I think there is something really bizarre going on here--two or three groups really talking past each other. And its damned irritating. I saw it over at Jack and Jill in the comments section. Here's my take on it. Jews don't own the holocaust, and blacks don't own civil rights. Jews can be oppressors, and so can blacks. Its no stunningly amazingly offensive indictment of Obama to compare his tendency toward moderate, obfuscating language and insistence on working across the aisle to other historic accomodationist political figure.

The situation in this country is that some people are denied an important civil right--what right? The right to have their unions recognized and protected legally. In addition, in some jurisdictions, "non traditional" sexual relations among adults are used to strip both men and women of their human rights to their own children. Both gay and lesbian parents have seen their biological children taken away from them in divorce disputes with former heterosexual spouses. And as we know both gay and lesbian couples are denied other priviliges and rights associated with heterosexual marriage including rights in inheritance, guardianship, etc...

This is not nothing. And not only that, its not even "very little" compared to segregation and its horrors. Its different from the later regime of segregation (sort of) but not from the earlier disempowerments of slavery. Under slavery, after all, individuals couldn't choose who they married, or get married in a legal sense, or exert control over their children, or dispose of their property as they saw fit in a testamentary way. It all sounds kind of familiar to me.

The comparisons of this act, this reaching out to Warren *over the strong and reasoned objections of a significant part of Obama's actual base of support* really stinks. It stinks to me, as a straight woman and a jew, because I don't see the political advantage to the *coalition* of progressives who brought Obama to power and it stinks because *the rights and hopes and futures of the gay part of that coalition* aren't Obama's to sideline or give away in trade for anything. And that is where the Jews and the other minority groups enter into this discussion. A fairly long historical perspective on marginalization of our concerns as a minority reminds us that its very easy for people in power to sacrifice your interests in their way to a greater good. And they are always telling you to sit down and shut up about it. That doesn't mean we are calling Obama hitler. Similarly, when someone points out that the graduationalist, accomodationist approach to civil liberties and civil rights was a hallmark of foot dragging segregationists as well as a go along to get along part of the original struggle within the black community they aren't actually calling Obama a segregationist. They are saying that his policies, if followed logically as well as symbolically, are going to tend in that direction.

I think some progressives are naivly shocked at the wealth of anger in the black community towards gays as imagined "hyper whites"--the jack and jill thread was full of accusations of white privilige in the gay community, of gay protests as resulting from a sense of "entitlement" etc...etc...etc... and of african american backlash against gays being the natural outgrowth of the five seconds of post prop 8 race hysteria that went on until cooler heads and better stats prevailed. Imagine how this conversation would look different if the african american community as a whole tried reaching out to its own gay members, and seeing gays in other racial communities as the scapegoats they are for the christian right?

Gay rights are human rights, you know. As are civil rights in this country. Humans fought for them, and they apply to humans. I'm really tired of african americans attempt to control that legacy and that meaning--as sick and angry as I am at the part of the Jewish community that tries to control the image and the idea of a holocaust as specifically a jewish experience. As the Dalai lama grasped when he went to Jewish leaders to talk about life after Tibet it is in the diaspora, and after various holocausts, that a community makes the leap from isolationism, selfishness, solipsism and realizes that its problems and its struggles stand for everyones. Only with that movement can the community grow and thrive. Trying to hang on to the uniqueness of one's struggle and the fearful rage of one's past is a guaranteed form of cultural death.

aimai

"By all means, gay-rights advocates can continue to compare marriage equality to the system of segregation, and to compare those who support civil unions but not marriage equality to hard-core segregationists. But they shouldn't expect anyone who knows anything about segregation, or anyone with family members who actually remember segregation, to listen to them."

Absolutely correct. In fact this entire post is a home run. Thanks.

Aimai,

Russell was not an accomodationist. He was a racist with an accomodationist demeanor. Mike Huckabee is a more accurate comparison.

A. Serwer needs to get over himself.

Ezra, good solid post.

Aimai: Gay marriage = black chattel slavery. Your kidding, right!?! They are permitted to hold a job, own property, live where they chose, vote, etc, etc. There are no laws preventing gay people from doing such things. That is the exact sentiment Ezra attempted to dispel.

Obama does not support gay marriage, but he favors civil unions. In fact, that is the same principle that Warren supports. We will see his policy inclinations when he actually becomes president and takes action.

A. Serwer, another 4,5,6,. Keep em coming!

Courtney, it is not quite right to say that there is no comparison between slavery or segregation and the treatment of gay people in our society. The fact is that the similarities are many and deep. It was not that long ago that being found out to be gay meant that you lost your family, your job and quite possibly your life. That is still true in a great many places in our country today. Gay teens attempt suicide at four times the rate of their heterosexual counterparts. And the climate that leads to these evils is perpetuated by people like Rick Warren who compare gay marriage to pedophilia and incest and insist that the only way to heaven for gay people is to repent and be celibate.

The original post is dead on when it says that "Gay couples being denied their right to marry doesn't have to be exactly like segregation to be wrong." But I don't think anyone is saying it is EXACTLY like segregation. The point is that is wrong for basically the same reasons segregation was wrong. People should not be treated less favorably in the eyes of the law simply because of an entirely natural difference that has no bearing on their ability to contribute to society.

What did all those black folks in the Golden State recently have to say about this notion?

"By all means, gay-rights advocates can continue to compare marriage equality to the system of segregation, and to compare those who support civil unions but not marriage equality to hard-core segregationists. But they shouldn't expect anyone who knows anything about segregation, or anyone with family members who actually remember segregation, to listen to them. In fact, they can expect to alienate them fully. Cloud has said that to overturn Prop 8 activists will need to "reach out" to African-American voters. But I would counsel that comparing the first black president of the United States to a segregationist is not the best way to do that."

The truth often alienates people. The truth often hurts.

When Barack Obama supports full and equal civil rights under the law for all people you will have a point, until then you do not. It's that simple.

Perhaps people have forgotten what Brown v. Board of Education decided. Specifically, it overturned a previous ruling of the Supreme Court that "separate but equal" was an appropriate standard in the educational system. Yet the "moderates" are arguing that "separate but equal" is good enough for gay relationships.

My wife had a friend in graduate school, a talented professional photographer, who made the mistake of falling in love with a fellow student who was from New Zealand, here on a temporary visa. They were a committed couple and lived together. Her visa expired when she completed her degree. They were so desperate to stay together that after other arrangements failed, they resorted to a sham marriage, and were found out. I'm not certain of the final resolution since we lost touch, but I believe that the partner was expelled from the country. ICE doesn't care about civil unions.

When Obama was born, his parents' marriage was illegal in most states. Had it been put up to a vote, the public would have proudly declared Obama a bastard.

I should clarify that the lesbian couple I described asked a gay male friend to marry the Kiwi. Unfortunately they picked someone who was extremely obviously gay, but their options were limited.

I stand by everything I wrote. It is sheer historical ignorance that causes some to argue that anti gay discrimination is not just as bad, in its own way, as anti black discrimination post de jure slavery. Homosexuality is still *criminal* and punished by *death* throughout the world. As someone pointed out up above gays have been, and still are, fired from their jobs. Except where "sexual orientation" has been added to protected categories you can lose your job, lose your home, have your children taken away from you during a divorce, etc...etc...etc...Those are all human rights that, unless we fight for them, don't apply to GLBT people. OK? Civil rights don't mean *african american* rights, they mean human rights to full participation in civil society. People who get hung up on words, and controlling the words used to describe the real and crushing burdens that are placed on their fellow humans, are just missing the point.

I have nothing against Rick warren and the other religious nuts and conservatives who really hate a certain behavior. The people who willingly and wittingly voted against equal marriage in california have my total support for their bigotry within their own churches, private schools, and family units. I myself never sit down and break bread willingly with a republican or a conservative if I don't have to. But what that has to do with denying civil rights to another human being I don't know. It was wrong when white people in power did it to african americans, and it is wrong when a toxic combination of african americans, asians, and white people who are in a heterosexual marjority deny it to their own children, relatives, friends and neighbors. Why is that so difficult to understand? Call it what you will. Hang on to your special history of grievance. Its wrong under any rubric or no rubric. Historically, politically, and legally however if we are to fight back against discrimination against a minority, the criminalization of a minority, the forced separation and segregation of a minority from the majority we are *going to end up using the legal and political language available to us* because we are arguing about the application of the same damn set of constitutional law and principles to the same type of person--a disfavored minority.

aimai

I realize I may be talking to myself at this point but it bears writing. Yesterday Ken Starr and the prop 8 people went to court to argue that the 18,000 marriages entered into by gay couples in CA should be nullified. That's right, the amendment to the CA constitution should apply retroactively to those couples and their unions should be forcibly dissolved. That sounds strange, on a number of levels. And it is. But its not really all that new. People who don't know the fucking history of segregation and discrimination in this country don't grasp that this was a common problem of non-white, non african american people's at an earlier political and legal stage. Specifically, in CA, Indian men from the South Asian subcontinent, Sikhs, were brought in as workers. They were denied the right to import wives and children since they were classified for the purposes of immigration and naturalization as "non white/african" (there is a ton of case law on this including a case where a lebanese woman was finally ruled "white" on the grounds that she spoke french). Those men once inside this country couldn't marry *african american* women because the were classified as "white" but also couldn't marry white women because they were classified as "non white". The solution was obvious and many of them ended up marrying mexican women as a kind of intermediate racial classification. Later when immigration laws eased up and the racial classification was dropped the new indian immigrants brought along their wives and the old indian/mexican group were socially isolated and died off, miserably in between categories.

Segregation--racial or sexual--creates families that are unprotected by law, fugitive, forced and later can bust them up. Tell me that it matters whether those families are mixed black/white, indian/mexican, or male/male and female/female?

aimai

aimai is one of the most awesome commenters in the world of comments.

I agree that THIS comparison was inaccurate and stupid.

However, if your position is that comparisons between civil rights for racial minorities and civil rights for LGBT people are inherently wrong and offensive, then I cannot express my disagreement or anger thoroughly enough.

The Civil Rights movement itself involved endless historical comparisons to the past, in order to root its story in a narrative people could understand. These types of comparisons, when done appropriately, convey the moral imperative of acting to end discrimination and ensuring liberty and equality to all.

Furthermore, although the suffering and rights at stake differ in ways, in other ways they are achingly similar. Both groups have faced systematic discrimination from the Government, Society, and the Business world. Both groups have been threatened with violence and oppression. I'm not saying it's the same, but some of it -- particularly miscegenation laws and the current marriage laws in America -- is very similar.

Claims that any comparisons are "offensive" are wrong. When proponents of a set of rights try to emphasize their importance by comparing them to other rights, the proponents are obviously reiterating a belief in the importance of those other rights. They are not belittling the past or those other rights.

Indeed, claims that these comparisons are offensive suggests that LGBT rights are not as worthy or as important or as meritorious as rights of racial minorities. While people are welcome to that view, they shouldn't expect LGBT people to share it.

Finally, every person who would deny equal rights to LGBT people is equally wrong, whatever the race of the person in question. So, I agree that those who focused their ire at blacks who voted against equal rights were offensive and wrong. On the other hand, I'm tired of everyone jumping all over the LGBT community for a failure to perform more outreach to the black community, as though somehow this excuses homophobia in the black community. Indeed, it sounds a bit like blaming the victim. "Oh yes, homophobia in the black community wouldn't be a problem if the gays hadn't insisted on making comparisons to the civil rights movement."

The truth is, proponents of LGBT rights are going to have to change the minds of a lot of people who currently would deny them those rights. A lot of those people are white. A lot of them are black. All of them are currently wrong, and they need to be convinced to change their minds. But, acting as though one of these groups has more legitimate reasons for their position, because it hasn't been explained properly or politely enough, strikes me as deeply wrong on numerous levels.

The comparisons to the civil rights movements (plural) would also make sense if our LGBT community actually acted like they studied the movement rather than appropriated it for their needs. Also, the other problem that people don't seem to get is that the civil rights movement never really ended. As such people still live with the fight so treating it as some extinct historic reference.

Further, the stench of paternalism in some of the "blacks" should know better crowd and the ahistoric calls for you're either with us or against is which ignore the fierce coalition building of the various black civil rights movements is further proof that those using the comparison don't know a thing about the movement.

What makes this even more infuriating is that their are smart knowledgeable LGBT americans of color who know this history and who know civil struggle but who are outside the power structure of the LGBT movement. With that I can't be surprised by what I've seen.

Another data point here might be the reaction of Indians in South Africa when the British courts decided to invalidate all non-Christian marriages. A lot of Indians who had passively accepted treatment not much better than that of natives under apartheid were absolutely enraged at this ("reducing the status of wives to concubines", in their words). People who experienced something similar to segregation, then something similar to Proposition 8, seemed to find the latter to be worse.

Another comparison might be to untouchability--only elevated one step further to unmentionability. The winning argument for the Yes on 8 crowd seemed to be that it would force schools to acknowledge that gay couplings exist.

Cloud has his Russell analogy wrong -- today, Rick Warren is the Russell-like figure -- i.e, "...cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician (or religious leader) even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades."

In this scenario, who is Obama? He is the Lyndon Johnson figure, who needs to co-opt or move around Rick Warren/Richard Russell to make equality happen. That's what's going on here, folks.

We continue to ignore the fact that Obama has brought political strategizing to a completely new level, far above what we've seen from past politicians. For a year we've been second-guessing his moves, and virtually all of them have worked out. This one will too, I bet.

Check out:

Identity, Race, Racism, Labels & Shortcuts: Hopefully Not a Remake of the Same Song, But a Somewhat Familiar, Yet Still Engaging, New Tune

on www.thetalentedmasses.com

Check out:

Identity, Race, Racism, Labels & Shortcuts: Hopefully Not a Remake of the Same Song, But a Somewhat Familiar, Yet Still Engaging, New Tune

Check out:

Identity, Race, Racism, Labels & Shortcuts: Hopefully Not a Remake of the Same Song, But a Somewhat Familiar, Yet Still Engaging, New Tune

on www.thetalentedmasses.com

I am curently organizing a Detroit "boycott" movement. We should not purchase from the Detroit auto makers. The initiative has been well received thus far and I am working to spread the word. Please help in our efforts to correct the Detroit scandal.

طيور الجنة