Connect with us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Tell me what you think …
November 6th, 2009I just had a conversation with Dennis Page of KCBI Radio, and he asked me if I thought the LGBT civil rights movement and the African-American civil rights movement are the same.
I told him I could only answer that from my own perspective as a white gay woman, and that I cannot presume to speak for African-Americans of any sexual orientation. My personal belief is that the two are not just the same, because the battles we have had to fight, the perspective from which we have fought them is different. One example: African-Americans cannot hide the color of their skin. They cannot be “in the closet” about being black. I believe that my sexual orientation is just as innate a characteristic as the color of my skin, but it is possible for me to “hide” that orientation. I should not HAVE to hide who I am, but it is possible.
But saying that the two movements are not exactly the same does not mean I believe that the gay rights movement is less valid. Civil rights are civil rights, and everyone deserves to be treated equally.
That’s just my personal belief. Tell me what you think.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I agree with you that the battles are different on many aspects, but also the same on some aspects. However, I have many friends, male and female, who CANNOT, it would be impossible, for them to be “in the closet” and hide who they are. I have some male friends that are not transgender, but who are extremely nelly, and cannot help it. It is their nature and they have been that way since birth. I likewise have some female friends that are extremely butch, not transgender, and cannot help it. Again, it is their nature and they have been that way since birth. For them it is impossible to hide, because there is no way they can blend with the mainstream hetrosexual world. It is not in them. Likewise there are transgenders who from birth are unable to hide or blend in. I personally, am like you, I CAN blend. But won’t. For me blending and denying who I am is the same as admitting it is wrong, or to be ashamed of who I am. And I am not, we all know it is not wrong, it is as natural for us as it is for hetrosexuals. I am a PROUD Gay male, who continues to fight for my civil rights and human rights, any way I can.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I think, from a civil rights perspective, they ARE identical, just as racism of ANY kind is the same. There is a long history of black people “passing” as white, and hiding who they are because they are fair-skinned, or seemingly white people who, under Louisiana’s one-drop-of-blood rule, were “legally” black. And there are MANY gay people who, flamingly, cannot hide who they are. (TN, no offense, but who do you think you’re foolin’ — or COULD fool!?) Also, in this country, being Irish, Catholic, left-handed, Jewish and female were ALL reasons to be denied rights: To vote, to employment, etc. Why didn’t Susan B. Anthony just put on some britches, change her name to Anthony Susman and not cause all that trouble? Being able to hide your ethnicity/religion does not mean your rights, and your struggle, are the same. The struggle is the right to BE who you are without fear.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I agree, Tammye. Several months ago, a billboard in Gatesville, Texas, was changed to read “Gay rights are not civil rights.” The owner of the sign said that the person who rented its space for three days did not mean to offend, but rather wanted to make a distinction that the fight for gay rights is different from the fight for African-American civil rights. There is certainly a historical difference between these two struggles for equality, but I believe it is flawed to assert (or insinuate through omission) that they are not fighting for the very same rights that the Constitution affords all Americans. No one has claim on the term “civil rights” and I believe most people are smart enough to discern the historical differences in its usage. To quote the great Hillary Clinton, “There are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st Century.”
I take that back – I can’t help but have an automatic bias against Glenn Beck supporters :-/
November 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
They are VERY different because we live in a very different America.
Blacks have suffered discrimination and lingering racism because of slavery. They were oppressed. Some hatred (unfortunately) remains. Those old beliefs die hard. Racism will end when racists (and their beliefs) die. It finally looks encouraging. Soon, black and white will be the “same,” because a persons skin color will no longer matter. That is equality. In fact, at that point we would no longer need protective laws (civil rights).
Gays are hated, more than we are oppressed. It has been a very different experience. The common teaching was that we were defective or wrong. The cloud over us is “shame,” which still keeps about half of us in the closet. But, those beliefs are disappearing rapidly. They are held mostly by the religious people who see the entirety of the Bible as “literal.” This crowd has been shrinking for decades. They have become (statistically) the minority of religious people.
I have problems with the whole LGBT “civil rights” and “equal rights” movement because of the reality of what is happening in America and our failure to take advantage of changing times by changing minds. I do not believe we really want the “protected class” or “minority status” that comes with equal rights. We may think we actually NEED those laws, but ultimately they DO NOT make us equal. We WANT equality, but by default we may NEED equal rights.
Instead of making ourselves a minority, we should be making those who do not believe in equality a minority. The data shows the majority of Americans believe in equality – even ours. But, we spend our time calling out those that hate us, by calling them bigots or homophobes. Instead of screaming at THAT crowd, we should be TALKING to the other crowd – the Americans that would join us to create equality.
We may end up settling for equal rights, but it isn’t really what we want. It would be very helpful if we understood that those two things are very different. We spend all our resources on “civil rights,” and none on the pursuit of equality. That’s a big mistake.
If you are having trouble understanding what our equality would be like, simply imagine how we would be living if we had never been made “wrong.” If there was never the feeling of shame. Or, if Blacks had never been slaves.
So, the struggles ARE very different. Blacks will admit that it wasn’t the “laws” that changed people and their beliefs – it was the passage of time. Waiting, is not a strategy.
Instead of passing laws and relying on “time” for our equality, it may be helpful to reconsider our gools and our methods. “One of these days” is not a plan. If we truly want equality, we must make equality our goal.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Arnold: Shoot, I could just tell people I am a Midwest farmer’s wife!
Seriously tho, I have always said I couldn’t “pass” as straight, probably because no one has ever tried to make me. I do see very butch women and very nelly men all the time who say they are straight. Who am I to contradict them? It’s not my place to tell them who they have to be, regardless of what stereotype they may or may not fit. On the flip side, I know many MANY lesbians who “look” like straight women. I have seen them catch hell from people in the bars who think this is some straight woman who’s come in here to flirt and cause trouble.
But back to main topic, I agree with both of you, Arnold and Carl, we are who we are because that is what is natural to us, and we should never have to try to hide who we are just to be able to keep a job or rent an apartment or be in the military or love who we love or keep from being assaulted on the street. I do not advocate for staying in the closet; I do think that perhaps the gay rights movement suffers because too many of us can and do remain closeted.
I agree that however “movements” might differ in details, the struggle is the same. The goal is the same: to be treated equally under the law.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Tammye: You said: “The goal is the same: to be treated equally under the law.”
I would remove the last three words at the end of your sentence “under the law.”
With the former (to be treated equal), you don’t need the latter (under the law)..
November 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I would keep “under the law” in Tammye’s statement. To be treated equally in general is nice in theory, but that goal is akin to having a “war on terrorism.” We need to be able to quantify. People will always have prejudices — we just need to remove those prejudices from civil law.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Andrew: You are right. Equality and equal rights are not synonymous. But I believe the battle to change hearts and minds will be (has been already) too long and arduous. Look again at the African-American civil rights movement. Old prejudices are dying out, but they still exist and, depending on where you are, those prejudices still remain in the majority. Having the protection of civil rights legislation gives the African-American community much more form footing on which to stand as they continue their battle (because I believe that battle is still far from over).
I want equality. But I also want to have in place those laws that mandate and protect my civil rights as we continue to fight for equality. I do not want to keep waiting for equal treatment under the law. It is a step toward true equality.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
PS: I meant “much more FIRM footing”!
November 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Andrew, very well stated. I agree completely. Wish I would have put it so eloquently. Tammye, yes I have seen many women that are butch, yet straight. Also men that are nelly, yet straight. However, the world pretty much assumes they are gay. Even when people find out they are married to the opposite sex and have children, the world assumes they have not found their self yet or are in the closet. The world still has a difficult time seeing gay people as other than nelly or butch. The media helps perpetuate that. That is why it is important for people to not be in the closet, let the world see that we are as diverse as the straight world. That we love and live the same as them. We must change the world, one person at a time. It is every GLBT’s duty to help change the people they come into contact with into people who will treat them equally. Yes, some people will be impossible to change, but we have to keep trying.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Being both black and gay I see similarities in the struggles but still major differences. Sexual orientation is never a factor in a job interview because it’s inappropriate and unlawful to ask such questions unless the job you’re applying for is “porn star”. I have been discriminated against in the gay community for being black so it’s clear that there is no unified front in the LGBT movement as we are still not fully integrated as a community.
That being said I completely agree with Andrew’s assesment. He hit the nail right on the head. The equality movement has had the wrong focus. We have been attempting to lobby for same sex “marriage rights” but our “leaders” in the movements get upset when people offer us civil unions with the same rights as hetero-marriage. It seems that the HRC is content fighting a losing battle over semantics. Why is it important for people who don’t even believe in my lifestyle to acknoledge my relationship as a marriage? It’s not important at all. It’s only important that the same rights that common law hetero relationships and hetero-marriages have are applied to my civil union. Sometimes I feel like the gay lobbyists organizations are fighting for the term “marriage” to remain multi billion dollar organizations and sustain employment politically.
It would be much easier for us to allow the church community to call their unions whatever they want and allow everyone else to be joined in civil unions as long as the government applies all of the rights associated with marriage to civil unions. With that being said, it is clear that we need to push the government to enforce separation of church and state so that the rule of civil law does not reflect that of a theocratic society since we live in a democracy.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Tammye said: “But I believe the battle to change hearts and minds will be (has been already) too long and arduous.”
We haven’t had THAT battle. We have never been organized to change hearts and minds. We have not been proactive and/or positive enough to even make it easier for people to “come out.” We have never had a campaign to re-define who we are. We have acted “defensively” for more than 40 years. None of what we, as a community, or the well-financed LGBT-Rights Industry has anything to do with changing hearts and minds, despite spending hundreds of millions every year – for decades. Many minds have changed, but we didn’t do it, the passage of time did. Our Grandparents died.
Instead, we have been expecting “laws” to do our work for us.
I wouldn’t dismiss seeking our “equality,” simply because we have been perusing the wrong goal for so long. Actually achieving our equality would mean we would no longer need those laws . . . you know, those laws we can’t seem to get passed.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I agree Ramon that fighting for “marriage” versus “civil unions” may be the wrong direction. I believe that for many though, it is the principle of being denied the equal right to say they are “married” even though they would have all the same rights through a “civil union”. Perhaps the correct path would be to pursue civil union and to make marriage obsolete. Obtain our rights to have civil unions, encourage hetrosexuals to have a civil union rather than a marriage, and over time only some bigots will still be getting married, just like only bigots are still being prejudice to those of a different race than theirs. I say take civil union, make marriage obsolete.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The only problem with that principle Carl is that anyone has the freedom and right to call their relationship whatever they wish. I call my partner “husband” in front of heterosexuals sometimes and they don’t mind. Sometimes i say i’m married and sometimes I don’t. I realize the reality is that I’m not actually married but it’s not important to me that others acknowledge the validity of my relationship because the success of my relationship is only tied to the love my partner and I have for each other, not to outsiders opinions of my relationship. That in mind I don’t feel that it serves our equality movement to attempt to force others to acknowledge personal aspects of our individual lives as long as we all have the exact same rights as Americans/ humans.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
As a black man, I will say that black people need to stop acting as if they (we) own the “civil rights movement”. Plenty of other groups, American Indians, Asian Americans, women, etc. have had their civil rights violated and had to fight for equality. None of the struggles are the exact same as the struggle for black civil rights, but that doesn’t make them any less valid.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Carl & Ramon:
First, thanks for your kind words. I think the use of the word “marriage” gets in the way of seeking our equality. Religion believes that word belongs to them. But, settling for “civil unions” is kinda “back of the bus,” even if temporary. When we have a conversation about equality and we DO NOT bring up the topic of marriage, we do much better.
The conversation about equality cannot be shaded in grays or pastels – it either is or it isn’t. If the conversation is limited to “equality for everyone” we do much better. It’s hard to be against that – unless religion creeps into the conversation. We should probably be neutral on whether religion “owns” the marriage concept, because we can’t win that argument. Neither can they, but it just spoils the whole conversation.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Ramon, I can’t believe that you believe this statement you just made:
“Sexual orientation is never a factor in a job interview because it’s inappropriate and unlawful to ask such questions unless the job you’re applying for is “porn star”.”
This is so untrue. Sexual orientation can legally be a factor for not being hired and or fired in most states in this country. It is legal to be fired for being gay in this country. Here is the Federal Discrimination Policy:
“The federal laws, which apply to employers in all 50 states, generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, pregnancy, national origin, religion, disability and age (if the person is older than 40). If you are an employer with at least 15 employees, you must follow these federal laws (although the prohibition against age discrimination only applies to employers with 20 or more employees).”
Nowhere in there does it mention sexual orientation. If states, cities, or municipalities have their own non-discrimination policy which includes sexual orientation and/or gender identification, then that’s a different story.
If an employeer asks you questions about your sexual identification and he/she decides not to hire you for that reason, you have NO recourse in a court of law to fight that company.
HELLO PEOPLE WAKE UP…this is why we want ENDA Laws passed on a Federal Level.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Andrew, yes it may be “back of the bus”, but have you noticed that once people were not relegated to the back of the bus, that the back of the bus became a desirable place to sit on the bus. I believe the same thing could be accomplished with civil unions. I believe that civil unions could be desirable by more than just the GLBT community. It is estimated that half of the US population do not even attend church, so when they decided to get married, that 50% do not have a church to get married in or a minister to perform the marriage. For 50% it is not a religious ceremony. If civil unions were offered to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, many of the heterosexual couples, over time, would go that route since they are not looking for a religious ceremony anyway. I became an ordained minister, not to teach religion, but to fill a void. I can perform marriages, civil ceremonies, etc. for those seeking a legal officiant that is not tied to a church or religion. I believe over time, marriage will be passé, civil unions will be the way people legally unify their relationship, with their civil union partners being referred to as their husband or wife.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Here is a QUOTE from Caretta Scot King, Wife of Martin Luther King Jr.
“Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others”, she would tell black civil rights leaders angered by gays and lesbians comparing their struggle to their own. She would quote her husband and say, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.”
“I appeal to everybody who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbians and gay people.”
“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”
“For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people, Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement,” she said. “Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”
November 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Thank you Mike Lo Vuolo. I’ve heard and read that before, but it can never be repeated to much. I miss dear Mrs. King.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Watch Julian Bond NAACP Chairman at the National Equality March:
Gay rights are civil rights
and
Black people of all people should not oppose equality
http://thenewliberator.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/national-equality-march-rally-julian-bond-chairman-naacp/
November 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I regretfully disagree with Tammye’s initial differentiation that GLBT vs. Black rights are different because we can “blend”. As other commenters and Tammye noted, some can hide it but MANY can’t. Likewise, some commenters acknowledge that some portion of blacks were able to pass as whites. Although most GLBT’s haven’t suffered lives of slavery, I think all those unable to hide were marginalized and abused physically and mentally. Personally, I was raped as a male child by a neighbor boy who saw me as effeminate. Where was my equality? I was so ashamed, I couldn’t even tell my parents.
It isn’t a fight for “gay rights”, it is only furthering rights to be ourselves without being discriminated against. Because of that, I am compelled to recognize the similarity of the “fight”.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
It is sad that the majority of Blacks don’t support Gay rights. I know there are a few notable exceptions, but the majority seems to think they have gotten their civil rights and have a religious distain for Gays getting our rights.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
AA:
I have to disagree. Many Blacks do have a problem with homosexuals. They got the “belief” that we’re wrong, sinful and deviant – from religion. Yes, they have the experience of their civil rights struggle, but there real problem is what religion taught them.
Now, we’re not supposed to talk about this taboo – religion, but sooner or later we must. Conversation is the cure. Some are immovable, but the majority are not. We need to talk to them and ask for their help. The majority will support equality, even before their personal religious/spiritual beliefs.
Our Community is (mostly) colorblind – it’s more about beliefs. That is all that separates us.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Andrew: What part of “religious distain” was not clear? It sounds like we agree, instead of disagreeing. Asking someone to change their religious beliefs is a pipe-dream. They have been indoctrinated for decades. Few people will sway from what their pastor screams from the pulpit each Sunday.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
We don’t disagree, except for this: It only appears that people will not “change their beliefs” because we only focus on the hard-core, literal Christians – Baptists, Mormons, etc. The truth is up to two-thirds of those that self-describe themselves as “religious” are willing to support equality. They would support us, but we haven’t asked them.
Julian Bond (above) had the same religious experience that many Blacks did. We don’t have to bang are heads against the wall by trying to persuade the “literal” or conservative Christians. In fact, I think it’s best to simply ignore them. The majority will marginalize them. It’s already happening. (SEE Lutherans and Episcopalians).
The divide we need to create is whether or not our fellow citizens will put equality before religion. The majority will, but that’s not something we are engaged in. Instead, we have focused our aim (and attention) on the ones that will never change. So, we’re yelling at the wrong crowd. We need to stop yelling and start talking. We need to talk to the ones that understand our Country was founded on the principle of equality – not Faith.
It’s a lot easier to sit by and watch or wait. If we want to create equality, we’ll have to speak up, stand up and go all-out – our fellow citizens will join us. We just need to ask for their help. We need “ask” the right ones, too.
While it sucks to have some Christians loudly demean us, we need to turn the volume down on that crowd and create the bigger army – the army that supports equality.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by DallasVoice: New blog post: Tell me what you think … http://bit.ly/1R6Zi0…