refused rooms at hotels, service in restaurants and lunch counters or seats at the front of the bus.
OMG, you must be joking. You not seriously buying into this pernicious argument that civil rights is function of how much some group has suffered? OK, I admit, African Americans had it worse that we did. I get it. That doesn't mean my issue isn't a valid civil rights issue.
You know as well as I do that whenever the government says, "You can't __________ because you're a woman, a black, a jew, a gay, etc., that's a civil rights issue. I'm not going to say my issues aren't significant because someone else had it worse.
I hope you were being facetious and I just didn't get it.
The Civil Rights Act also brings with it disparate impact suits....
Great. Bring them. This is a plus. I'd rather have the right to bring suit and fail because I couldn't prove my case than not have the right to bring suit at all.
But why pick the speck out of the private sector's eye --risking critical civil rights alliances -- when there is a giant log in our own government's?
There are lots of specks and splinters, Chris. As I've said before, it's all important and we need it all. I'll take what is offered, and keep asking for more until I'm fully equal.
You've made a good case in previous posts for why marriage and/or partnership rights are more important than ENDA and hate crimes. I am persuaded. But to suggest that the other stuff is "symbolic" and unnecessary -- please.