Tweet
When discussing civil rights for LGBT people, I’m more than occasionally found referencing Bayard Rustin’s take on what “our job” is as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists:
“[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That’s our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.”
–Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)
In other words, for those of us who define ourselves as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists, our job in large part not to change the minds of people such as James Dobson (Focus On The Family), Donald E. Wildmon (American Family Association) or even Peter LaBarbera (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) regarding LGBT people. It is instead to make sure that those who express anti-LGBT sentiments in public feel a sorrow-for-getting-caught expressing their homophobic and/or transphobic feelings, or an unwanted price for expressing those feelings.
At least, that’s how Bayard Rustin seemed to be describing “our job.”
The grassroots LGBT Civil Rights movement seems to instictively do just that regarding perceived anti-LGBT sentiments. Look at what happened to Tim Hardaway a couple of years ago, and more recently to the Manhunt Chairman, the non-profit theater director from Sacramento, the L.A. Film Festival director from Los Angeles, and now the recent news of how the manager of the El Coyote restaurant has resigned — sentiment perceived to be anti-LGBT has been getting harder and harder to publicly express without significant consequence.
This quote seems an interesting quote by an African American and gay civil rights leader on one of the goals of civil rights movements — I know it’s a thought I more than occasionally push into the marketplace of LGBT, civil rights ideas.
So, do you think controlling anti-LGBT sentiment is one of our primary jobs as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists? Do you think that the ways by which it’s being done by LGBT people now is what Bayard Rustin had in mind?
14 Comments
Sorry, butI do not care if someone hates me, thinks I should be killed, or wants me put into prison for being gay. I don’t care at all about that just like I do not care about people being racist. I do care about public policy, and that is the only thing we should be concerned about. We need to make sure people have the right to think what they want, but that should not go into public policy at all.
It’s like a thought breakfastThose are good, even great, questions. I’m wondering, though, if it’s not a case of which comes first: the control of anti-gay sentiment or the restoration of civil rights, or do both happen in tandem, or does one follow the other? Maybe it doesn’t matter.
Personally, I think controlling public anti-LGBT sentiment is secondary to the restoration of civil rights. Just because you control public sentiment/expression does not mean you control it in the privacy of the voting booth or in the creation of policy. As for the second part, no, I don’t think the LGBT community is being efficient in being able to control, or to change perceptions, of anti-gay sentiment.
A perfect example is the not-associated-with-noonprop8 commercial where the lesbian couple had their house invaded and their marriage license torn up by Mormon missionaries. I loved the commercial, but I don’t think it had the effect of making it not ok to express public anti-LGBT sentiment. I think a better commercial would have shown a lesbian couple, with kids, receiving a notice their marriage was no longer valid, or something along those lines. Sad faces in the household, kids crying, you know… The teary stuff marketing people use with some decent effect (i.e. the group that produced the Obama infomercial). You could even keep the Mormon missionaries, maybe expressing something about how the Mormon Church is all about families, juxtaposed to a shot of the crying kids, tearful no-longer-married lesbian parents. You get the idea.
I think the way to battle the Religious Right and change public perceptions about anti-gay sentiment is through a message everyone understands: pain. It’s so simplistic, but sociologically speaking, likely the most powerful tool of any group or individual. For a vast majority of people, when they see an individual suffering or an entire group being persecuted and pained, they begin to sympathize. Over a period of not much time, perceptions shift. The new logic goes a little something like this: the LGBT community is suffering because people beat them, kill them, use pejoratives to describe them, take away their rights, hurt their families, use derisive epithets, bully them, cause harm to their children, fire them, etc.. These things are done by people that hate the LGBT community. Therefore, people that hate the LGBT community cause the pain and suffering of the LGBT community (granted, this is really simplistic, but it’s an overview).
Mike Huckabee likely knows this is the case, which is why he is very clear on differentiating the violence perpetrated against blacks during the civil right movement and the violence perpetrated against homosexuals. This is also why he can and does explain specific instances of violence related to the civil rights movement. Mention Mathew Shepard, and the reply will be that what happened was horrific, but he wasn’t killed because he was fighting for equal rights. The part left out of the reply is Mathew died because of his sexual orientation, or according to Huckabee’s belief, his behavior. If you legitimize the idea that gay people as a group are subject to violence, be it random homophobic outbursts or systematic violence, then the differences between the two struggles are diminished and perceptions change.
Excellent article. The question Rustin posed centers on building and redirecting our movement to win equality. However well intentioned, groups whose perspective is limited to lobbying and reliance on the good intentions of hustlers like Obama and Barney Frank are a dead end. Those tactics have been tried for decades and we’re still regularly shoved under that bus marked Democrat. Things are actually much worse with DOMA, DADT, the public gutting of ENDA, ditching the hate crimes bill and now the beating we took in California, Florida and Arizona.
Our strategy should be to assemble a nationwide GLBT left to counter the efforts of right wing groups like HRC, LCR and the Stonewall Democrats and build a mass action coalition.
Our tactics should be to encourage the kind of localized but intense pressure on bigots described by Autumn. We should encourage the trend to boldly brand bigots and demand their removal from positions used to harm us. (Start with Barney Frank.)
Another key tactic we need to promote is a no holds barred proactive legal attack on the bigots. Our legal groups can launch a GLBT version of the brilliantly focused legal attacks launched by the SPLC against the KKK that bankrupted and broke the back of the KKK. That’s a tactic that Lambda Legal, the NCLR and the ACLU ought to pushed to pursue.
Politically, we have to insist that the Democrats pass an inclusive ENDA, a hate crimes bill and crash programs to address HIV/AIDS and the homelessness and despair of the thousands of toss-away GLBT youths who haunt the streets of US cities. We have to demand the repeal of DOMA and DADT. We have to tell them that if they won’t pass this legislative package we’ll find some one who will. And back all that up with a continuous round of won’t take no for an answer demonstrations.
There have been on-again off-again efforts to form local GLBT self defense groups. Their temporary nature is due to the ups and downs of murders and beatings. The need for such groups may become an imperative if physical attacks escalate and the movement will have to address the question on a national basis to prevent further victimizations.
Finally we need to organize a nationwide GLBT Left independent of the Democrats and Republicans to plan a mass action campaign for out rights.
I have a different take on Rustin’s meaningDuring Rustin’s life, he saw the word “nigger” go from an ordinary, everyday word used among most social classes around the country to something dirty and hateful. He not only witnessed, but helped to shape the change in American society where racial intolerance went from the norm to something that was shameful. I believe THAT is what he is talking about: working to change society so that intolerance and bigotry against those of different orientations or gender identities becomes shameful. And compared to making peace with Dobson, LaBarbera et al., it seems like such a small task.
It would be a losing battle, but… I don’t know if we can, let alone should, control the anti-lgbt sentiment of society as a whole. We need to be careful to delineate is the difference between the practical utility of shaping attitudes towards lgbt people (both at a community and individual level) and a moral imperative that we do so.
More than once, I’ve had well-intentioned heterosexuals explain, sometimes even tearfully, that lgbt people have to be patient and accommodating of anti-lgbt sentiment, that attitudes can’t change overnight, that people were raised to believe a certain way, etc. That, in other words, our job is to manage and cater to the feelings of straight people. They can keep their crocodile tears: they’re really just about the pain of realizing one might be wrong.
However, coming out as a political tool is, by definition, an effort to affect the sentiments of at least some people — those closest to the person coming out. What I think we can do, and should do, is affect the feelings of those closest to us in ever-expanding circles. Ultimately, this is the only way we’ll really win our freedom.
He was a prophet.It’s not my job to change the bigoted idiot I confronted at a CA beach two weeks ago.
My job was to point out that her bumper sticker is a source of shame to decent people, and that one day the God she no doubt believes in will question why she is proud of having successfully assaulted my family’s welfare. Because god mothers are not proud to make life harder for other parents.
She wanted to tell me how she felt about my family, and I cut her off. Because honestly, her opinion is meaningless; she’s so immersed in privilege that she thinks this is about how we feel, and it’s about my legal bills.
I informed her that as soon as she donated to Lambda Legal to offset the damage she had done to me, how she personally is not full of hate will become interesting to those who care about her soul. Children are suffering because of her opinion, and she will eventually recall this conversation and weep with embarrassment.
We have to make those who want us to suffer feel the marginalization. Since they are mostly prosperity gospel fools, economic tools are most effective on them.
Bayard was right and Autumn, have some t-shirts made. I’ll send a team of youth in embossed shirts to my state legislature:
“Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some…continue to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate.” What do we want? Legal and political equality. That’s all.
Absolutely – he nailed itand I saw this tactic work in the South.
The racists never stopped being racists, but they became careful about what they said in public, not wanting to be called bigots.
The upcoming generation was not constantly exposed to publicly approved racist slurs, and attitudes changed.
And that is EXACTLY what we need to do – and our enemies know this too which is why they are always complaining that they are not “bigots” and get so “offended” by the “B” word.
The want their bigotry to be considered “just another opinion” and it’s our job not to let them get away with that.
Great TopicGreat discussion. I think it’s very effective to call people out on an individual basis and locally, nationally, etc. The word bigot is very powerful and they don’t want to be thought of that way – that’s why they are so upset that it’s getting used more and more. We are “shaming” them into the closet with their outdated ideas just as they, for years have shamed us into the closet by equating gays with every bad thing in the world.
I teach college students and we often debate issues. More and more, I can see the students who express anti-gay views being “called out” by their straight peers. It’s a very encouraging thing to see happen. True, this calling out my keep some from expressing their true feelings – and we all know it’s still there – however, I don’t think those people are ever going to change until touched personally. Maybe if someone they love or respect comes out. Otherwise, they are so entrenched in the religious rights framing of the issue, there is little hope we can reach them. By saying loud and clear that what they are expressing is bigotry and outdated ways of thinking, we are accomplishing a lot. IMO
I feel sorry for the next person at work or anywhere feels the need to tell me “they don’t agree with that lifestyle” or “they think it’s wrong” because as of the past couple months – they are going to get an earful.
Peter LaBarberaI don’t think Peter LaBarbara really belongs on the same stage as Dobson and Wildmon.
I’ve met him and though I find his words and actions appalling and inflammatory, I think there’s goodness left in Peter that may one day come forward.
I think Peter is driven by profit and the need to have a cause in life, but has taken the wrong road to get there. I believe everyone is capable of change, and I pray that Peter one day will. I think he is still capable of it.
If he truly loves God, I think it will be hard for him to continue to ignore what God is revealing to him.
Random, disjointed thoughts (surprise!)I’m only for “controlling” anti-LGBT settlement by battling it with pro-LGBT sentiment… for two reasons.
One is that, to slip into legal jargon for a moment, I’d rather win on the merits than on procedural motions. I’d rather prevail because we showed everyone we’re right, rather than because we managed to pressure the other side into silence. I’m extremely confident in the ultimate correctness of our positions – and when we do attain that victory on the merits, it will be so much more substantial and durable.
Two is that I’m frightened of the precedent the other approach might set. In other words, I’d hate for us in the LGBTQ community to be on the other end of a drive to silence the expression of opinions some (or even many) consider distasteful. Majority measurement isn’t a very good determinant of whether an idea “ought” to be exposed to the light of day – because majorities, being composed of humans, are not infallible.
Sure, most people now find racism disgusting – the majority is getting that one right – but in other cases, majorities may still be wrong, or the points may still be arguable by well-meaning people. For instance, 80+% of the US population professes some form of religious belief. Yet given what some religious individuals and viewpoints have done to us as LGBTQ people, quite a few of us have extremely negative things to say about this social institution, its ideas, and its participants – and I’m sure we’d hate losing the right to speak out in this way.
(Also, wasn’t our whole problem with Prop 8 the fact that it submitted individual rights to a majority vote? I know no one on this thread has actually suggested using the law against unpopular or hateful ideas, but the concept of “controlling sentiment” lives in a neighborhood that’s only a short drive away…)
We can’t control Anti-LGBT sentiment….But,I do think we can continue speaking out the facts to fight the decades of lies and fear that have become the memes of those who seek to impose their theocracy/beliefs on this country.
The lies that we are pedophiles, predators, cruise parks, are out to destroy the sanctity of the home, have a cohesive agenda, that we are incapable of love or commitment, etc. etc. etc.
We need to do a better job of calling the media on this one too.
As Codswallop said in “Christian of the Day” on Dec. 3rd, “The problem comes when the media says gay men are cruising for hookups in bathrooms, parks, and other public places when in fact most of the participants don’t identify as gay and may very well be opposed to gay rights. We just get blamed for it. There may be a large homosexual component to these men’s sexual makeup but to me at least “gay” is part of an identity, not just sexual activity. The two words are not interchangeable.”
I very much agree with that.Minimize the lies and we minimize the manufactured anti-LGBT sentiment that the anti-gay industry needs to keep us legally inferior.
And calling the media out as well, especially TV. That would be the most effective way of countering the lies told, simply because it reaches the largest audience.
It seems to me that the biggest lie of all that the media lets them get away with is that this issue is religiously based.
The very people and organizations repeating the religion mantra, are the ones who cook and cherry pick the scientific data in order to AVOID selling the issue as a religious one. Yet CNN and MSNBC continue to have Perkins and Dobson and people from Exodus on, and they are NEVER confronted on specific studies that they use, that would in an instant show them to be intentional liars.
Obviously they’ll avoid the issue, or weasel out of it somehow, but there are specific questions about specific studies on their websites that need to be asked of them that are not even being asked when our spokes people are debating them.
Same thing with the “deeply held religious beliefs” BS. Let’s find out about those religious beliefs. The Bible defines remarriage as adultery. If their beliefs are based on the Bible, then why isn’t remarriage a “moral” issue? Or Leviticus 20:13, which says gay men should be “put to death.” Why use it on your website if it no longer applies?
Sure, they’ll have an answer for all this, but it is way too easy to put them, and keep them on the defensive, and it is unacceptable that these simple questions are not being asked.
I think that if the media picked up the ball on this, it would be enough to tip the balance in our legal favor.
So long story short, it’s not the anti-gay sentiment that we need to control, it the unnecessary anti-gay sentiment that needs to be controlled.
More than that,They not only want the open expression of that bigoted “opinion” respected as religious practice, but also that that religious practice should include the right to legally deny LGBT Americans equal protection – lest anyone be accused of religious persecution.
Well, religious bigotry is not respectable, and is worthy of persecution.
While I agreeI have found most reporters are quite shocked that I’m Christian, seeing as how I married my husband and all. We need to be more vocal about our religious beliefs, even those of us (myself included) who tend to view religion as a private matter.
Also, we need to ask for fair and balanced religious coverage on this issue. When they run a piece highlighting the views of anti-gay religions, we should expect that they will counter with a pro-gay religion on equal footing.
Further, we need to spotlight the fact that many gays and lesbians are not atheist (a very common misconception). Being sure to include faith leaders in our events is a great start on this, but even more asking faith leaders to publicly expose their views is wonderful.
We need to convince the pro-gay churches to help mobilize for our cause. In our community one of our churches is imploring their parish to engage in the debate at large and making sure their support for equality is not brushed aside.