I’m off on the loooong flight this AM to L.A. today to liveblog the The Visible Vote ‘08: A Presidential Forum. As you may have heard, this is not billed as a debate, but a conversation with the Democratic candidates on LGBT issues — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (because of scheduling conflicts, Dodd and Biden will not be present).
In this format, for better or worse, each candidate will appear solo, on the stage for 15 minutes taking questions from Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge, as well as journalists Margaret Carlson and Jonathan Capehart, and over 4,000 questions were submitted at VisibleVote08.com.
The forum airs at 9PM ET on LOGO with the live webcast at The Visible Vote ‘08. There will be a studio audience there, but the set up will be the same as it was for the PBS debate – bloggers and the rest of the media will be off in a different, nearby building, and I was told by MTV/LOGO that none of the candidates will appear afterward in the spin room.
The candidates responded to HRC’s questionnaire on LGBT rights, so you have a general idea of their positions. Answers were released in June in a grid format without candidate comments). The full responses from Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson and Gravel were made available later, after the Edwards camp released his full answers to the questionnaire to me, (I posted them and blogged about it here).
There will be also be live chat over at Pam’s House Blend during the forum.
***
With many LGBTQ voters of African descent experiencing the downside of diversity by not being fully included in the both African American and gay communities the HRC-Logo debate is viewed as a white queer public soliloquy giving the illusion of inclusion.I was just thinking about this issue when I received an email in my inbox from Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project, about an essay there by Reverend Monroe on a population largely unrepresented in either the coverage of or involvement in the forum — communities of color. Many, Monroe says, aren’t even aware of the forum.
– Rev. Irene Monroe, ordained minister, religion columnist, feminist theologian, questioning whether the HRC/Logo presidential forum will ignore critical issues of concern to the black LGBTQ community
“Why would I know about this debate?,” LaShaun Williams of New Orleans told me. “Before Katrina the black and white gay communities was separated. Now after Katrina even moreso because only those who have money either stayed during the city’s renovation or had money to return back. Our community is smaller and more invisible than ever and the gay paper down here doesn’t now and never have circulated where black folks live.”It’s quite obvious to queer folks of color that “the movement” is overwhemingly white, well-to-do, urban-dwelling, internet-connected — and that means a different worldview (given human nature) about what issues are critical than what may be true in minority queer communities.
Marriage is important, but so is tackling the religious homophobia in the black community that drives discussion of sexuality, safer sex, monogomy and honesty deep into the closet.The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.
But their winks have never cast eyes on this nation’s black same gender loving communities. And the issues concerning white queer communities are indeed vastly different from the black community.
“We got an entire community dying of AIDS and I know the first question that’s going to come out of somebody’s mouth will be that of gay marriage,” Rita Johnson of Detroit told me.
Social research shows that African-American same-gender households have everything to gain in the struggle for marriage equality and more to lose when states pass amendments banning marriage equality and other forms of partner recognition. For example, in November 2005, Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition published “Jumping the Broom: a Black Perspective on Same-Gender Marriage.” And the statistics revealed the following: Forty-five percent of black same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer. And 20 percent of black men and 24 percent of black women in same-sex households are denied health care benefits for their partners by the government.
More than one person of color frustrated by the lack of the gay white establishment’s involvement in these issues has told me that it’s always couched as a third rail issue — that they don’t want to address black homophobia, for instance, because it’s something that needs to be “dealt with internally,” meaning it’s up to LGBTQ blacks to handle it because the white establishment doesn’t want to be perceived as “meddling” in a minority community’s “issue.”
Of course this is bunk. Homophobia is homophobia, and begging off any struggle simply because it’s difficult to negotiate or makes one uncomfortable is a pitiful position to hold, given it’s the very same message we’ve heard in the past from our alleged Democratic allies. How many times were we told back in prior election cycles that we (the gay community as a whole) are responsible for “winning over” the American public to convince them that our civil rights are important. We were told we were on our own because the political risk was too great for them at the time.
What, pray tell, is the difference?
It was enlightening to attend the much-ignored-by-the-MSM National Black Justice Coalition’s Second Annual Black Church Summit held in Philly last March. It was a gathering of LGBT and gay-affirming religious leaders, the people at the front lines facing extreme disapproval from many in the socially conservative religious black community. There was a debate between black LGBT allies and leaders, including Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and Bush-supporting Bishop Harry Jackson, Chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition. Jackson is strident in his opposition to LGBT rights.
The establishment LGBT rights movement has not, until recently, even addressed the success of the white evangelical movement in capitalizing on institutionalized homophobia in the black church, even though these churches should be wary of bedding down with a movement that otherwise wants nothing to do with black issues on any other occasion.[G]ay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.
— Jackson, in a Town Hall column.
That’s how deep the homophobia goes, and that’s where support is needed, and why diverse voices need to be present at forums like the HRC/Logo program. The questions raised should be able to be seen and heard by all. Low-wealth LGBT citizens may not have cable or broadband. They are just as affected by the issues that will be discussed as the larger LGBT community of influence, yet many are left with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or not, this is a “white-only” affair. There’s a lot of work to do if people on both sides of the color line are willing to roll their sleeves up and deal with feeling uncomfortable and move forward.
Related:
* Pro-LGBT black clergy ad counters misinformation on hate crimes legislation
* Reporting from the NBJC Second Annual Black Church Summit.
23 Responses to “Will the HRC/Logo forum address issues facing LGBT communities of color?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I haven’t read the whole post yet, but I just wanted to mention something.
It’s really exciting to see all the frontrunning Dem candidates getting out and speaking directly to their liberal base this election cycle. I remember back in the summer of ‘03, attending the NOW national convention, to which all the democratic candidates were invited. Of course only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun bothered to show up. It was at that point that I knew Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Lieberman, etc. didn’t have our back. Oh, wait, Kerry sent Theresa. What, did he think it was some kind of tea party? He wouldn’t even speak at the March For Women’s Lives the following year.
Opoponax:I suspect that’s all our doing, to be honest.
LGBTQ? What’s the Q?
Not to derail, but this acronym is starting to sound like a joke. Might as well call it Giblets.
‘Q = Queer and Questioning’
I personally used LGBTQI where the I includes intersex people … and it’s not a joke to me.
Just need an “e” and an “s”
I’d like a pronounceable acronym, but, uh, giblets??
I used to use “GBLT,” myself, until I was told that was a sandwich. Maybe we should just say, “everybody.”
I don’t get it. If the “white” Giblets community were to get involved in telling off the black churches for their homophobia, they would of course be painted as meddling in the black community’s affairs. And it would be counterproductive, as black churchgoers who aren’t paying attention will see it as meddling white people. What do you expect them to do?
Yeah, I’d like a communal moniker that reflects reality and can be said easily. (Also a pony for every kid with two moms or two dads, while we’re on the topic of Things That Are Easier to Address Than The Issues.)
Cornel West and bell hooks, to cite a couple of examples, refer to communities of African-Americans as ‘black folks’, which I like because it’s colloquial rather tha academic sounding and broadly inclusive. How about for the purposes of the conversation we refer to LGBTQ identified Americans as queer folks, and drive on to the destination?
Yep, this debate is neither a debate nor a conversation with queer folks, it’s a spin moment with the insiders in the movement for civil rights for queer folks. Not quite by coincidence all of whom are looking white and privileged, and acting it by agreeing to a format that excludes a lot of queer folks.
That said, I’m delighted that Pan is covering the event. The very whiteness and privilege of it makes for a conversation starter, too. I’m going to attend a fancy-dress party with the self-styled leaders of our movement this evening to watch on the big-ass TV…anything you all would like me to raise for feedback?
In most of the (presumedly predominately white) liberal spaces I visit online, there is a very fuzzy line when it comes to dealing with issues in minority communities. I wouldn’t want to stick my nose in it trying to do something good only to make things worse by coming off as a white girl trying to tell the people of color how to live.
How would one approach this respectfully, so as not to do more harm than good?
Pam I appreciate posts like this one a lot. Your comments threads are often not very long, but I think that is a tribute to how well-phrased your posts are. And the fact that a lot of people here are not very overtly political, which is rather surprising.
It seems that most movements are concerned largely with the white middle class.
Pam, THANK YOU for racking up the frequent flyer miles! You’re my hero.
One of the reasons for the differentiation of gay and lesbian vs. queer is that within movement, theory, and community life, these aren’t identical identity categories. I tend to use it as an umbrella a lot, but there are a hell of a lot of gay and lesbian folks that will absolutely refuse to identify as queer. My own identity shifts (contextually) between gay and queer. I’m not saying that for the purposes of conversations like this, using queer as a form of umbrella can’t be done, but it does raise issues.
Where I live we’ve started just calling it the “Rainbow Community”.
Btw, for the person (I don’t feel like scrolling up) who said Giblets wouldn’t work because we don’t have an “s”, up here we use “GLBTTSQI”… or some variation of all those letters. “TS” is “two spirit”… so technically we COULD use “Gibletts” if we could come up with something for “e”, maybe as rea suggested “everybody”. But even then, we’ve lost the Q
Of course, as much as a speakable acronym would be desirable, I don’t think we want to be known as chicken organs :/
Pam-
The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.
What?!
2-3% of the population… That overwhelmingly already votes “Democrat”- and already “out-votes” the ‘hetero-sex’ population- is ’suddenly’ going to be “decisive” in an election?
Ron Paul- 2008!*
*(Hint): This is “irony”–
I am a Ron Paul ‘libertarian’ (we usually only get about 0.5% of the votes- and we also like to talk about how ‘decisive’ we could be…
See ya in 2012…
What is the point of flying to a debate where you have to sit in an entirely different room than the candidates and watch it on a screen? Can’t you do that from home? Talk about a waste of energy and carbon dioxide….
i’ve been tossing things around in my head all day. Pam raises important issues, but there are complicating factors, and I’ve been trying to figure out how to say these things. I’m just gonna lay it out there:
Realistically, I’m pretty hostile to religious belief (I think we’ve establishd that). Do we really want me confronting homophobic pastors? I’m as likely to tell them to shove their fairy tales up their asses as anything. And that’s because, as Marcus Brigstocke said so well, “I’m sick of religious people screwing it up for the rest of us.” I’ll confront homophobia, but I, the radical white queer, am probably not someone we want approaching the the homophobic assholes in Boston’s Black Ministerial Alliance (just like you probably don’t want me confronting people like that worthless bigot Cardinal O’Malley).
In the classroom, it’s a different story. I draw connections and do things pretty damned well. Hell, there were more black folks in my Mass Media in Queer America class than white folks, and the majority of the black folks were straight. And that’s because I’ve developed a reputation among the students of color on campus of “getting it.” And that’s something I’m proud of.
It’s not just a matter of fighting homophobia where ever it occurs, but also where you’re/I’m going to be most effective. My response to queers in the black churches, hell in any churches that don’t accept them, is “get the hell out” and that’s not going to be terribly effective. I can be quite skilled and shaping messages for different audiences, but I simply don’t care about religious audiences in the least.
Egads, I hate my creativity some days.
Bisexuals, Intersexed, Transitioning, Curious, Homosexuals and Earnest Supporters. BITCHES
Pronounceable, easily remembered, includes most (although Queer can include Polyamorous and I didn’t work that in.)… and offensive.
As for the matter of homophobia in the black churches, the greater liberal community, as it were, needs to at least be inclusive and supportive of minority gays. Maybe the answer isn’t to confront the churches that much (white priveledge is not going to win friends), but to make sure there are groups in every community that can help and support those coming out and that everyone knows they are welcome there. It’s easier to risk standing in one community ( a church, a family), if there’s somewhere else that they can go to for help and friendship.
What is the point of flying to a debate where you have to sit in an entirely different room than the candidates and watch it on a screen?
Because you can get direct quotes from the principals there. Check out my liveblog post and post-forum post.
I love your post Pam, it raises a very important issue.
Still, I have to agree with felagund that “If the “white” Giblets community were to get involved in telling off the black churches for their homophobia, they would of course be painted as meddling in the black community’s affairs. And it would be counterproductive, as black churchgoers who aren’t paying attention will see it as meddling white people.”.
The God of Biscuits has a great point, but it’s specific to an individual. Jeff has worked to gain trust, but white strangers speaking from a distance are just not going to be well received by church members. Especially strangers who want to talk about changing chuch attitudes toward homosexuality.
Indirectly, Jeff makes a different point that may be the most important one in the thread. The church is not going to change. African-American churchs or Roman Catholic, they aren’t going to change. And our churches are withering on the vine for their lack of action on other important issues. I don’t think they are a useful venue; they value their homophobia.
On the debate:
I haven’t watched all of it, but one thing that stood out to me– both in the questionnaire and the video– is that Obama (and, now that I look, also Edwards!) are actually opposed to the DOMA. This seems like a big deal to me– it seems Obama and Edwards have potentially just differentiated themselves from the other candidates in a significant, positive, and frankly risky way. Clinton, on the other hand, apparently actually specifically endorsed that section of the DOMA that gives states veto power over the marriages issued by other states.
Did this stand out to anyone except me, do you think this is going to attract any widespread notice?
Re the post here itself, I’m basically in the same boat with these comments:
I understand the problem Pam and Bil Browning are trying to describe here (that lbgt persons of color are not really getting support from either the gay rights or minority communities). And though I’m not sure that I would have noticed it on my own, once it’s pointed out it is surprisingly clear that the section of the lgbt community being directly represented by the public face of “gay rights” is surprisingly limited at times. If there’s something I could do about these problems I’d be happy to. But I’m not really sure what that something would be.
I feel kind of lost on the whole “homophobia in black churches” thing. Being personally neither a member of the black community nor any religious community, I kind of doubt there’s much I can do there.
I am a bit more curious about whether there’s something I can do (even if only in my own limited personal way) to help things by changing my own approach to gay rights issues. The two examples I saw given here as things the gay rights community could be doing differently were doing more to explicitly include minorities in the gay rights community, and increasing (or bringing back, I suppose really) the focus on AIDS. Anything else?
Overall, Pam seems to be asking people be more willing to “meddle”. I think there are in fact people who would be willing to do that if they had a better idea of what exactly that would mean and how to do it without it being counterproductive…
Obama (and, now that I look, also Edwards!) are actually opposed to the DOMA. [….] Clinton, on the other hand, apparently actually specifically endorsed that section of the DOMA that gives states veto power over the marriages issued by other states.
Wait a minute.
If DOMA was repealed, and every state in the Union had to recognize same-sex marriages held in MA…
1. Two bus tickets to Boston, a licensing fee, and a few nights in a hostel buys you all of the rights of marriage
2. Seeing all of that gay wedding money going out of state convinces lawmakers in an increasing number of states to redefine the regulations for marriage licenses.
3. Considering that the federal definition of marriage is now open for debate, lawsuits are filed when same-sex married couples want to file joint tax returns, joint bankruptcies, etc.
4. Congress could either pass laws reforming the tax, bankruptcy, immigration… (ad nauseum) codes, or punt the issue. If they punt the issue, the final word depends on what Anthony Kennedy has for breakfast one morning in 2019.
The only survey I’ve ever read about people of color communities said that homophobia was less prevalent there than among white people. However, I wonder if homophobia within an otherwise oppressed community can be more harmful when the targets already have to deal with racism. It would be interesting to know what the effects are.
Many queer whites are deeply in denial in how AIDS still looms over gay, white men. Part of the reason that HIV in the African-American community is getting the short shrift is that the white queer community is looking away from an elephant in that living room.