Time For A Straight Answer
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Thursday, March 15 2007, 10:48AM
Do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think that homosexuality is immoral? That's the question that neither candidate seems willing to answer in the wake of the remarks by Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace this week. Pace unapologetically characterized homosexuality as "immoral" during an interview with the Chicago Tribune. His comments were quickly criticized by many observers, including Clinton and Obama, both of whom support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. But when asked by reporters if they personally felt that homosexuality is immoral, both candidates dodged the question. That's unacceptable.
I have supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the past, and I may support them again. But I would like each candidate to give a simple answer to a simple question before we go forward. I've worked in politics for more than 20 years and worked on two presidential campaigns, and I know all about the delicate dance it takes to win the Democratic presidential nomination and still be competitive to win the general election in the fall. But I also know that gays and blacks and other minorities are often the first groups sacrificed when it comes time to appeal to middle America. So before we start this waltz again, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, please give us a straight answer.
Clinton's Dodge
When Hillary Clinton was asked if homosexuality is immoral, she deflected the question into a policy statement about General Pace. "General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desperately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we now have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."
But is it immoral, the reporter repeated. "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."
A very political response that doesn't answer the question.
Obama's Dodge
Unfortunately, Senator Obama's response was not much better. Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving a firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homosexuality is immoral.
Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."
Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."
Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.
Once again, another major candidate does not answer the question.
How Not To Answer A Question
When former Senator John Edwards was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room whether he agrees with Pace's comments, Edwards replied, "I don't share that view." Late last night, Senator Clinton released a statement where she followed suit: "I disagree with what [General Pace] said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."
That was a very clever reply, leaving some ambiguity about whether Clinton disagreed with General Pace about the "immorality" issue or the policy issue. But I'm not sure it will be enough to quiet her critics. Also last night, a spokesman for Mr. Obama told the New York Times that the senator believes that homosexuality is not immoral. That's a positive development, but why did it take so long to say that?
In contrast to the answers from Clinton and Obama, it was a Republican senator who best responded to General Pace. Senator John Warner of Virginia told reporters he “respectfully but strongly” disagreed that homosexuality is immoral. Now that's a clear answer.
There are two schools of thought out there about how public officials should conduct themselves on issues of homosexuality. One school of thought -- I'll call it the "tolerance" approach -- says that public figures are free to believe what they want as long as they don't say anything in public that's anti-gay. Another school of thought -- let's call it the "acceptance" approach -- asks public figures not just to tolerate gays and lesbians but to accept or affirm them.
I understand both viewpoints. As a results-oriented person, I'm more concerned about the policy than the personality, so I want public officials to do the right thing, even if they don't believe the right thing. But from a practical perspective, I also know that public officials are far less likely to do the right thing -- especially on controversial issues -- if they don't really believe in the reason for it.
Lessons From President Clinton
If you think a group of people is immoral because of who they are or what they do, then you're more likely to sacrifice that group of people on the altar of political expediency. I think that may be what happened with President Bill Clinton when he caved into right-wing pressure on the gays in the military issue back in his first term.
I was there when the President decided his policy, and I was seriously disappointed. A few days before he made his final decision, I wrote a memo for him about gays in the military. Early one morning I received a phone call from George Stephanopoulos on board Air Force One. George was with the president on the way back from Asia and asked me to pull together everything that Bill Clinton had ever said about the issue in his remarks as president and as a candidate.
I went to the office, put together the memo, and used it to argue that he had to lift the ban on gays in the military. At the very least, he had to interpret the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a "uniform" way to apply to homosexual and heterosexual misconduct. But my intervention failed and President Clinton instead announced the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy that most Democrats now acknowledge was a mistake.
I had already left the Clinton Administration when President Clinton signed the gratuitously anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, but I think his willingness to sign that bill may have reflected his conflicted views about homosexuality. If he felt that homosexuality was immoral, it was no big deal to sign a law taking away our rights. But if he didn't feel that way, I doubt -- or at least I hope -- he wouldn't have signed the bill.
Let The Democrats Be Democrats
One of the things that troubles me about the Democrats is when they're not willing to be Democrats. I believe the American people are more progressive than the politicians give them credit, but people need leadership, direction and education by their public officials. When the Democratic politicians avoid the gay issue instead of confronting it directly, they give ammunition to their opponents who use it against them. And they miss an opportunity to sow the seeds for a more accepting America that will support the Democratic agenda.
Even when the public doesn't agree with the Democratic viewpoint, it still makes sense to articulate and explain the viewpoint. That's the way to help educate and move people who are on the fence. The public respects strong leadership, even when they disagree with the viewpoints expressed. That's why Ronald Reagan was so well liked even though most Americans disagreed with him on his policies. If the Democrats stand up for what they believe, explain it to the public, and defend it without apology, they will win the election. But if they try to dodge their way around the delicate issues, they do a disservice not only to the affected constituencies but also to their party and their country.
Comments conceal
Derrick from Philly
March 15 2007, 11:16AM
I think liberals who run for president as middle-of-the-road centrists are immoral. BE YOURSELVES, Barack and Hillary. As of now, it's John Edwards in the Pennsylvania Primary getting my vote. The ancestors will just have to forgive me.
MidwestGuy
March 15 2007, 11:34AM
Does it really matter if they think homosexuality is immoral? What exactly would that change? I know many people (family included) who think that way but they also believe I should be treated fairly. IMO, acknowledging its "immorality" is irrelevant. Derrick..interesting..why John Edwards of all people?
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 12:20PM
Honestly, if Rudy Giuliani was more liberal and sensitive to color prejudice in society, I would vote for him. As a 26-year-old black gay male, I do not understand why I like Giuliani's persona and style. He also takes on gay prejudice much stronger than Clinton and Obama. John Edwards is decent, but he believe in letting 'the state decide' our various social issues. That is the only time I disagree with him.
Hermit
March 15 2007, 1:49PM
The fact that someone who aspires to the highest office in this land cannot state decisively how he/she feels about this issue speaks volumes. Homosexuality is not immoral and the answer to a question regarding this should not be spun or dodged. This speaks to a basic human right and how can you defend that right if you do not beleive in it's legitimacy in the first place. Surely this is appalling. People, I admonish you to elect people who represent your interests and basic rights.
Sophia33
March 15 2007, 2:18PM
Mel that is something I agree with. I was watching "Hardball" a few months back and Chris Matthews asked Pat Buchannan about Guliani. Pat then tried to bring up the fact that he had a gay roommate in college and dress in "drag" as a Rockette for a NY benefit. He was basically trying to imply that Guliani was gay as a slight (More subtle than Ann Coulter of course). He then went on to say, well he is too liberal. That got me thinking. He may get my vote to. I am usually a staunch dem, but if Guiliani is more pro-gay rights and more pro-minority equity, he might get my vote.
James
March 15 2007, 2:21PM
I think it's completely irrelevant whether or not Clinton, Obama or any other politician believes homosexuality to be a sin. As a gay black man, my only question is how are my rights going to be protected???? I'm not talking about a civil ceremony, but the exact same benefits and challenges that my heterosexual friends have. The question needing to be presented to politicians is NOT their own personal belief system - - because I don't think anyone should be penalized for feeling the way the feel - - but how they will ensure equal rights for all.
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 2:39PM
Sophia, that is my only concern with Giuliani; where does he stand on issues such as color prejudice. As mayor of New York, a lot of black people did not respect him because he always took sides with police officers on every case(except the Abner Louima police torture case). Also, I do not know if this is true, but I read somewhere that he made some insensitive comments, regarding the tactics police use to decrease violence in NYC. I do respect his respect for me as a gay person; I also hope he respect me and the prejudice I SOMETIMES face, as a black person. Although, I sometimes get so upset with homophobic straight black people, I don't really care about teaming up with them. They hate us for who we are. The term, 'race' is a social construction.
bubba
March 15 2007, 2:42PM
Keith has to be too smart to expect a "straight answer" from these people, right? I'll assume so anyway. The only answer you need is their refusal to support gay marriage. Obama himself said he didn't think the country is ready for it. I guess we're not a part of this country! As much as the tide has turned with anti-conservative dissent, the democrats still do ANYTHING to play their ideology for the most middle-of-the-road, unthreatening effect. Republicans have ruled with fear, and they counter by being absolutely scared.
Don't get me started on Giuliani. He teamed up with every one of his police commisioners to downplay the criminal assaults and murders of black men suffered at the hands of the NYPD during his tenure. That gestapo mentality is the reason why Bloomberg anticipates the New York Riots if the Sean Bell trial yields no justice. Rudy did was he was SUPPOSED to do after 9/11 and he'll get no special recognition for it from me. It's no wonder his own kids think he's a bastard.
Luke
March 15 2007, 3:47PM
I don't need nor want a straight answer on this issue, this is all about politics, and if they say it isn't, they will doom their campaign which is precarious to begin with since I don't think that either can get a Deep South state, which is needed to win, or any of the so called border states in the Bible belt. its easy for people to demand that they take a stand, I don't see that need. I just don't want to see another anti gay, anti black Repugnant in the WH. Demanding a pro gay candidate will get us Rudy, who may be pro white gay, but, he sure isn't going to be pro black gay or anything else as his disdain for anything black is well documented, with young black men being really annoying to him and his Fascist ways.
Faux news would eat them alive, along with the so called Christian crowds, who like them or not do one thing, turn out and vote against anything gay related.
Karmatic
March 15 2007, 4:07PM
What Luke said...................
Midwest Guy
March 15 2007, 4:37PM
Herm...whether homosexuality is immoral is a matter of opinion. I'm hoping that we are not at the point where we are voting for politicians solely on ONE issue. That's ridiculous...especially when "we" criticized those who did the same when voting in the '04 elections. That is, how foolish it was for people to go to the polls in support of Bush bcz of his stance on gay marraige. We shouldn't make the same mistake
Sophia...Pat did not imply that Guiliani is gay. I saw the same interview. What he was referring to was why he does not think Guiliani would win the nomination. Right now, as w/Obama he is the GOP rock star. So Pat was speaking from that p.o.v.
Mel...your ONLY concern is where he stands on color/prejudice issues? Remember he actually is a republican and at the end of the day, he will have to do the bidding of his constituency. So, doesn't matter how "he" feels about.
Mike
March 15 2007, 4:55PM
Guess what? The New York Times Political Blogger just published statements from both candidates on the matter.
March 15, 2007, 3:02 pm
Clinton Clarifies Remarks on Gays
By Patrick Healy
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just released this statement on whether homosexuality is immoral, after being pressed by gay rights organizations to clarify her initial remarks.
“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.”
March 15, 2007, 4:09 pm
Obama Echoes Clinton on Morality and Gays
By The New York Times
The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are in sync not only on the geopolitical importance of Selma, Ala., but also on the issue of whether h
cmoney
March 15 2007, 5:24PM
I hope that the Dems don't get caught up in this and lose another election like they did on the gay marriage question. The whole "Gay issue" is an albatross for the Dems. Despite what we want to hear, the reality is that if they want to get elected and be in a position to DO something about gay rights, they need to keep quiet. I'll put it this way: no Republican is going to do anything for gay rights. Not a single one. Don't get me started on Giuliani. He is a racist to the core. He authorized the get tough policies of the NYPD that resulted in the deaths, brutalization and false arrests of thousands of Black men and he has blood on his hands. Also Guiliani talks all that pro-Gay crap, but he will cave to the conservatives in his party and sacrifice the gays to prove his conservative credentials and get nominated. He ain't shit! Never was and never will be.
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 5:49PM
I'd rather be in the same room with Rudy Giuliani than homophobes who look like me. Who agree with me? Go visit planet.com and read some of the comments relating to every gay topic. People are advertising our extermination in the name of God and you guys are so quick to side with the straight 'brothers;' guys that don't even want you in the same room with them. Giuliani is an angel compared to the people on that site and I don't know if Rudy is a racist or not. I don't feel oppressed for my skin color, but I definitely feel oppressed for my sexual orientation.
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 6:32PM
Cmoney, I was born and raise in NEW YORK. I take the subway and buses EVERYDAY. Do you think those 'brothers' really give a damn about you? Again, go visit blackplanet.com and start a gay topic. You got lunatics on that site calling us child molestors and every other word. I debated this one black dude and he even said that gay people parents are perverts, and he wish death on us in the name of God. Go debate them and see how they try to dehumanize you and your family members. One lady became so upset with me defending my sexuality, she actually started makeing dehumanizing accusations about my family members. Do you want me to send you the email someone sent me? I can't post it on this site because of how evil it was. So, guys, don't be so quick to side with people who don't even consider you one of them. So don't defend those brothers man. If Rudy is a racist, I will not vote for him. But, I will not side with folks who I know don't like me. Oh no, this ain't high school man.
cmoney
March 15 2007, 7:55PM
Mel: You are the first Black person I have ever heard defend Rudy G. It's even more surprising considering you live in NY. People on the internet don't scare me--NY Cops do. Like the ones who shot Mr. Bell 50 times when he was leaving a bachelor party. I have never heard Hillary or Barack make any anti-gay comments, so I don't know where you get off saying I'm siding with people who dont consider me one of them. You think Rudy considers you one of "his kind"? Also, I'm am defending the brothers. Just because people don't agree with you politically or socially does not give the police to shoot them down in the street, falsely arrest them, harass them, beat them up and violate their civil liberties. No one deserves that, not even your worst enemy. Remember, it could be you or your male relatives. So no, I have no respect for Rudy G. and would vote for a homophobe that respects the law before I would vote for an out of control racist that cheated on his 3 wives.
MidwestGuy
March 15 2007, 8:42PM
Mel..I'm confused here. Who are the homophobes you are referring to? And "siding w/those who don't consider..." is referring to who? I don't think that anyone here has even remotely insinuated that they side w/homophobes? Last I checked Rudy was "straight" and you side w/him simply bcz you haven't heard him say anything about you. I'm lost...
The conversation (for the most part) was about which of the three were more "gay friendly" and who would you support. None of them have proven to be homophobes and thinking that it is immoral surely doesn't make you one. Your experiences have been awful..and so have most of us.
Anonymous
March 15 2007, 8:52PM
In fact, both Clinton and Obama just released statements that homosexuality is not immoral thereby answering the call to speak out directly and unambiguously (see today's NYTimes's electoral blog).
Senator Clinton: “I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.”
Senator Obama: "As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.”
chicagoangel
March 15 2007, 9:19PM
If any of those candidates believe homosexuality is immoral based on religious views and how they were brought up as children, its nothing wrong with that. I would still vote for them if I felt they would be the better candidate. It doesnt mean they hate and wish us to hell, it just means they dont agree with it and they have that right.
2008 for Hilary!!
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 9:44PM
I just typed I'm from New York and you trying to give me a lecture about the cops might harass me and my family? Do you know how offensive I take your comment, dude? My parents are black folks from the DEEP south. I work with black children, EVERYDAY. Please don't try to insult my intelligence as it relates to police brutality. First, you guys are gay men, FIRST, and MOST black heterosexual people will let you know this. When I typed you are siding with people who don't even consider you one of them, I should of have typed, why are you acting like you are a heterosexual black person. Huh? As a black gay person, I definitely speak out against police brutality and prejudice bastard police officers. Man, this is about us black gay men, first. We need to stick up for one another and stop speaking for all black folks who don't give a you know what about you. So, why you guys try to figure me out, I don't understand why you embrace black heterosexual brothers. THE DUDES HATE YOU worse than Rudy.
cmoney
March 15 2007, 10:24PM
Mel: Because I am BLACK first. My heterosexual blood brothers are BLACK. My mother is BLACK. My friends are BLACK. They love me more than Rudy ever will. Being gay does not change that fact and does not protect me from racist cops. Gay is mental and emotional. But when people see me (and you) they see a Black man. Don't forget that.
jared
March 15 2007, 11:01PM
I'm with Luke as well, I don't and nor should anyone expect a candidate to be all things to all people, its a very fie line these days with Red and Blue states. I don't want the Demo's to get caught up in this one trick pony that has kept the GOP in power for so long, gay rights when there are far more pressing issues, to me and most others, than this. I want the war in Iraq to end, I want the genocide in Darfur addressed, 200,000 murdered and hardly a peep from the GOP, other than oddly the Pat Robertson and that ilk, crime to go down, along with my taxes. There are loads of issues that have been ignored with the GOP pandering to the far right with gay rights, its time to get all the issues that affect every American on the table.
And, as for Rudy, as a black person, that would be the same as those black "church" folk that helped Bush win the last time, so, I'll go with John Edwards, who is also not a rabid homophobe. And, all of them have "moral" issues with homosexuality, no matter what they say.
candler80
March 15 2007, 11:02PM
Politics requires that you sometime dance with devil to get what you want. The nature of politics at that level requires that you run to the center and govern from the whatever side you believe. I disagree with Giuliani on the major social issues, but he has expereince from what Ive seen in running a large bureacracy. Ranking them in order..Romney, Giuliani, Newt..
Mel Smith
March 15 2007, 11:30PM
I understand and respect the fact that we must speak out against police brutality, and hope that our heterosexual brothers and sisters don't become a victim of it. See, the way I look at the present situation, homophobia is much worse than color prejudice because I personally experience homophobia more than the latter. Black heterosexuals contribute to the oppression of us as a whole and I think they oppress us more than racists do. It is easier to confront color prejudice, then it is to confront blatant homophobia. I and my family members have already dealt with pyscho police officers. Just remember that those officers also attack people of other different hues too and police brutality existed, before Rudy Giuliani became mayor. Nevertheless, I pray and hope that police brutality will end in our communities.
Tyler
March 16 2007, 8:22AM
Americans are more conservative that we give them credit for, Keith. Just because Bush's popularity is waning doesn't mean folks have moved to the left.
MidwestGuy
March 16 2007, 9:31AM
Mel..I think you're lumping a whole lotta issues into one. Obviously my experiences are vastly different than yours. I don't wear being gay on my cufflinks. In that, I am a black MAN FIRST and I have been reminded of that by my hetero counterparts. "I" have not experienced anyone telling me that I am gay FIRST.
Acting like a heterosexual black person? Je ne vous comprends pas my brother. AT ALL. Is there a such thing as acting like a homosexual black male? If there's a blueprint, I would like to study it.
If you want to have a discussion on the things that we (gay) need to do in order to support each other....I'm down w/that. But, to suggest that because we don't agree w/u that we are acting like heterosexual black people is very....interesting. I understand the myopic lens that you are looking through but I would suggest that as a whole, racism is a far greater threat than homophobia. The former scares me.
jared
March 16 2007, 10:06AM
@mel smith, wow, i feel bad for you, i am a out for over 35 years gay black man, and i can honestly say i've never dealt with the oppression that seems to have hurt you so badly from the black community on a personal level. i guess i don't have the time nor the inclination to let foolish black people or any others let me feel less human than they are. they have issues with homosexuality? its their issue. unless they pay your rent, car note or put food on your table, ignore them;. sorry, but, when i walk into any room, get on a plane or bus, the first thing people see is a black man, and since i guess i don't come off as gay, that has never come up. just be strong, not always easy when getting dissed, but, you have a right to be who you are, and let the bigots deal with their stupidity, but, sorry, racism is far worse that homophobia to me.
Derrick from Philly
March 16 2007, 10:50AM
It's kinda' obvious that Mel's outrage is not all about his personal experiences. He feels outrage every time he reads, hears, sees a gay person being persecuted.
And once and for all, looking "gay" can range from a drag queen to some sensitive, soft-looking guy who doesn't fit the "in the hood" look--and that may depend on what hood you live. There have been young gays bashed who've never worn a dress, tight pants, plucked their eye brows or worn lip gloss in their lives.
Mel's been the voice of conscience on these black gay blogs for a while. Thanks.
MidwestGuy: Edwards is talking old style Democratic populist stuff. Some folks tell me that message is dead, but it's what I believe in. The "Great Society" is unfinished business that Nixon, Reagan, and them damn Bush's deliberately f____ked up. Although, Edwards is talking about "states rights" on some issues--that aint good.
kaccompany
March 16 2007, 10:50AM
March 15, 2007, 4:09 pm
Obama Echoes Clinton on Morality and Gays
By The New York Times
The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are in sync not only on the geopolitical importance of Selma, Ala., but also on the issue of whether homosexuality is moral or not. This afternoon, the Obama campaign released the following statement:
“As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.”
kaccompany
March 16 2007, 11:30AM
March 15, 2007, 3:02 pm
Clinton Clarifies Remarks on Gays
By Patrick Healy
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just released this statement on whether homosexuality is immoral, after being pressed by gay rights organizations to clarify her initial remarks.
“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.”
Mel Smith
March 16 2007, 11:31AM
I don't have a skin inferiority complex. I walk in a room with my head up, just like everyone elso do, and I dare someone try to disrespect me for my hue. If someone disrespect me, I will disrespect them right back. Someone who would disresect you because of your skin color is ***** trash. I'm one of these people who has been described as look like a 'dl' brother. Today, I dislike those words. No, I actually do speak from experiences. I'm not afraid of heterosexual people who look like us. See, if one of them disrespect me in a room, I would put them in their place, physically or verbally. Pleases guys, don't ignore the prejudices of our heterosexual counterparts. They really are not all that.
MidwestGuy
March 16 2007, 12:33PM
Derrick..Thanks for speaking on behalf of Mel. Fortunately, he just put into perspective...everything we needed to know. If you feel as if he's the voice of conscience then ok...what that conscience is I'm unsure. He doesn't "look nor act gay," he'll disrespect those who disrespects him and seems to have great antipathy for heterosexuals.
Whose conscience that represents I'm unsure. But, "what I know for sure" is that he doesn't speak for me or anyone else I know.
Mel Smith
March 16 2007, 12:46PM
MidwestGuy, that's ok. I don't let people disrespect me but if you do, fine. So be it. You damn right I have problem with homophobic heterosexual people who contribute to our oppression. I have been a member of this website for a few years. Most regulars on this site know how I feel about people who bully others.
MidwestGuy
March 16 2007, 1:21PM
Mel..well I'm not a regular and based on the conversation thus far. You are completly irrational. This entire article has absolutely nothing to do w/gay people being bullied. It seems as if your views haven't changed w/the times.
Derrick from Philly
March 16 2007, 1:45PM
Why do I call Mel the "voice of concience"? Let's take two scenarios:
A very masculine black homosexual man(Philly police officer maybe) has a thing for street hustler thug types. He gets into a fight with his thug lover. The thug stabs him to death, then uses the "gay panic" defense.
A black drag queen is beaten to death by a gang of thugs(probably a few DLs among them).
Mel will be outraged by both events. I'm afraid most black homosexuals will say, "drag queens set themselves up for that kind of ending."
Aint much tolerance for gay diversity among black or white homos, and that's been a great disappointment.
And if someone says, "I have nothing against feminine males,I'm just not sexually attracted to them" Who the hell asked you to be? Just tolerance from those who have experienced intolerance is enough.
MidwestGuy
March 16 2007, 2:22PM
DfP..I'm sorry but based on what Mel has presented here...why are these scenarios relevant again? I would be just as outraged so what's your point. "I" don't have anything against feminine males. "I" don't understand the need to act as if you are anything other than what you were born - a male. "I" am NOT attracted (sexually or otherwise) to them AT ALL. But, regardless of my feelings, I wouldn't want them to be treated unfairly because of the god in ME. It's that simple
Derrick from Philly
March 16 2007, 3:18PM
Some straight folks sincerely do not understand the need for men to have sex with men, but it's a fact of life, isn't it? So is gender role disatisfaction--for thousands of years. No one expects gay men to understand the transgendered experience, but we do expect tolerance from gay men. Why? Because they have experience hatred because of their natural orientation.
My point is that gay men are prejudiced (a stronger word would be more accurate) against a segment of the gay world. Through reading his postings over the years, Mel doesn't seem to have that prejudice.
My bringing up the infamous, "I have nothing against feminine males..." statement is because gay men always say that when this issue comes up. I always have to control myself and gently say, "the feeling may be mutual, brotha'"
So, yes, black people seem to be more vocal in their homophobia, and gay men are the same in their effemophobia.
MidwestGuy
March 16 2007, 4:09PM
DfP..Apparently this site must not be for me. I don't know Mel's 'history' on this board and don't need you to explain it to me. I am basing my comments solely on what "he" has discussed here on THIS article! Not years ago, not last week, not months ago.
Now you're talking about gay effemophobia? Hunh? What exactly does that have to do w/the cost of Levi's in Texas? Are we talking about tolerance, acknowledging whether homosexuality is immoral, which candidate you're voting for, or now..gay men and their phobias? None seem to be what Mel (that person you're defending) is focusing on. As evident on THIS topic...Mel doesn't make sense and no defense of that is required.
candler80
March 16 2007, 5:07PM
Do ya'll remember the whole light skinned dark skinned debate a while back. To white folks we are all the same. The same thing applies here coming from a PROUD hetero lol...From thug to queen all of you are the same to me.
Mel Smith
March 16 2007, 10:13PM
Thank you Derrick from Philly. You words are always appreciated. Midwestguy, as a whole, we suffer from internalized self hatred, due to the heterosexual power structure. Thus, you have brothers talking about, "masculine only dudes." A lot of it is due to internalized hatred of our own sexuality. We like to talk about how we like "dl looking men because we're masculine." Yet, a lot of us are feminine, ourselves.
Mel Smith
March 16 2007, 11:04PM
Whenever we are dealing with topics relating to homophobia, it is appropriate to approach it from various angles. Topics and subtopics dealing with homophobia is all related to one another because the subject is, 'homophobia.' So, the politicians response to their belief about homosexuality is the topic/subject. Homophobia in ALL of America is the problem. And as a gay black man, it is definitely appropriate that I type about homophobia in my community. Of course it is all related to the above topic.
Tee_Tyme1
March 19 2007, 2:03PM
We have to understand that our political officials are elected to serve "WE THE PEOPLE". It is unfair to ask Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to express their personal opinion on Gay Rights. It is our time to ask the them about Protected EQUAL RIGHTS for all Americans. Dr. King's mission for Civil Rights is not exclusive to one race or group, but to protect to best interest of everyone who is characterized as a minority. The issue of Gay Rights is a distraction to the importance of all Americans having EQUAL RIGHTS, regardless of orientation.
Da
March 20 2007, 4:48AM
In the interest of fairness, the media and the gay community should have requested & highlighted answers from all candidates in the running.
Why put democrats under the spot, as if "democrat = gay rights?"
It's counterproductive..and it lets other candidates free of having to answer if it's tolerable for a general of the world's biggest army to emit judgement calls on sections of the population.
But in case anyone was interested in seeing the other side:
"Republican Candidates Dodge Homosexuality Question"
(Bloggernista blog)
http://tinyurl.com/2o9mgf
Comment Preview