The NAACP is celebrating its 100th year as the nation’s oldest, largest and most widely recognized civil rights organization, and it was expected that some LGBT-related issues would be addressed, specifically marriage equality and HIV/AIDS prevention, would come up during its national conference (July 11-16) and in discussions with the MSM as the org marks its centennial in New York.
Looking over the 96-page program, there is no session specifically addressing the issue of LGBT rights, though Barney Frank shows up for a session on “Advancing Big Dreams, Securing Bold Victories: Advocating the NAACP’s Federal Legislative and National Public Policy Agenda to Congress.” There is also a panel today on “The Great Silence: The Impact of HIV/AIDS on African American Women,” clearly providing an opening to discuss homosexuality, bisexuality, and denial and lack of safer sex practices in the community that has caused infections to skyrocket. One can only hope that some honest discussion will take place. BTW, one of the artists to serenade the conventioneers during the Gospel extravaganza is the evangelical, anti-gay recording duo Mary Mary (more on them here). President Obama will speak to the group on Thursday.
Often seen as irrelevant by the younger generation of black activists, the NAACP selected Benjamin Todd Jealous to serve as its 17th president and CEO, the youngest person to hold the position in the organization.
Ben Jealous has has a strong background on social justice issues; his efforts have been forward-thinking in many respects, including outreach to the blogosphere. I met Mr. Jealous last year as he was starting on the job at the NAACP, and I asked him specifically about the organization and its public stance on marriage and LGBT rights. At the time he was quite firm in saying that there is strong support for marriage equality in some individual chapters (they are autonomous) and in leadership in the NAACP(board member Julian Bond is also a strong ally as well).
But it’s clear, based on this interview with T.J. Holmes of CNN the other day, that he’s getting the message loud and clear from membership that this it’s a third rail issue they don’t want to touch. Jealous says now that “We don’t take a position on that nationally.” (CNN, the full transcript is below the fold), here is a snippet.
HOLMES: What do you think when you hear people – I know you heard this comparison, heard out in California plenty of times, where people would compare the gay-marriage debate and struggle with the civil-rights struggle?What do you think when you hear that? Is that a fair comparison?
JEALOUS: When people say, you know, this is – this is deeply personal for me. I have a young man who I grew up with, the only two black boys our age in the town where we were born. Our moms were best friends. We became blood brothers when were 4. I call him my brother; he calls me his brother. He’s transgender; he’s gay.
I’ve seen the homophobia he’s been subjected to in the black community. I’ve seen the racism that he’s been subjected to in the gay community. And I know that one of those identities he can – he can and has hid when he’s had to. And nobody should have to hide their identity, nobody.
But when people say gay-straight, black-white, same struggle, same fight. Not exactly. Not exactly.
At the same time – now, the – you know, I have been personally very supportive and encouraging of people who are fighting the battle for gay marriage.
Huh? How is marriage itself not a social justice issue? It’s clearly an issue in the black community, given how many out-of-wedlock babies are being born into poverty-stricken situations to single mothers without a father present? Would it not behoove the NAACP national to support marriage equality so that more children can be raised and supported in any loving two-parent homes, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity? There are ways to frame this in better terms for the community without rendering black LGBTs in particular, invisible yet again.
I am glad Ben Jealous spoke out in personal, human terms (though he’s clearly not down with terminology; it’s unclear if his friend is transgender and gay, or he’s conflating something, and refers to our relationships and status as “lifestyle decisions”)
All of this, including the issue of hostility towards LGBTs of color in the white LGBT community which Jealous also raises here, needs to be aired out before the people at that conference. The debate and discussion needs to happen in the context of all the other social justice issues of concern to the black community that affects all of the community, not just straight ones (and the ones pretending in the closet).
T.J. HOLMES: Yes, gay marriage, a topic that the – the oldest civil- rights group in the country has been dealing with. Well, I asked the new NAACP president, still fairly new, President Ben Jealous, why his civil-rights organization doesn’t yet have a policy officially on gay marriage.Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HOLMES: Does the NAACP believe that gay marriage should be legal across the land?
JEALOUS: We don’t take a position on that nationally.
We have been steadfast advocates for the basic civil rights of gay people, making sure that, for instance, hate-crimes protection is extended to gay people. We understand that when four black young people were killed not far from here in Newark, on a playground last year, that all four of them were gay.
There’s a lot made in the press because the guys who shot them were in Latino, is this black and Latino tension? But we’re in the community. So we got the story not just from the national news, but from our local folks. But (INAUDIBLE) those four kids from Delaware State (ph) (INAUDIBLE) – many of them were gay. And that appeared to be a dynamic on the playground.
And so we want to make sure that – that our children and our family members who are gay is – basic civil rights and human rights are protected.
HOLMES: Is that not considered then, in you all’s estimation, a civil rights? Some would call it that kind of civil right, a – a issue of equality, a gay person being able to marry who they want to marry?
JEALOUS: That’s a very tense debate inside our association. You know, and there have been branches and state conferences – like, for instance, in California and San Francisco, come out very clearly on the issue.
There are others, some of our national board members for instance, from the Midwest, who have taken an entirely opposite position.
We’re a democratic, small ‘d,’ organization, where issues are debated until a consensus is reached. And that one is very much still under debate amongst the membership of the association.
HOLMES: So you will foresee a time when, once that debate is complete, that the NAACP could come out on a national level and have an official position on gay marriage?
JEALOUS: I think having an official position on gay marriage is certainly a possibility. When it will happen – you know, we – we work on issues for decades. So we – we’re quick to point out to younger organizations in the civil-rights community that something you think is a sprint may turn out to be a marathon.
HOLMES: What do you think when you hear people – I know you heard this comparison, heard out in California plenty of times, where people would compare the gay-marriage debate and struggle with the civil-rights struggle?
What do you think when you hear that? Is that a fair comparison?
JEALOUS: When people say, you know, this is – this is deeply personal for me. I have a young man who I grew up with, the only two black boys our age in the town where we were born. Our moms were best friends. We became blood brothers when were 4. I call him my brother; he calls me his brother. He’s transgender; he’s gay.
I’ve seen the homophobia he’s been subjected to in the black community. I’ve seen the racism that he’s been subjected to in the gay community. And I know that one of those identities he can – he can and has hid when he’s had to. And nobody should have to hide their identity, nobody.
But when people say gay-straight, black-white, same struggle, same fight. Not exactly. Not exactly.
At the same time – now, the – you know, I have been personally very supportive and encouraging of people who are fighting the battle for gay marriage. I was born in a family where my parent’s marriage was illegal. They had to get married in Washington, D.C. Their wedding caravan back to the party in Baltimore was mistaken for a funeral procession. People got off the side and did the sign of the cross and pulled – Catholic state of Maryland.
And so I’m very concerned about the children who are treated hostily (ph) in school grounds because people feel license to sort of through hatred at their parents based on their lifestyle decisions that they make.
But the NAACP is like any other democratic organization, and we’re going to debate this fully internally. I, as the head of it, can’t say that we have any position nationally. But I can tell you that it’s a deeply held, tense debate. And we – because we’ve seen the way it’s torn about other institutions – I’m an Episcopalian, for instance; my church has been torn apart on this issue – are committed to keeping our body together. Because there’s a whole bunch of issues, including a whole bunch of issues that are very relevant to gay people, that we have to be together on if we’re going to win, whether it’s bullying, whether it’s hate crimes, for instance.
So – so they count on us to stay together, too.




117 Comments


How horribly sad…I work at Santa Clara University’s School of Law which is where Jealous’ wife (Lia Epperson) used to work as a law professor. I know that neither of them oppose marriage equality.
Locally, our NAACPis very, VERY OUT AND SUPPORTIVE.
This national position is disappointing, to say the least.
HMMMM…. well, at least, he is describing a discussion.Glad this is in blog, but it must be addressed in the entire black community and conference too.
/p>
As you knowI STRONGLY disagree. Marriage is nowhere near a central issue for the NAACP to be addressing. They have much bigger issues to worry about than whether or not some people have their dream wedding. That is not formost on the minds of black Americans, and I dare say, most black LGBT folks. Its just not.
There is an economic DEPRESSION happening to black America. Most are concerned with bread and butter issues and are not worried about whether or not some elites can get married.
I do think that the NAACP should discuss LGBT issues, especially in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since black LGBT folks are not likely to find much support and understanding in the “mainstream” gay community, it is imperative that our community create a safe space for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
Wow!
It pains me to read this. And it disgusts me. Basically imho, the NAACP is patting us on the head saying ‘So sad for you being discriminated as you are but we have no stand on it nationally. Have a great day’.
Discrimination is discrimination right?
Forced to come outOne of the reasons the black civil rights struggle was so effective is because it exposed the inherent racism in the system making the bigots express their opinions and turning the debate around on them.
When people come out and demand rights, and the bigots must express their opinion why we should be 2nd class citizens, that is when our allies will realize how pervasive the problem is and things will start to change.
There was a study published recently that showed allies don’t think we have it that bad because they think their friends would have said something. We need to keep up the talk in order for change to happen.
Dream wedding? Are you serious?You really think that’s what we’re fighting for? Not the more than 1100 federal rights straight couples get. Not the ability for someone to put their partner on their insurance without having to pay a higher tax. Not the ability to inherit without having to pay taxes because you’re not “family”. Not the ability to make medical decisions in an emergency. Not the ability to adopt each other’s children. Last I checked, this civil rights issue applies to the same percentage of the black population that it does every other. Check your priorities please.
whoa – who said a central issue?Please, stop trying to frame marriage equality as whining about a ceremony. It’s about a heck of a lot more than that and you know it. The bottom line is that no LGBT issues are even on the radar, save HIV/AIDS, and it would be good to have a transcript of the HIV/AIDS and black women session to know if there is open and honest discussion of the problem of the closet.
However, saying the national organization supports marriage equality requires no “work” other than to take a public position. That doesn’t require any time or energy being diverted from work on the myriad socioeconomic and legal issues that do need to be addressed in the black community.
That the NAACP cannot even take a position other than “not present” means there is a lot of dissent in the ranks and that is a relevant topic for discussion.
The opening with “My Best friend is Gay”…set my teeth on edgeI would expect better from the leader of a Civil Rights Organization…at least he didn’t say “my friend the homosexual.”
I remember when NAACP and NOW both pledged what allies they were in the 93′ March on Washington…it seems like amnesia has set in.
I knew a woman and her husband president of NAACP just outside New Orleans who were very cool on LGBT issues
Its only relevantif the membership of the NAACP thinks its relevant.
You know that there is dissent in the ranks. The national organizations is not going to take a position that will alienate its members. It would not be much of an organization were it to do that.
The fact is, like the rest of the American population, the NAACP’s membership is likely divided on this issue. Given that division, it seems reasonable that the national organization would avoid taking a position.
His pointwas that he PERSONALLY is supportinve of LGBT rights. However, in capacity as the head of the NAACP, he cannot take a position. That is a perfectly fair statement.
got cliche’?
The benefits of marriage are social and economic…PFLAG’s website has a list of the rights afforded married couples (whether they take advantage of them or not). It’s about 25 pages long, Times New Roman, 10 point font.
Most fall into social, economic, and “bread-and-butter” issues.
To add to RainbowPheonix’s list right off the top of my head:
1. easy sharing of health insurance and other benefits open only to spouses on the job front.
2. combined credit scores etc. that make background checks easier for renters, and make housing and educational loans and other forms of credit more affortable to working class folks when you can show 2 incomes instead of 1.
3.the lower “married” tax bracket, esp. for those in the middle and lower class w/ no write big tax right offs or deductions
4. or how about the right to incriminate a spouse in court?
btw alliances are two way streetsNOT watching the backs of LGBTs when we are attacked, makes us a lot less likely to have YOUR backs.
A Fucking DisgraceAcknowledging homophobia in the AA community is not the same as doing something about it. Can you imagine if a LGBT leader showed such an appalling lack of knowledge about racial issues? He/she would be pummeled, first by the LGBT community, then by the AA leaders, including the NAACP. Let’s call this the way it really is for a change.
It is an absolute fucking disgrace that this organization chooses to ignore LGBT citizens, including AA LGBT citizens, and to ignore, if not actively oppose, the civil rights issue of this age.
Everyone in the LGBT community is tip-toeing around the fact that the NAACP, and many black leaders, have got to be called on their shit, and done so with no holds barred. This is simply not acceptable, and if we are denying money to the DNC for not getting on board for LGBT rights, then we have to say no money for the NAACP until they begin to wake up on this issue. And that means no joint efforts, no joint anything until they get their damn act together.
Could you be more offensive, please? I don’t think it came across completely the first time.Have I told you recently that you are a real piece of work? And no, that’s not a compliment. Good to know that the ability to be considered my Beloved’s legal family by our employer (the DOD, thanks for asking) is just us getting our skivvies in a twist over a party and some cake. Being with her in the ER after her recent accident and then by her side this week as she has major surgery in a military hospital has NOTHING to do with it. Nothing at all. Being able to go with her to overseas postings has NOTHING to do with it. Nor does being her primary beneficiary for insurance and her legal next of kin, and being notified if she’s killed in combat. No, it’s all about which fucking FLOWERS we want and whether we can find a dress and tux color that matches both her biracial coffee-hued and my ivory skin tones.
Christ.
Somehow I don’t think Kentaindra Scarver and Veronica Spann were concerned about their “dream wedding” in Dubuque, Iowa when they needed legal kinship status to protect their two children, 14-year-old Brianna and infant Aedaughn.
Just because the civil right of marriage isn’t a priority for YOU doesn’t mean that other POC don’t care about or need it.
The above post I know was too simplistic and said with anger/hurtI won’t cease caring when bigots lash out at Black children barring them from pools, anymore than I’ll cease being angry if trans children are ridiculed or spit on.
I also don’t seperate LGBTs who are Black or any other POC from who I consider, when I say LGBT. I don’t want to offend those friends who are in both classifications.
NAACP you have disappointed me, and as a PWA who knows the pandemic is savaging Black and Latino/a communities, we could have more political clout together, than we do seperately.
Sorry – typoThe right to NOT incriminate a spouse…
Of course if you WANT to, feel free…
Back in Monterey County…That’s where Jealous is from and began his NAACP leadership.
He left a lasting mark on the local NAACP there. The organization actively participated in No on 8 rallies, spoke to the local press, and gave radio interviews.
So, I think we should give Jealous a chance to make a change. He’s done it before on a local level and there’s no reason to think he can’t do the same for the national organization.
He’s just being realistic based on his past experience.
As “Mother of the Bride”I whole-heartedly agree with Keori.
If it were simply a matter of a party and some cake, I’d hold the shindig in our yard myself. The marriage equality battle is about so much more.
Is it ALL we should be fighting for? Certainly not…
Ha!Sounds alot like the same defense provided by “Our Fierce Defender-in-Chief”, doesn’t it?
We work on things for decades?You work on this for decades, jagoff.
Sorry, my Pittsburgh background is showing.
LGBT People of Color, Children and MarriageIIRC, the last census pointed out that a far higher percentage (like 50% higher) of LGBT couples who had at least one person of color were raising children vs. caucasian LGBT couples. Therefore the financial impacts of marriage – particularly non-taxed health care benefits – would be of far more importance to those couples than to the stereotypical rich, white gay couple whose “children” are dogs.
As for the broader LGBT agenda, it is interesting that Jealous brings up hate crimes and bullying – not DADT, not DOMA, not ENDA, not the united partners act – as areas of agreement. In other words, his perception is that the homophobia within the NAACP is so strong the only thing he can say is that they don’t want us killed or harassed. We can’t be totally equal, of course, in housing, employment or public accommodations and don’t ever compare the AA civil rights struggle to the LGBT one (I wonder how he would respond to hypothetical comparisons between the struggles of Jews against anti-Semitism).
all i want is cake!so why am i spending so much time advocating for civil rights? hmm, something does not compute…
why is it so hard for a “civil rights” advocateto state that while the black and lgbt histories are different (if we must keep ignoring people like Pam who reside in both categories), the goal is the same: civil equality. i find it disturbing that the head of naacp promotes the notion that civil rights is for african americans only. has the man never heard the word “coalition”? he’s falling into the same old assumed dichotomy that america consists of white people and black people, and that’s it. i hate to ask the state of the bridge to the latino community when it’s under his care.
I think the NAACP doesn’t matter much anymoreBut this post reminds me of an ongoing conversation I’m having with some progressive straight black friends. They all support marriage equality but they don’t see gay rights as an issue an organization like the NAACP should be taking up. I have one friend in particular who says: “Gay groups don’t have black issues on their agenda so why should we go to bat for them?” In their eyes, and to a degree in my view as well, there are a lot of problems facing the black community as a whole and when you survey the landscape, gay marriage is not one of the most pressing. (Disclaimer: I know that if you are both black & gay the urgency of gay rights with regards to the black community is dramatically increased.)
Now this isn’t to say that I think the NAACP is right in not taking a stance on gay marriage. The group should take a “national position” of support for marriage equality. I guess the question I’m still trying to figure out for myself is how far black civil rights orgs should be expected to go on the gay rights front.
You may have thought it simplistic but it is very true. We DO have more political clout together, then we do separately. Otherwise know as; ‘you have my back, I have your back.
I was so moved by the collection of marginalized Americans cobbled together by the Obama campaign. It was a powerful force. Not anymore. We are divided and fighting each other. We are missing an historical opportunity. When you talk about health care, the economy, education, the environment….those issues won’t move forward because we are not collectively advancing and advocating for the change we ushered in together. We’re just fighting each other.
As strong as matriarchy is in the AA communityWhy do men run this organization consistantly, (with three exceptions?)
Maybe NAACP needs some work on sexism as well as homobigotry.
Of course……….Jealous is right, it’s not the same fight. But neither is discrimination against Jewish people the same as against African-Americans, or Latinos’ struggles the same as that of women, etc.
But to not stand up for another oppressed minority.
Q: When was the last time existing civil rights were taken away by a state ballot initiative?
A: Colorado, 1912 — Women had the right to vote one day, the next day they didn’t.
To not acknowledge and support the struggle for civl rights of another minority group is incomprehensible to me.
Do you really think there is an alliance between blacks & LGBTs?It’d be nice if there was one, but I honestly don’t think it exists.
First…you make the assumption that LGBT leaders have shown an astute understanding of race issues…they have not.
Most have difficulty acknowledging the blatant racism in the LGBT community.
Second of all, you suppose that there is a great deal of support for the NAACP in the LGBT community. What exactly is that based on? I’d be highly surprised to find that any organization dedicated to POCs has substantial support in the mainstream LGBT community.
Well stated!Our community has more important life and death issues to think about than whether or not some people can get married. That is for those who have the luxury of not worrying about the other issues.
Besides, again, for a community that has such a big problem with racism (among other things), and an extraordinary apathy toward addressing it, I find it funny that some are so quick to cast stones.
There’s an alliance in Monterey County, CaliforniaI saw it for myself. I can’t speak about other places.
Monterey County is the place that Benjamin Todd Jealous is from. It is where he began his NAACP leadership.
The NAACP members show up for marriage equality rallies. The leadership speaks at LGBT events and gives TV and radio interviews on the issue.
Here’s a photo to prove it.
William Zeigler, President Monterey County NAACP addresses marriage equality rally at Colton Hall.
Start hereYou can start here……
http://www.hrc.org/issues/peop…
http://www.thetaskforce.org/se…
http://www.glaad.org/programs
Here’s a good article from Shiela Alexander-Reid, and her experience with Kweisi MfumeWoman in the Life
Sheila Alexander-Reid’s journey from lesbian nightlife to nonprofit
http://www.metroweekly.com/fea…
Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?Never mind the idea that groups and individuals who are disadvantaged by the power structure should work together instead of fighting over crumbs…
BUT PEOPLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY EITHER/OR.
And neither of the “COMMUNITIES” we’re discussing are monolithic.
As discussed above (and not responded to by you) there are real tangible non-”luxury” issues attached to marriage benefits. Some of which ARE “life and death.”
I got an entirely different impression from Jealous’ statementI’m not really sure how the take away from that interview is that the NAACP promotes the idea that civil rights are for black folks only. And I’m not trying to be snotty in writing this. I honestly want to know why or how you got that impression. Is it because he said that black civil rights & gay rights are not the same thing?
Very awesome read…..…….thanks for posting it!
As the leader of an organisation committed to equalityhe cannot commit to equality.
Sad, truly sad that the leader of a once strong organisation takes such an accomodationist and milquetoast position on a fundamental issue of human freedom: equality.
But then, he cannot anger the evangelicals, the black ministers in the same churches that once were full of white ministers oppressing black Americans..
Must be nice to be holding the overseers whip these days.
And in doing so, truly proving that gay is the new black as the once oppressed become the oppressors.
The NAACP came out in support of civil unions in Hawaii.And believe me, we needed the support of all those that did step up.
Yeah…I’m sure those kids that were turned away from the private pool would agree with you …
ExactlyPerhaps we need to narrow our focus as the NAACP does? I hope not, because coalitions work better than each standing alone, but frankly, how many gay men and lesbians marched in Selma and paid their dues for civil rights only to be shunned today?
you’re either for equlity for everyone or you’re not.equality isn’t an exclusive club. being for equality for black people but not for lgbt people is a patently discriminatory stance.
This may not be helpfulI noticed yesterday this story was a thread on AmericaBlog, so there are comments on John’s site too.
I know he’s not popular with many here, on a variety of issues.
At least the kids turned away from the private pool have public advocates in CongressI’m a little more concerned about the children of LGBTs of color who could be taken away from their parents than children of color who, in the end, got another swimming pool and calls for a federal investigation into Valley Swim Club. Meanwhile the murder of a black gay sailor isn’t even being acknowledged as a possible hate crime by that same federal government. Officially, it doesn’t even exist. Where’s your outrage on August Provost’s behalf?
Try again.
This is Why “Marriage” is under inclusiveWith Civil Unions for All, non-conjugal committed couples can access these socioeconomic benefits as well. African Americans are the least “married” people in America. Granting “marriage” to SGL couples is not going to change this fact. Valuing all FAMILIES is needed…NOW!!!!! As long we extol marriage and not policies that solve the every day bread and butter issues most people face, we have a LONG battle ahead. It is now time to coalesce with groups like Queers for Economic Justice and seek out the advice of people like Professor Nancy Polikoff, author of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage .
do you think mr. jealous will prove how frivolous marriage isby encouraging all married black couples to divorce?
“NOT EXACTLY” MY GAY BLACK ASS!!!!!!The NAACP should be dismantled.
It is DEAD to me.
You win the bronze!
Good to see the local NAACP supporting LGBTsBut in a time where the vast majority of black folks are not paying attention to the NAACP, the local chapter’s support of the anti Prop 8 folks doesn’t change my opinion that there really isn’t a black-LGBT alliance.
I only point this out to say that blacks and gays could do more to progress their respective struggles (not to mention increasing the visibility of gay black folks) if they were to work together. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening on a large enough scale now.
It’s great to see that partnership on the local level, but threatening to no longer support a group if they don’t support you only works if the group in question thinks your support is there in the first place.
Yes they didAnd not only did they publicly support us, members of both the local NAACP AND the Martin Luther King Commission testified in both the House and Senate JGO committee hearings, and excoriated POC who said that gay people do not deserve rights and that this isn’t a civil rights issue.
Amen.
I think you’re putting words into his mouthJealous’ inability to come out in support of marriage equality is problematic to say the least, but your assertion that he somehow supports civil rights for black people only is a bit much. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
The Great black DEPRESSION Many African Americans are currently “CATCHING HELL”, as El Haji Malik El Shabazz was apt to say. The fear of many African Americans is, “Ok, so we fight for SSM but that still leaves us arse out.” As Richard Kim of The Nation Magazine wrote, “Marriage is a terrible way to distribute resources and benefits like tax breaks, healthcare, immigration status and social security. It’s a sexual contract rooted in monogamy, patriarchy and the preservation of private property that historically hasn’t worked very well for, oh, women. It’s increasingly obsolete and fails to reflect the way most Americans live.”
There is a better way, a way that accommodates and values MODERN families, a more ALL INCLUSIVE way…I say CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL regardless of sexual orientation, conjugality, or religious affiliation.
It’s one thing to say gay rights are the civil rights issue of our timeBut gay is not the new black.
Civil Unions for All would be my ideal solutionBut since that will never happen, I’m going to continue to support marriage equality.
um……i consider the word marriage to by synonymous with the phrase “civil union.” if you’re arguing that people shouldn’t have to be sexual partners to “get civil unioned,” that is already the case. if you’re arguing they don’t have to be the same religion to “get civil unioned” that is also already the case. calling what gays want “marriage” or “civil unions” doesn’t matter. they can’t do either right now. right now, all the MODERN families you describe (except same-sex ones) are allowed to get all the benefits/rights. so how is what you are proposing even relevant?
hello?again, the couples you speak of (except same-sex ones) ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS.
NAACP is an issue I have no control overHow POC are treated in the LGBT community is where the vast majority of our efforts should be focused upon. We control that, and maybe if we show we can get our house in order, the example will spread.
NAACP missionThe NAACP mission statement [emphasis mine]:
As such, it behooves the NAACP to be vocal opponents of any and all bigotry and discriminatory action where civil rights are concerned.
Based on Jealous’ statement, I guess the NAACP shouldn’t speak out when any group is targeted for loss of rights if the common bond of that group isn’t racial. Sorry, that’s pure BS.
NAACP missionThe NAACP mission statement [emphasis mine]:
As such, it behooves the NAACP to be vocal opponents of any and all bigotry and discriminatory action where civil rights are concerned.
Based on Jealous’ statement, I guess the NAACP shouldn’t speak out when any group is targeted for loss of rights if the common bond of that group isn’t racial. Sorry, that’s pure BS.
to paraphrase Bill Clinton“it depends on your definition of ALL”
God I hope it isn’t, “depends on your definition of PEOPLE.”
It’s one thing to disagree over prioritiesBut your belittlement the struggle for marriage equality comes off as downright trollish.
Loving versus Virginia was not a battle over the right to have a dream wedding, as NAACP recognized back then.
Why is NAACP a “democratic” organization?I am troubled that Jealous defends NAACP’s position because it’s a democratic organization.
Democracy and civil rights are not the same thing. And, as prop 8 shows us, sometimes in direct conflict.
In fact, I’d say that the whole point of the Civil Rights Movement is to protect minorities from the majoritarian will.
Simply and Profoundly OffensiveThere really is nothing more I have to say about this post.
Uh, No.The vast majority of our efforts should be devoted to how we (African-Americans) treat our own.
Of course if you don’t think LGBT are “Our own” then fine. We’ll leave, taking African-American History with us (Bayard Rustin< Langston Hughes. James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston, Billy Strayhorn, Bessie Smith et. al.) and y’all can proceed directly to the back of the bus.
Whoops — almost forgot Lorraine HansburyWE’RE TAKING HER TOO!!!!!
the key word in my post is “I” have no control over NAACPIt may be different for you. If dealing with racism in the LGBT community isn’t of interest to you…uh….FINE!
Please don’t forget to also spirit awayAudre Lorde, Octavia Butler, Barbara Jordan and Ma Rainey.
here’s another initiativeProp. 14, Nov. 1964, California. In response to the Rumford Act, which would ban racial discrimination in housing, Prop. 14 proposed a state constitutional amendment providing for a ‘right’ for property owners to discriminate in sale or rental of housing — which at a stroke would pre-empt not just Rumford but any local ordinances against racial discrimination in housing.
Despite a liberal Democratic ticket winning overwhelmingly, Prop. 14 won by a 2-1 margin. (LBJ’s administration promptly cut off Federal housing funding). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Prop. 14 three years later, calling it violation of 14th Am. equal-protection provisions (Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)).
NonsenseGiving up the term marriage would be bowing to the religious dominionists.
But you are right if you think that many of these rights should not depend on marriage. But that is a fight beyond SSM.
The Word Marriage is Defined and has Connotations and Ramifications You may consider the words “civil unions” and “marriage” synonymous but most present laws (especially FEDERAL) and many religions do not. THIS MATTERS. Moreover, two nonrelated by blood heterosexual women who have decided to live together to raise their children in a mutually supportive socioeconomic family unit ARE NOT allowed and DO NOT get all the benefits/rights at issue. They are in the same situation as a SGL couple who is in a state that doesn’t treat domestic partnerships/civil unions the same as marriages.
This is why what I am proposing is relevant. LBGTs have a POWERFUL ally in struggling single parents of whatever sexual orientation.
What do you mean with Civil Union?It appears you’re thinking common-law marriage or cohabitation.
footnote on Ms. HansberryWorth noting that Ms. Hansberry’s father, Carl Hansberry, was plaintiff in an important civil rights case, Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), an important early blow to racial discrimination in housing, particularly in racial covenants. Still in law texts as an example of how case law isn’t settled (res judicata) simply because the plaintiff wasn’t in a previous case on the issue.
blatant racism in the LGBT communityTo me that would mean that the LBGT community is more racist than the average or that it’s racism is more ugly than average. And I don’t think that’s the case.
Marriage is an Underinclusive Legal TermMarriage, as defined now, is an under inclusive LEGAL term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term Civil Union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both LGBT and hetrosexual couples. If we are about EQUALITY for all not just for some, we should be about Civil Unions for All not marriage for Some.
Some history and a little perspective…The NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have been our allies in several key fights including the fight against Prop 8 in California. Some of the leadership of the NAACP and SCLC are political lightweights who can’t hold a candle to figures like Bond. The lightweights are simply kowtowing to christer bigotry and mimicking the prejudices of politicians like Obama, his administration and the DNC. These misleaders are doing exactly what the right wing wants them to do, creating divisions fed by the homohatred common among religious cult leaders.
Developments like this should come as no surprise after years of political pandering by Democrats and Republicans alike.
It began in a big way over a decade ago when Bill Clinton championed the passage of DOMA, signing it within hours of its passage and immediately running radio ads boasting about it on redneck christer radio stations.
Those ads worked. Clinton was reelected in spite of losing union voters because of their anger at NAFTA. Then Karl Rove took a page from “Bill Clintons Big Book of Bigotry” and cultivated links with catholic and protestant cult leaders, particularly southern baptists. He created a network of pulpit pimps who traded ‘faith based’ federal bribes for political support for Republicans using same sex marriage as a wedge issue.
In 2008 Obama’s religious affairs director Joshua Dubois and Leah Daughtry in the DNC made a major and very conscious effort to recapture that voter segment for Obama. They galvanized the bigot vote utilizing figures like Warren and Donnie McClurkin and capped it off by a stab in the back known as “gawd’s in the mix”. Obama won a big chunk of the cult vote back from the Republicans and torpedoed efforts to defend SSM in California.
The situation was worsened immeasurably by the hysterically racist attempt to blame African Americans for Prop 8.
These animosities, based on religious bigotry bought and paid for with ‘faith based’ bribes on the one hand and racism on the other, feed off each other.
We have to turn that around and offset the work of Karl Rove, Leah Daughtry and Josh Dubois by using every opportunity to support the actions of potential allies in unions, minority communities, the antiwar movement and among environmentalists.
Let’s model this issue as transaction with all-or-nothing scenarioDo you think you can achieve it that hetero marriages will be replaced with civil unions? If not, then it isn’t acceptable for the LBGT community, too.
Two HeteroSexual Singles DadsLiving together in a mutually beneficial socioeconomic family unit…do not have the same rights, etc. as a “married” couple.
In many states, the one that has better health insurance CAN’T cover the man he’s living with and that man’s kids.
This is just one of MANY examples.
This is EXACTLY why we NEED TO VALUE ALL FAMILESI recommend Professor Nancy Polikoff’s book Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage for a potential answer.
CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALLThe government would recognize and sanction the union of two adults, with legal and mental capacity to consent to join in a mutually socioeconomic supportive family unit obligating to each other legal rights and responsibilities and thus availing themselves to federal and state protection, accommodation and regulation, i.e., a civil union.
Going forward, the concept of “marriage” would no longer be legally operative and could thus safely retain its physiological and biological and/or traditional ecclesiastical and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during coitus and/or in holy matrimony.
Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with the concepts of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy considerations.
oh, has he spoken in supportof civil rights for lgbt people? let me know if he has.
How about this?The government would recognize and sanction the union of two adults, with legal and mental capacity to consent to join in a mutually socioeconomic supportive family unit obligating to each other legal rights and responsibilities and thus availing themselves to federal and state protection, accommodation and regulation, i.e., a civil union.
Your comments are appreciated.
Check out Professor Nancy Polikoff’s work.Happy reading!
Amen.
Not as head of the NAACPAnd I have neither stated nor implied that he has. My point is that I think you’re taking quite a bit of liberty in saying that Ben Jealous “promotes the notion that civil rights [are] for African Americans only.”
Great synopsis.Makes me dream of Bond taking the lead in our fight for equality. It would be wonderful to have him out front fighting the good fight, helping to change minds.
Yep.That’s EXACTLY why they SHOULDN’T be tied to “marriage”.
Agreed.
then show mewhere he’s promoted civil rights for non-African Americans. I don’t know for sure that he hasn’t, but since he is unable to do so for even African Americans who are LGBT, I have my doubts. If you can provide evidence that I should give this guy more consideration, I’m willing to look at it. Julian Bond was able to see beyond race. Can Mr. Jealous?
NOTHING LESS THAN MARRIAGE WIL DO!!PERIOD!!!!!
The Homophobia of the African-American Community is More Than AverageAnd it’s LONG past time we faced that fact and did something about it.
“Potential” allies?I’d rather have REAL ones!
Cool.Make the REAL connections. There are plenty single parents (of every sexual orientation)who need our help.
How about something more?With Civil Unions for All, we ALL get MORE than marriage can provide.
There’s no such thingas a physiological or biological meaning of “marriage”. Marriage is term which refers to a set of social and civil institutions, with some religions attaching further doctrinal significance.
I always got the impression Bond is more than an allyhe sure trips my gay-dar
Hear, Hear!
Here is a quote from Mr. Jealous from above….
Gee I dunno but that sounds like he is talking about civil rights for gays to me.
AmericaBlog Gay a new blog for gay news, links to Pam’s take on this story http://gay.americablog.com/
Yes, he is personally in favor of marriage equality….……In this particular case (regarding the article here on PHB) he is unable to take a stand on behalf of the NAACP (national organization.)
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art…
It depends on who you talk withSome heterosexual people feel that their pheromones lead them to their soulmate and that their particular set of genitalia fit together perfectly during coitus. In essence, they say, this physical chemistry/compatibility combined with their spiritual connection creates their “marriage”. Don’t believe me? Ask some heterosexual couples you know…they may tell you.
A potential ally, definitionally, can become a real ally.
NAACP needs to put black LGBT issues into its conferenceI think that the leadership needs to educate its membership about the existence of black LGBT/SGL people, the practical issues affecting them, the things straight blacks might learn from them.
For instance, the oldest black HIV/AIDS organizations have been largely run by LGBT/SGL people, initially for LGBT/SGL people (mostly gay men). Surely there’s some LGBT/SGL organizer expertise that could be tapped for ideas on reaching the closeted gays and bis, and heterosexual partners.
I agree that same-gender marriage is not the #1 issue for a black straight/LGBT-SGL coalition.
Health care in general is a uniting issue. Everyone wants health care, and most people want universal coverage at affordable rates, which implies some form of nationalization of insurance or care. Marriage may or may not lead to affordable spousal coverage – and many blacks are working jobs with lousy or unaffordable or no health coverage.
The marriage issue should be addressed by presenting issues facing real couples, particularly those with children. Many people don’t regard lesbian or gay couples as ideal parents, but may consider them better than no parents. In fact, a more important family issue than marriage might be adoption rights for same-gender second parents and eligibility to become foster care and adoptive parents of wards of the state. The kids need families now, not later, and civic-minded blacks are well aware of the difficulty of placing older black children in caring homes.
Another marriage-related issue that would be useful to mention is the ability to make emergent medical decisions for a loved one (partner or partner’s child). It isn’t like this is a novel situation for the straight black community – there are always some unmarried straight committed couples who need to be able to make these decisions for each other, or for that matter, single straight people who may need for some reason to make an unrelated person their medical decision-making power of attorney and have it stick.
Transgender people, especially transwomen, need to be seen and heard concerning violence and job discrimination. Most transwomen murdered recently have been black, and often have been street prostitutes because there just aren’t that many jobs open to them. ENDA ought to be supported by NAACP members, although I daresay the economy may make some want to ignore black members of a group (LGBT) which is demographically white-dominant.
And how do your civil unions help them?
my response to this:i guess i agree with you, although i’m not sure there are more than like five or six of these hetero-singles couples who are clamoring for this type of household recognition and the rights that would go with it if they were able to enter into a federally recognized civil union. not that that should matter, just that it is an argument that will find even less support due to its lack of adherents/supporters, etc. like My Three Dads, right? sure, why not? it is a socioeconomic construct and i agree that adults should be able to enter into it and get all the benefits…….how is this different than a business……but are you assuming these two hetero-singles will always remain single? would they then need a divorce if they eventually wanted to marry? i just think there is a very small (smaller than the LGBT community) part of our population that would desire this hetero-single coupling that it is a separate and differently emotional argument than the ones LGBT people are making (which is that their sexual relationships and families following from their sexual relationships are equal to straight sexual relationships and the families that follow from theirs). do you actually know people who are arguing for this? or are you just making an argument for the sake of an argument because it’s some sort of pure approach to the whole subject of civil marriage?
newsflash! i am LGBT.and i completely agree with this definition of marriage…..that which happens during sex……and not just heterosexual “parts-fitting” sex.
my question to you is why do you think this idea is so strange/foreign to LGBT? the civil union/marriage/commitment ceremony ALWAYS comes after the actual civil union/marriage/commitment. it is just there to affirm what has already happened. it seems as though you are either asexual and without a romantic relationship or devalue those types of relationships to the point where you don’t see how they are even relevant to civilization. to not acknowledge the importance of marriage (civil unions) to all groups of people, including straight people, is a bit odd and seemingly against nature and humanity’s biological, emotional, physical needs. i’m not trying to insult or provoke, just to say that i don’t personally agree that arguing for a “business-like” approach to marriage/civil unions is one that makes sense to me or a whole lot of other people. therefore it may not be the best strategy to achieve actual rights. on the other hand, i think you make some interesting points.
Becauseif everybody starts thinking of gay being the new black that will mean that the black thing is over and it’s never going to get any better than it is right now?
Divide and conquer.
There seems to be some perceived vested interest in the black community to out-moral the whites on the reject-teh-gays issue, as if this “moral superiority” elevates their own cause.
Seems to me the real vested interest would be served by forming an alliance and very visibly standing side by side and yes, overlapping with the gay community and VERY vocally insisting that discrimination IS WRONG PERIOD.
What the larger black community seems to be implying right now is “Discrimination is peachy-keen, just not against ME”. Which is a pretty flimsy set of cards from which to build a house.
gays unrealistically expect black groups to put LGBT issues atop their agendaI’ve been reading the comments here and on other sites and many people are going back to that Prop 8 mentality of “blacks should know better and automatically support us.”
That’s an ignorant attitude and one that comes very close to fitting that “whiny” label many people assign to LGBTs.
Reciprocity is a two way street.
There are some gay groups and individuals who do try to work on racial issues, but we all know that is not the standard mode of operation for gay people. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on racial issues within the gay community. Even homophobes know that, because they exploit that weakness with ease when dealing with straight people of color.
Too many people are expecting “acceptance” and support without having to do anything to earn it.
here we go again, rendering POC LGBTs invisibleThat there aren’t any non-white LGBTs working both sides of the issue? It’s a two way street for me and I can tell you I sometime feel very alone as both sides point fingers and render us invisible or irrelevant OR responsible for fixing the lack of communication between gays and minorities.
It’s not whining to ask a group that believes in civil equality for ALL people to add it to the agenda, not atop it. That’s not the same thin.
but shouldn’t gays be able to realistically expect black groups to at least not sabotage LGBT issues?i don’t think any non-POC LGBT “expects” black groups to put LGBT issues atop their agenda. ridiculous. this is not a tit for tat relationship and no one side should be extorting support from the other.
the fact is that both groups have different struggles, issues and agendas that don’t necessarily overlap in all cases. we just need to stop hurting each other by not allowing each other to fight. period. every time a prominant black leader comes out to say they don’t support LGBT, it hurts LGBT. please tell the last time you heard a prominant LGBT person speak in public about how our group does not support POC as a policy within the community. although the U.S. has laws on the books to protect racial equality, there is still rampant discrimination in society. no non-POC LGBT would ever dispute that. but LGBT people don’t have the same laws on the books for their own community. we are not a protected class like race yet. LGBT people are arguing that they should also be a protected class, which implies our struggles are more similar than dissimilar with the black community. right? part of being a protected class would imply freedom to marry. LGBT people are not the ones that wrote additional laws to deny our civil rights. so we’re not asking for anything in addition to what non-LGBT people already have. we are simply asking for discriminatory additional laws to be removed, thus reinstating the rights we have had all along.
another fact that goes unnoticed is that all communities across the board don’t really pay attention much to what goes on in other communities (whether we think that is good or bad). i can’t tell you how many times i’ve spoken to my own non-LGBT siblings about the lack of legal protections and freedoms that LGBT people have and seen them look shocked because it’s not even on their radar. so i would agree that within the non-LGBT black community, this LGBT civil rights stuff is unimportant (without further critical thinking, which no group in history seems to do voluntarily). the question is why would non-LGBT black (or white) people fight AGAINST LGBT civil rights? we already know they are ignorant of us. we already know it is unlikely they will support us unless they are somehow personally affected by our “issues.” they would only do so out of prejudice. that also makes our fight similar to the black community.
what i don’t agree with is when black LGBTs try to claim that even they themselves shouldn’t be worried about the LGBT civil rights movement because they are still trying to fight racial discrimination in society (even though there are laws on the books to protect them from being racially discriminated against, unlike for LGBT people). LGBT POC will only be helped if the LGBT civil rights movement succeeds. it won’t necessarily help racial disrimination issues but it will at least allow them more financial and potentially positive social changes compared to not having them. it doesn’t hurt anyone to give LGBT back their civil rights.
I think the fact POC LGBTs are rendered invisible is very telling I’m black and know how frustrating it is to try to bridge those gaps, only to be viewed as an oddity by straight blacks and ignored by white LGBTs except for “special occasions” like Black History Month or a hot controversy that requires “outreach.”
I’m not sure what the message is in that nobody seems to really care about us. For me, I have come to the conclusion that my emphasis is the POC LGBT community and I’ll work with the other groups “as needed.”
why assume blacks understand the LGBT perspective?I agree that minority groups need to find areas of common interest and work from there. But politics and activism isn’t an intellectual exercise. I think they require building personal relationships and people on both sides are comfortable where they are and don’t really want to “go there.”
You raised the question about LGBT leaders not making blanket statements that POC are not a priority. And you’re right about that. But I think it’s an unsaid belief that gets expressed in LGBT media, the “community’s” reaction to incidents involving LGBT POC, organizational leadership, and the overwhelming acceptance of online profiles stating “no blacks, please … it’s just my preference.”
I agree with you that black LGBTs need to quit putting their sexuality on the back burner. Some of that is due to the desire to maintain those relationships with the black community, which has its own “don’t ask don’t tell” policy but will always accept someone down with “the struggle.” Some of it is because they lack enough self-esteem to live openly.
Straight blacks have told me that my race is “more important” than sexuality enough times to where I don’t even like to discuss it anymore, lest I get in an argument. Even if they know some gay people, they are unlikely to really understand and make those connections between racism and homophobia.
Because that phrase is offensiveSigns at rallies proclaiming that “gay is the new black” and Tina Fey’s pronouncement last year that “bitch is the new black” treat black people like we are innate objects and not actual human beings. I do not deny the legitimacy/urgency of the gay rights struggle. I think that much is clear in the subject of previous comment (‘…gay rights [is] the civil rights issue of our time’).
What I am saying is that a person’s race and their sexuality play out in two separate ways. I just do not see what the problem in saying that while there are obvious parallels between the civil rights movement of the 60s and the gay rights movement of now, they are two different struggles.
And your conclusion that the black community is fine with discrimination as long as it’s not against them is wrong. Some care about gay rights, some don’t. We’re just like any other group. The inability of the NAACP to come out in support of marriage equality is the result of it being a bureaucracy trying to manage a group that includes chapters who support gay rights and those that don’t. I wouldn’t read much more into it than that.
“Compatibility” isn’t “marriage” –There are certainly physiological and biological phenomena that make marriage more of a good idea for certain couples. But in biology it’s just long-term pair-bonding; marriage is what we do with it socially and culturally.
i don’t assume blacks understand the LGBT perspective.just as i, a white person, cannot truly understand the struggles of a black person. it doesn’t matter to me if they understand me or the LGBT community or not, just as it didn’t matter to the black community that white people didn’t “understand” or care about their struggle back during the black civil rights era. i just don’t want them to enact discriminatory legistation against me and then think it’s ok to do so simply because they cannot relate to me or think they don’t understand me. that is pure prejudice. it is also paternalistic. most straight black people and most straight white people have NO REASON to try to understand our community. but just because they don’t understand doesn’t mean they can designate us second-class citizens. i mean, if they have the votes they can, and have, and do, and will. but the message shouldn’t be that they NEED to understand us. just that they should leave us alone and let us live according to our own free will.
i apologize if there are unsaid racist beliefs in the LGBT community. i believe there are definitely unsaid racist beliefs in all parts of society still. that’s why it’s so important to have laws on the books. to at least give us all a chance to live in freedom and without oppression. as for online profiles (where i assume sex is being solicited) i would just say, consider the context and the company kept in those circles. i’m not sure that it exactly translates into racial prejudice if someone is attracted to one race over another. just like it is not sexual prejudice to be attracted to one sex over another.
i would say to the straight blacks who ask you to put your sexuality aside in favor of focusing more on your race: i cannot be a full member of my racial community without the opportunity to live fully as a whole person, which includes my sexuality. if they want you to be a full-fledged community member who can participate and add your unique wisdom and life experience to your peers and church, etc., you cannot do that without their full acceptance of you. they are the ones not allowing you to participate fully, it’s not you choosing to turn away from them. i would say to them,
obviously, they don’t really have a vested interest in believing what you say about how important your sexuality is to your sense of self………i’m sure it’s tough and annoying. we all know straight people think their sexuality and sex life is very different from ours. we know it’s not (from years of having straight sexuality shoved down our throats). i think the best anyone can do is risk the rejection of the community and live life in the open, without shame, fear, or pathology (retreating into drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, etc.).