More On Prop 8

I received in my email today, a forwarded article by Jasmyne A. Cannick titled “No-On-8’s White Bias.” It was published in the Los Angeles Times on November 8th.

I read Ms. Cannick’s piece with a mixture of interest and dismay and intended to reply to the sender, my cousin Mark, who by the way writes a lively and thoughtful blog of his own http://www.markyourtruthhere.blogspot.com/)

Instead I decided to post my reply here (and began by quoting the parts with which I most took issue):

The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.

No, it doesn't, agreed. But, was it supposed to? Why is it that because gay marriage doesn't address all those other ills it is somehow invalid as a legitimate civil rights issue? I'm having trouble following Ms. Cannick's logic here.

The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else--not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally.

"Above everything else"? Again, was that ever truly the intent? And as to why it matters--how about that the right to marry should be as available to eligible (of legal age, etc.) LGBT couples (of any race or ethnicity) who desire to do so as any heterosexual couple (of any race or ethnicity)? How about because without that legal right, depending upon the state in which you and your partner live or happen to be visiting, just what legal rights you truly have when your loved one is hospitalized, or dies, especially if there are young dependents involved, can vary in cruel and unexpected ways? How about because the determination of those straights who would devote enormous effort and sums of money to denying us those rights speaks volumes as to how they would have us regarded in this society, and what other rights they would deny us, if they could?

Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights.

So the gay rights struggle generally, and gay marriage in particular, has nothing to do with LGBT people of color? It's strictly for and about white people?? Since when? Even if you believe that the gay community too often presents itself with a white (especially white male) face--and I do, and it pisses me off--does that really justify the attitude that black and other non-white queers should just sit out the ongoing battle for gay equality? At the heart of her argument, isn't Ms. Cannick basically saying that gay marriage is a "white thing"? Do you suppose that she's aware of how close she comes to the homophobic misunderstanding that persists in the black community that homosexuality (or at least non-heterosexuality) is a "white thing" and nothing to do with decent, church-going, God-fearing African-Americans?

Why is it still news to some black queers that racism exists within the gay community anyway? It exists in every other stratum of American society, why not there too? There are times when I feel that racism--the fact of enduring racist attitudes and beliefs--has become a convenience to African-Americans, gay or straight. It lets us off the hook for dealing with so many issues it's easier not to confront. (That's certainly been true in my life; how about yours?)

And marriage, let's remember, is a civil institution--not a religious one. Many people marry in the church of their faith but many others do not. So long as a couple has applied for the license, taken the blood tests and performed whatever other rituals the law requires, they are legally married whether the ceremony is performed in a registrar's office, St. Patrick's Cathedral, leaping out of an airplane or underwater off the coast of Belize.

Ms. Cannick makes a strong point regarding the ineffectiveness and general wrong-headedness of the outreach campaign against Prop 8; on the other hand, reading her article, I'm left wondering just how many of those black lesbians and gays who warned that the reliance on NAACP participation "wouldn't work" followed Cannick's lead in declining to engage black voters about the issue at all. ("Even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.") Maybe the larger problem has been not about what white gays didn't do, but about what black gays haven't done—and why.

But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity--not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

I would argue that African-Americans need to understand that it is the church that has pitted itself against gay marriage, not the other way around, against gay marriage and against the very existence of gay people. And though some may find the notion heretical, I would also argue that the church's influence in black American life has been at times as much destructive as uplifting, and not just and only about gay issues. It’s worth asking how much have black conservative churches have taken as their model white conservative churches, the very same white conservative churches that once denounced Dr. King and other civil rights heroes (including ordinary blacks and whites who courageously took the risks of joining and organizing marches, sit-ins and freedom rides) as troublemaking commies and worse? How many Sunday sermons sought to reassure racist parishioners--including night riding Klansmen--of the moral rightness of their view of non-whites generally and blacks in particular as sub-human beings? (And what frequently happened to blacks and other people of color as a direct result of the stoking of such sentiments?)

And how many of those congregations have remained lily-white, at least until it began to dawn on their canny anti-gay leaders how much more successful they could be in their efforts to squash gay rights by prevailing upon and joining with black ministers and congregants, using scare tactic campaigns filled with misinformation and outright lies? How many vengeful, self-satisfied churchgoers—black and white, then and now—use religion to close their minds rather than open their hearts?

And by the way... does anybody seriously believe that closeted ministers and sisters exist only in the Catholic Church?

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that ever to be the case.

Well, some people may indeed think that homophobia trumps racism, but I don't and I suspect I'm not the only one. Homophobia and racism are not rivals; rather, both are malignant symptoms of the kind of prejudice that kills, figuratively and literally. They are ghastly proving grounds for bigots, whom the late Vito Russo correctly identified as "people who resent losing control of a world they thought belonged to them." It would be helpful if more of whites, gay and straight, truly appreciated the continuing racial disparity in American life; it’s ludicrous to think that Barack Obama’s historic November 4th victory has single-handedly wiped that slate clean.

But rather than waiting for our white counterparts “to finally ‘get it’” about race, next time around maybe we black gays should go ahead and “say what needs to be said” about homophobia to our families and communities so that they can begin to understand just how and why gay rights—including the right to marry—is about us. And them.