The Big Gay Debate

Maxim Thorne
August 10 2007, 2:15AM

The GBLT and AFL-CIO debates, Hillary dismays, Barack inspires

My friend who is afraid to be named said to me "Once again, Hillary Clinton, shows herself to the the lobbyist favored, Bush-Cheney lite candidate of the democratic candidates". Hmmm. It is true her shocking statement this week at the AFL-CIO debate is exactly the opposite of what most of us want: a free, open and transparent America: "You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for President, because it has consequences across the world," Gosh, George Orwell, here's new material.

Tonight, well, at the HRC/LOGO Presidential Candidates debates we got a taste of what she thinks: and it appears that she's a person who will throw us under bus (another friend's take), under the guise that she was avoiding throwing us under the train.

I doubt that there is a Lgbt person in America who shares her belief that the problem with her husband's "Don't ask, don't tell policy" (DADT) is that it was "applie

Anonymous
August 10 2007, 2:38AM

As I said in another thread on this site last week, Richardson is covertly, and now overtly, homophobic. My God, he truly showed his true colors.

And, like Maxim Thorne, I believe in my heart that Clinton (Hillary, that is) is a profoundly slick, conservative shill who will answer to the corporate interests that will no doubt get her elected. And, while he inspires and really has his heart in the right place, all the charisma in the world won't get Obama elected.

In the sea of all this there is only one candidate that walks the walk, talks the talk and consistently makes perfect sense: DENNIS KUCINICH.

Why, for the life of me, won't people see that D.K. is the best and least egotistical candidate by far?

But in a greed-obsessed, corporate-run, military enabled, deeply racially segregated, homophobic oligarchy, the best guy usually loses hard, even if he runs.

Mikey
August 10 2007, 4:09AM

I think Bill Richardson really fucked up at tonight's debate. And sure he might have a good track record of being gay friendly but all that kind of flew out the window at his comment of being gay was a choice. Also he was stuttering and stammering a whole lot. I mean you read blogs and posts on LOGO and the Huffington Post they all blast Richardson for that comment so I really think he hurt himself with that, but I guess we'll find out more once the media latches on to that, cause they more than likely will. Again I gotta say Dennis Kucinich was the best one. I think the thing that makes Hillary and Barack so appealing is they are great speakers and good debaters. I think Mike Gravel did good but he could've said a lot more. What could he have said I don't know, but I felt he could've said more. But overall it was Dennis I liked the most.

Nyah Molineaux
August 10 2007, 5:35AM

Keith, the two quotes I was screaming throughout the entire debate was :

"Where is Keith Boykin?" and "Where is Jasmyne Cannick?"

Keith, I thought the debate was very insightful but I thought both of you could have enhanced the debate. But I guess both of you are too pro-black for the LOGO debate.

But on the debate here are my insights:

1. Bill Richardson: Why doesnt he just quit running for president. I use to have respect for him, but after last night he can go to hell. It would have been nice to have the first Hispanic President, but oh well.

2.John Edwards: At first I was like "Poor Baby" because he is going into the den of lions. But I wish he would have stuck with his position that his faith was the reason why he was against gay marriage.

Other candidates:
I love Barack, Hillary is so,so, Dennis and Mike are the purists.

Well Keith, type to you later.

Andre
August 10 2007, 9:33AM

Realistically speaking, gay people are still a minority and how many of us really get out and vote? A candidate who may get the Democratic nomination will never come out in full support of 100% equality for gays and lesbians. Only the ones who have no chance of becoming president will say what we want to hear. It is politics folks like it or not. Having said what I just said, we still dont need anyone who is going to go against us such as the current administration..leaving well enough alone speaks volumes in comparison

Kevin
August 10 2007, 10:16AM

Dennis is the only candidate out the Democrats or Republicans who proposes a NON-for profit healthcare plan. He is the only candidate who wants to get us out of abusive trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFATA and other trade agreements that abuse worker’s rights. He is the only candidate who has been against the Iraq war since its inception, but who also has voted against the war and voted against its funding consistently.

He is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has voted against the Patriot Act and who wants to repeal it. He is the only candidate who lives by the Constitution and upholds the oath he takes for office! He is the only candidate who wants to preserve our civil liberties and privacy. He is the only candidate (other than Kravel) who supports full on GAY MARRIAGE. I mean come on people how can you not support this man? We don’t have to choose between the less of the two evils. We can make the right decision right NOW by supporting Dennis Kucinich for the presidency.

Nathan James
August 10 2007, 10:46AM

I thought the candidates made a poor showing last night. Particularly o the marriage issue, which every forward-thinking Democrat should support. Bill richardson just about made the Republicans' case on gays for thewm, when he said that homosexuality is a choice. It was frightening to hear that from a leading Dem. Hillary blew it on DADT, this after her "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight" remark a few weeks ago.

Except for Kucinich and Gravel, every other candidate reaffirmed the second-class status of the LGBT community last night. It was disgusting. Keith, as a member of President Clinton's cabinet, and seeing the dithering performances of the Dems last night, could you honestly say you would vote for Hillary, or Edwards, or even Obama, given their unwillingness to support fully, the needs of the gay community?

Cocoa Rican
August 10 2007, 10:59AM

They were all very eloquent AND very eloquently said they don't agree with gay marriage. Equal, but separate was the theme and I don't feel that the theory is acceptable. We need to be steadfast in demanding EQUAL - period.

Anonymous
August 10 2007, 11:06AM

Nathan James, you're right.

Everyone but Kucinich (Gravel was subdued) had lapses in their support for basic rights:

- Full marriage rights and their thousands (literally) of benefits.

- Basic federal right to fair treatment in housing and employment. Obama spoke about hate crimes but, as for me, as someone who has been discriminated against on jobs for looking and acting outside of sexual norms I think discrimination in housing and employment is far more prevalent than violent hate crimes. That's why the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (EDNA), which would prohibit employers from using an individual’s sexuality as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation, is so damn important. EDNA would even protect closeted Republican staffers!

Why in this day and age are we begging for the same rights as others?

These aren't even special rights?!!

It's like this even even the 21st century!!!

Antwan
August 10 2007, 11:20AM

Boring and a waste of time, none of them said anything that meant anything and since they all know that if they come out for gay marriage, they are doomed in this country politically and none of them have the backbone to take a chance. As for Kucnich and Gravel being for gay marriage, big whoop its not as if either has a chance of gettin nominated. Hillary? As fake as a $3 bill. Obama? Clueless. LOGO? Edwards? Right words for particular group. Richardson? Who really know. Could they have found anymore dull people to run this? Why wasn't there a black person there? Sorry Mr Capehart just didn't do it or fit the bill.

The glbt commuity is large and diverse, too bad the issues of this commuinty weren't covered, just the same ones the media always think of rich, buff white bois, sorry this whole thing was a waste of time.

Gary Paul
August 10 2007, 11:26AM

There was a lot of tap dancing on LOGO's minstrel show last night, in whiteface, in blackface, and more importantly, in two-face. Are any of the leading candidates actually listening to what's coming out of their mouths? Do they even know how to just answer the damn questions?

While I have not and do not intend to follow these co-called debates too closely, I felt like this one was important obviously). It strayed from usual the dog-and-pony-shows that have been trotted out before us. Dennis Kucinich shined; Mike Gravel was refreshing, and the rest was the same ol' crap in a brand new bottle.

By the way, I totally agree with NYA--that Keith would have been an excellent moderator for last night's proceedings. I hope LOGO takes note of that fact.

Blue
August 10 2007, 11:32AM

I didn't even fuck with it, because I knew they would be saying nothing of merit. I'm not surprised by any of what I've heard.

MidwestGuy
August 10 2007, 11:47AM

I watched the debates and it was as I expected it to be. Don't say too much without saying too little.

I agree with Obama regarding the semantics of the whole marriage vs. civil unions thing. I also agree w/Richardson on the difficulty in getting an actual marriage law passed. Edwards, Clinton and eventually Richardson---eh.

We should not hold our breath waiting for these politicians to rightfully acknowledge that their "faith" is behind their opposition to gay marriage. We already know that as the reason. The acknowledgment or lack thereof matters not to me. I really do not care.

What matters to me is that gays are able to have the same legal rights and privs as hetero. If the only reasonable way to do that is through granting civil unions then I am all for it. We can argue that this as a human/civil rights issue. However, if we continue to get caught up in a web of terminology, we may not be happy with the outcome. I will not have a stroke over not being able to say I'm "married"

Niels Teunis
August 10 2007, 11:53AM

In defense of Bill Richardson

You know, Bill Richardson had a poor evening, but I kind of like his pragmatic approach. He doesn’t want to support gay marriage because he doesn’t think he can deliver on the goods once he is president. Kucinich may be in favor, but since he doesn’t really think he’ll be president, talk is cheaper for him. Richardson does think he can deliver on domestic partnership, and I think he truly means what he says. I met a gay activist recently from New Mexico, and he confirmed what my impression is of Governor Richardson. He will actually do what he says. And he has proven that. He has certainly done more for gay rights than Obama.

Alex
August 10 2007, 12:50PM

As with the labor debate. The audience won. Hands down.

History was made, and an often voiceless people in politics had their voices be the center of attention.

bubba
August 10 2007, 12:51PM

Nathan, while there's a long way to go and the tide could still turn in his blogging, I think Keith would definitely continue to endorse the trifecta of Clinton/Edwards/Obama. As long as you excuse your own marginalization because the candidates really support gays "in your heart," you become complicit in the goal to elect the electable.

Blue
August 10 2007, 1:11PM

MidwestGuy is dead on. I agree.

Tavia
August 10 2007, 1:46PM

The attacks on Bill Richardson make no sense to me. I don't need a political leader who knows (or cares) whether my being gay is a choice or something I'm born as. I need a political leader who will focus on equality, and not, as Obama rightly put it, semantics. Richardson clearly has.

There was a huge shift in this debate that those who are carping about marriage seems to have missed: all the candidates now support civil unions with complete federal benefits. That is, they support everything but granting the semantic word 'marriage.' Sure, their reasons for resisting that word are a capitulation to homophobia, but there are gradations of wrong here. We don't need to eliminate homophobia to get equal rights.

To call civil unions 'separate but equal' is to get the historical comparison entirely wrong. The point of Jim Crow was that it was separate and UNequal. That is what DOMA represents, and the huge shift last night was that all the Democrats (and none of the Republicans) are now committed to ending it.

Jerry
August 10 2007, 2:36PM

Gay people jump on the notion that being gay is NOT a matter of choice because of political expediency. The fact is that people really don't know (Richardson is correct in that) and that it shouldn't matter.

The slamming of Richardson is misplaced (based on that comment at least) and the attacks on him for that comment are evidence of an unthinking left.

The bottom line is that he didn't say that homosexuality is a choice AND I don't believe you should have any rights. He said he thinks it is a choice and doesn't feel that the goal of same-sex marriage is achievable. I think that is actually more pro-gay than what Clinton, Obama and Edwards said.

Feeling that your homosexuality is more justifiable because you were BORN that way is not exactly an uplifting message to me and leaves your "rights" subject to a level of scientific certainty that will never come.

Kevin
August 10 2007, 2:44PM

Civil unions are discriminatory policies that inherently imply that gay relationships are separate and are not equal to heterosexual relationships, but it also adheres to the political correctness in our politics and our politicians. By saying you support civil unions you have already acknowledge that the gay community is being treated unfairly and in a discriminatory manner regarding this issue, so why not go all the way and fully support full on martial rights for gay couples to make them equal with heterosexual couples in both in title and benefits? Anyone who has read the Constitution knows already that it is wrong to deny gays their civil rights to marriage. If a politician such as Obama, Clinton, or Edwards can be so bold as to acknowledge that we deserve some sort of martial compensation then they should go all the way and support full on MARITAL rights. What really bothers me is that if they are inconsistent in this issue then I wonder what else are they inconsistent about?

Troy
August 10 2007, 3:00PM

Humppf, no questions about the legalization of $20. blowjobs for elected officials in public restrooms...Was Richardson drunk or is that his squirm with the gays look....finally can I get a refund on the waste cable TV always is??

cmoney
August 10 2007, 3:04PM

I'm glad I went to the gym instead of watching this mess. If you guys want these candidates to come out and fully support gay marriage, you might as well get ready for President Mitt Romney/Fred Thompson or (horror upon horror) Newt Gingrich in 2008. It's political suicide to support gay marriage in this backwards country and expect to be elected president. Just ask John Kerry--and he only supported civil unions!

Derrick
August 10 2007, 3:20PM

Thank you cmoney, just how do those who seem to feel the only thing in this election is gay marriage propose how they can get it done? You've got a right wing Superme Court who won't get involved, cowards in both houses who won't in order to keep the seat, etc. So what goos is more lip service? Gay marriage is a issue, but there are a whole lot mroe issues that this gay voter is concerned about.

And at least BR spoke what he felt, not the smae old tired lines that Hillary has been saying for years, and has done nothing to advace gay rights. And Obama dancing around it as well, so, keep demanding this as the only issue and hello to Mitt, who is not only anti-gay but also anti-people of color.

As usual, the lesser of evils.

Robert
August 10 2007, 3:25PM

After following all the Democratic debates so far, I find that Dennis Kucinich is becoming my candidate! The not so easy sound in the voices of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have left me with some doubts. Doubts of flip- flopping! It is time to vote from the heart with the true concept of what is American(equality, peace, and love)!

MidwestGuy
August 10 2007, 3:46PM

Kevin>you will not be allowed to "marry" anytime soon. So unless you are going to boycott the entire political success, until then, civil unions will be the best that you can get. We can parse words and play semantics but law is law. If there is a law granting gay couples all the rights and beneifts of married heterosexual couples, you probably would want to wrap your mind around that idea.

It puzzles me that some gays seem to think that the king james bible does not exist. It does and many of the principles we live by are based on it. Some people will interpret scripture one way--some the other. There is a religious (not constitutional) basis for not allowing gay marriage. It's much easier to argue law vs. religion. So we need to get used to it.

If we continue down the path of "marriage" we can very likely end up with nothing at all. Some states have already enacted laws banning marriage. How many more are we willing to sacrifice over semantics? Let's think with our heads and not emotions.

chicagoangel
August 10 2007, 3:57PM

I guess saying some people are opposed to gay marriage because of their religion isnt enough anymore.

I wonder if gays not being able to get married will stop them from spending the rest of their life with someone

Derrick
August 10 2007, 5:26PM

@Midwestguy, I agree, as long as there is no separation of church and state, and if we are going to keep it real we know there isn't, gay marriage is a good 50-100 years off. As long as you have these morons on Sunday shouting their nonsense about Adam and Eve to a crowd of dimwits and gays in the choir nodding in agreement, gay marriage ain' gonna happen, and before gay marriage, shouldn't we be seeking common laws on the books that stop these same sorts from discrimination in housing and jobs? And beating you down with no fear of the law? Seems like the gay marriage crowd is to single sighted and one issue oriented when there are more pressing issues facing the glbt.

This country is built to have someone at the bottom of the rung and to be loathed and despised and gays fit that bill. And using the Bible as a way to instill fear and hate works wonders with a public as easily duped like the vast majority of Americans are on issues of sexuality and race.

elg
August 10 2007, 5:33PM

I don't care what the Bible says or does not say about same-sex marriage. The United States government is not a theocracy. It is a democracy. Our laws are based, or are supposed to be based, on the U.S. constitution not the Bible. Most straight people today have sex before they get married (fornicators, according to the Bible), 50% of marriages end in divorce, most blacks under 40 don't get married anymore and of the blacks who do marry approximately 2/3 of their marriages end in divorce, 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock, etc.

chicagochild: "I wonder if gays not being able to get married [except in Massachusetts] will stop them from spending the rest of their lives together". Britney Spears, with her sleazy behind, doesn't have to answer that "question". No straight person does. Gays are the only group nowadays who has to answer to this so-called Bible so many of you are so in love with.

Derrick_the other one
August 10 2007, 6:30PM

For single people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, what interest should they (we) have in the politics of respectability thrust of the Human Rights Campaign? This obsession with gay and lesbian coupling is very akin to the very conservative obsession with straight coupling. Now, I am for people being in committed relationship among the spectrum of sexualities; however, when the very definition of full citizenship comes down to what appears to be sanctioned coupling, then we are no longer talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered liberation. We are, now, begging for a social institution that further hierarchizes individual based upon sanctioned coupling. As Sonia Sanchez asked, in another context, “how does this free us?”

Anonymous
August 10 2007, 7:22PM

OMG! You have got to read Charlton Copeland's excellent, troubling critique of Jonathan Capehart's (at blackprof dot com) questioning of Obama at the HRC/LOGO gay vogue ball, I mean, debate:

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/08/you_and_i_both_know_americas_b.html

MidwestGuy
August 10 2007, 7:22PM

ELG>I understand your passion but unfortunately this is America not shangri-la. Like it or not, America is a highly religious country. Many may be bigots but a religious country we are. You don't have to be in love with the bible in order to face reality.

Those people whose religious leanings are such that they will actually consider creating a constitutional law banning gay marriage are a reality in this country. It is hard to sway people from their convictions even if it is based on nothing but their "faith." The past couple of election cycles have shown us how they interpret that.

It does not make it right. It doesn't make us weak. But, at this time, if we keep playing with those folks crazy ass 'ligion we go end up shyt creek! lol

Keith I'm not sure if you read these posts but was there a reason that you were not on that panel? It does seem odd that one of the most visible black gay activists was not on it. Random thoughts>>>>>>>>>>

PhD2Be
August 10 2007, 7:42PM

I have to say, I was very disappointed with Jonathan Capehart's question to Obama about "homophobia in the Black community", or at least how it was framed. I think that we need to discuss that homophobia in black communities has a very complex history as it relates to black folks and gender and sexuality from the day we were brought to this country. I also think he framed it in a way that does not acknowledge that the homophobia in black communities is present in other racial/ethnic communities too... and that those peoples are homophobic, transphobic and heterosexist because America is homophobic, transphobic and heterosexist. Period. Let's quit this whole idea of homophobia in Black communities as if it is an anomaly and not a symptom of larger issues as perpetuated by inequality, injustice and hate in the country as a whole.

indastix
August 10 2007, 8:58PM

So Black homophobia comes from the 'white man' now? So does that explain why African (not African-American) churches have been so focused on fighting homosexuality? Frankly, I think we spend too much time blaming people and circumstances for things being the way they are. I think the country as a whole is beginning to turn a deaf ear to Black people because we continue to make excuses rather than solutions. There is homophobia in the Black community now; it needs to be dealt with. Period. There was nothing wrong with making that statement to Obama. Likewise, we know that the country is by and large opposed to gay marriage, in part due to its so called faith. Yes, this isn't a Black issue per se, but it does affect us. Rather than complaining about it being there, we need to work around it; as some have been saying here, civil unions are a good alternative for now.

DDC
August 10 2007, 9:41PM

I agree with Ph2B. And just what solutions is Obama specifically supposed to offer to combat homophobia in the black community, anyway? Do tell, all you bitter folks. What can any one straight person do besides verbally condemn a prejudice (not that that helps since people can only change when they want to). Maybe if you complaining closet cases will grow backbones and confront homophobia yourselves and challenge stereotypes, it wouldn't exist as rampantly as you claim it does. And I was waiting for this same person to ask Edwards what he was doing to combat homophobia in the white Southern community, but not surprised it didn't come.

Anonymous
August 10 2007, 9:48PM

Anyone who says that black churches are more homophobic than white ones is overlooking the legendary homophobia of the overwhelmingly white run Catholic church to say nothing of the battle over homosexuals in the white run Anglican church. And what about the white Christian conservatives and their legendary homophobia. Come on people! Stop generalizing and pathologizing black people more than we already have been!

PLEASE: blacks are no more or less homophobic than any other kind of person. It's culturally manifest in different kinds of ways but blacks are not any more hateful than anyone else.

Derrick_the other one
August 10 2007, 10:28PM

Anonymous, of course “blacks are not more anymore hateful than anyone else,” yet I believe that black people have, unfairly, a burden of proving they are less homophobic than other “groups” of people because of the historical circumstances that surround the socially constructed category “black.” I, myself, have probably required white gay, lesbian, and transgendered (queer) people to have a somehow “evolved” politics on race based on their status as queer people, yet there are many examples where they do not make the mark. This is, precisely, why Obama was posed this question.
PhD2Be, your argument sounds strangely apologist. Just because homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism are apart of the American fabric does not mean that black people are helpless inheritors of these social, economic, and psychological injustices. As I’ve stated to anonymous, it is unfair that we have this onus, but if you are a political group that continues to operate under the auspice of identity politics, then someone may ?

sandy
August 10 2007, 11:14PM

Phd2b, I was unimpressed with Mr Capehart altogather, he made Etheridge seem good. Too bad Logo couldn't have found a black gay that is actually involved in the world of gay activism, and not someone who was there for what I don't know.

Anonymous
August 10 2007, 11:29PM

Derrick (the other one): Your jargon obscures the fact the you, PhD2Be and I actually agree on most things. You misstate much of what PhD2Be said:

1) PhD2Be said that he was dissapointed in how the question was framed to Obama.

2) S/he said we need to be far more historical in our examnation of homophobia in black communities.

3) S/he said that the homophobia present in black communities "is present in other racial/ethnic communities too."

No one said anything about identity politics, transphobia, heterosexism, queerness, or any of the jargon that you introduced. That's your contribution.

It is unfair that people of African descent still must contend with a level of bigotry in this country that pales in comparison to many other kinds of people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Darn right: black people have an unfair burden of proving that we are less homophobic.

From a glass house: You wouldn't be on this blog if you weren't doing identity politics--debating and negotiating who we are or could be.

Derrick_the other one
August 11 2007, 2:10AM

1) Anonymous, you are absolutely right about the fact that you, PhD2Be, and I actually agree on most things. I, also, did not present my post as a corrective- only to go further into the argument. I certainly agree with PhD2Be’s aversion to the framing of Jonathan Capehart’s question to Obama. I simply commented on as to why the question was posed.
2) ...”we need to be far more historical in our examination of homophobia in black communities”- I absolutely agree.
3) PhD2Be actually did introduce homophobic, transphobic, and heterosexist” “jargon’ into the discussion- (see PhD2Be’s post on August 10, 2007 7:42 PM)- which resulted in my mention of
“identity politics” and “queerness.” Their mentioning, I believe, is apt due the fact that the discussion of “race” was already happening before I posted, which has a lot to do with “identity politics.” Evoking the term “queer,” admittedly, places me in a particular camp that critiques the intersections of racism, heterosexism, and transphobia

Continued
August 11 2007, 2:46AM

that may not sit well with many people’s sensibilities- particularly because of the term “queer,” but it’s not simply my “contribution”- this is what we are talking about. I do not view identity politics in a negative light because I engage in and see the importance of identity politics. I also understand what comes with them.

Peace.

Anonymous
August 11 2007, 3:32AM

Gently put: reconsider the academic posturing, Derrick.

Don't over-rely on the scholarly jargon.

Critiquing criss-crossing experiences of identity did not begin (and nor does it end) with queer theory. Such an inquiry has been around for as long as people have juggled their many ways of being, sensing, and living in the world.

You don't have to adhere to a specific critical theory to acknowledge, debate, and promote the conflict between various social experiences.

As an old soul who has marveled at many scholarly movements in my time may I say respectfully and kindly: find your own voice that speaks across camps. Define terms. Close read your peers' words more carefully to avoid misstatements. Critique even the assumptions of various theories.

Then the world (and not just one academic camp) will marvel at the fresh, elegant substance of your expression.

The great elocutors did this:

Jimmy
Audre
Essex
Baynard
Melvin Dixon
Miss Pepper
Miss Dorian
Miss Avis
Keith
Randall Kenan

...and soon you...

edwin greene
August 11 2007, 4:33AM

Black gays often "expect" white gays to be less racist than white straights and react angrily when we find that they are "no more or less racist" than straight whites. Likewise, some gays across racial lines have "expected" straight blacks (considering the history, particularly the civil rights movement history of the 50s and 60s) to be less homophobic than straights of other races and are especially disappointed/offended when straight blacks turn out to be "no more or less homophobic" than others. If we expect white gays to be less racist than white straights than isn't it the same thing to expect straight blacks to be less homophobic than straights of other races and to be especially offended when this turns out not to be true. In this context, Capehart's question to Obama about "black homophobia" was not inappropriate.

Kevin
August 11 2007, 11:27AM

MidwestGuy, what makes you think that a candidate that is pro-civil unions has any chances of winning? We need a president who will stand up for what is right even when it is unpopular. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate other than Kravel on the Democrats side who is willing to do that. I think the Democrats and their supporters (that includes myself as well) are going to be in for a rude awakening come November 2008. I firmly believe that the Republicans are going to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate and he besides Dennis are the ONLY candidates in this race that are PRO-CONSTITUTION. If that happens and we nominate someone like Hillary, Obama, or Edwards we will be giving the election to the Republicans in 2008. We should not be voting on a candidate who we perceive to be electable but we should be voting for the best qualified candidate who has the best solutions to the issues that matter most to the American people. Everyone thought John Kerry was so-called ‘electable’ but look where that got us.

Brandon
August 11 2007, 11:39AM

Kevin, Dennis Kucinich has about much a chance of becoming the next guy in the oval office as I do. He may be taking this stand on the gay marriage thing, but, just what else doe she have to offer?

And, aas far as blacks being more that is as old as saying white gays aren't racist. Homophobia is out there and it has every group in the world not for equal or even civil rights and common decency for gays. The only thing is that you have loud, uncouth over the top black folks spewing thier hate louder than anyone else based on the fantasy that is the Bible, and oddly, they seem to have forgot that the same white evangelicals that are now giving them a few coins were anti-black and used the same Bible to justify it.

Kevin
August 11 2007, 12:05PM

Brandon if you actually did some research on the candidates and looked up their websites you would know what Dennis has to offer. The Republicans are going to nominate (if their smart) Ron Paul as their candidate and he and Dennis are the only candidates in this race who actually USE the CONSTITUTION as the base for their positions. For example, Dennis and Paul are the only candidates who voted AGAINST the Patriot Act. That clearly shows that both candidates have foresight and they actually follow the constitution and are interested in preserving the American people's civil liberties. Let me ask you this. What does any of the frontrunners Obama, Clinton, or Edwards has to offer that Dennis doesn't?

indastix
August 11 2007, 12:45PM

Honestly, people aren't looking at this election for the issues. They could care less about who is more about protecting their rights. All they care about is that they have the possibility to elect the first woman or Black, or that it will be a change from what there is now (although they don't see that most of the front-runners will represent much of the same when elected). Start listening to how your co-workers talk from now on. They say things like "he LOOKS like a president, or he is more poised when he speaks". So we're just going to have to admit that Dennis has little chance of being elected.

Anonymous
August 11 2007, 1:13PM

Lament for the elections...

It's really difficult to immigrate to Canada and there's no utopia on earth.

So we choose between lesser evils.

This is the reality of voting in an oligrachy, not a democracy, a nation ruled, in fact, by a very few mostly white men who control corporations and who in turn run local, state, and federal policy through lobbying and contractors.

It's not a conspiracy. It's improvisatory, ongoing dominance.

It is deeply disconcertating to find that our nation never has been a bastion of freedom and justice and that the white male monied "founders" railed against true democratic rule (which they equated with mob rule).

Not a day goes by, though, that I am not full of some semblance of sadness, however joyful I may be in passing, because so much of the time I am treated unfairly for my brown appearence, my affections, my desires, and my ideas.

And, worse still, minorities aren't saints.

A lesser evil is still bad; but, we survive and thrive the best we can.

PhD2Be
August 11 2007, 1:37PM

I think its interesting that suggesting that we look into the cultural nuances of how homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism as institutionalized oppressions are manifested in particular communities can be taken as apologist. That's ridiculous. How else do you solve a problem in a community if you don't attend to all of the context surrounding it? In that sense, the specificity of his comments were right on, however, I think that the framing replicates the kind of thinking that allows homophobia as an institution to persist because we are attacking the symptom (in black communities) and not acknowledging the disease itself. So, lights out on that statement! PERIOD. I also equally think that taking my statement regarding understanding the complexity of this history and suggesting that I or anyone who agrees with that is making excuses for homophobia is extremely reductionist. If homophobia in Black communities is so rampant, then I suppose that all white queers can go home with no problem, huh?

Brandon
August 11 2007, 1:52PM

OK Kevin, and to be honest after only a cursory glance at the web sites the ones running for the Democratic nomination, none of them offer anything for me as a voter. Kuchinich seems to be more of a socialst, not a bad thing, but this country isn't going to go for that. I'm a registered Independent, and find both parties lacking any candidate that can make a difference in the lives of real working Americans, gay or straight. That said, the only one I could see voting for is Edwards, and that would be only because he has some things I do like. And since all the GOP candidates are totally repugnant, that is even an option.

I guess I'm one of the disgruntled and uninterested in anything that any of them say since they are liars and if they are telling the truth, they will have a congress to fight to get anything done. But, I do try and follow these debates and such to see if any of them actually seem sincere to help real people, and so far this is just a race about millionaires one of whom is less evil.

PhD2Be(cont.)
August 11 2007, 2:08PM

And implicit in the question to Obama alone is the suggestion that homophobia is Black folks problem. If this were not the case, than he would have asked the White candidates about homophobia in there communities. I don't think this about Black folks being more "loud" and "uncouth" as Brandon said. I think it is about how those peoples comments get taken up and serve the interest of thos who want to make homophobia Black peoples problem. I don't think it is too much to ask that people recognize and attend to the problem of heterosexism/homophobia or any oppression as it is experienced in the microcosm (local communities) and the macrocosm (the world) if they truly want to attack the issue at the head and the limbs. A simpler question would be to ALL candidates: How do you propose ending the issue of homophobia/transphobia in America given all of the historical, cultural, and political ways in which it manifests and is replicated in various communities?

MidwestGuy
August 11 2007, 2:46PM

I was disappointed w/the framing too. As we have seen over the years, having conversations in uncontrolled evironments about the social behavior/beliefs of blacks often fail to exist as a problem outside the black community.

-DL has been framed as a black men thing. Sexism and misogyny is as a black men thing. Animal cruelty is now framed as an inner-city, hip-hop thing. All of those are untrue/fair assumptions. So while I understand JC's point in asking, I am also uneasy about how that is translated.

-I don't believe that questions (although valid) in forums like this debate is helpful to blacks nor gays, especially when it is not asked of the others. If we really want to discuss homophobia have a forum in a black church. That's where most of black homophobia exists. I don't believe Obama to be part of that problem.

Ron Lee
August 11 2007, 4:26PM

First I want to say that many of our gay leaders are disconnected from reality by virture of region most residing in L.A.or N.Y. I caught the last three candidates and saw high-lights of the first three. People Hillary is not "OUR GURL". Obama is not ready. Ewards seems as if he's vying for vice-president. How can Kucinich fully accept the gay agenda when all gays don't accept the status quo gay/agenda. And Bill Richards who appears slick,well polished and passive aggressive just takes the cake;however his run for the Presidency has positioned him to be Americas' Hispanic leader of today. Gravel was just grandfather like and a true progressive.

Ron Lee
August 11 2007, 4:59PM

NOW MY SPIN ! I to was suprized to see Ms. Ethridge,but in the end she hit a home run,with Richards then followed up and he still didn't get it. Margaret Carlson? was Barney Frank ill or out the country. I think she was picked because the white gay establishment want validation from the white hetero estab.=CONTROL.Hillary will get conservative votes,it's right wing votes she won't get.Maxim luv your take on the debates.Kucinich will be on a Presdential ticket someday.Molineaux I agree on your take as well.Bill Richards Hmm.I have to take the"HILARY" on this one,I won't dare say what I'm thinking;but did you all see those millions of millions of MARCHERS last year.Wait til they get THEIR VOTING RIGHTS Ha Ha Ha SLICK BILL did and thats why he CHOOSE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.Alex you were right to we the audiance & American people won by this broardcast on LOGO.Last but not least GAY/MARRIAGE,not even half the gay population approve of it yet we have allowed our leaders to high jack it and use it against US.PATHETI

Anonymous2
August 11 2007, 5:35PM

However, if a disease is not completely treatable, do you stand around and do nothing, or do you at least try to address the individual symptoms? We know there are a whole host of factors which cause homophobia, but it will be near impossible to eradicate them all. I just don't think we need to stand around and argue about where homophobia came from because after we come up with a nice comprehensive list of why it happened and its context, we'll find that there is little we can do about them all. I feel it would be more efficient to figure out how to deal with homophobia now. It's like schizophrenia has a complex etiology involving genetics, environment, and possibly other things. We still don't understand it. But we treat the symptoms anyway.

Tulo
August 11 2007, 8:46PM

One thing that isnt being said that I think should be said...I just truly believe that since blacks arent so much as smart or truly learned in this world that homophobia will exist in this community.

Anonymous
August 11 2007, 8:55PM

Tulo said that "blacks arent [sic] so much as smart or truly learned in this world"...

Tulo, you should truly clarify your meaning here because it sounds like you are saying that African Americans are not smart or learned which is a horrible, ignorant thing to say on a Harvard educated, highly intelligent black man's blog. Some of us here even in this thread are PhDs or PhDs-to-be, or professionals, or smart beige, brown, and black people of all stripes and persuassions. There are thousands and millions of hard-working, learned, responsible dark skinned people of African descent all over the world.

So if you are trying to over-generalize and say that blacks are dumb therefore they will always be homophobic then expect to be called out for your own ignorance.

Now, if you simply misspoke and were trying to say something different (we do that all the time; maybe Richardson did that in the gay debates!) then that is a different story and you need to correct yourself.

So, how do you respond?

Tulo
August 11 2007, 10:28PM

I respond with saying that I meant EXACTLY what was stated. I have no doubt their are brilliant and responsible black folks amongst us and even Keith is counted as one...But, even then honestly for those brilliant and thinking individuals they are seen and treated as pariah's themselves in the black community for no other reason than being brilliant and "different". This line of thought does not jus hold its weight in context of intelligentsia but if you replace intelligence with homosexuality it is still the Same outcome. Keith and those who also regard themselves as thinking individuals are spread far too thin and under-represented in most facets of true decision-making in the black community

'dre
August 11 2007, 10:53PM

Preach on it Ron Lee, preach on it, great thoughts and I agree other than the Richardson part since I think he was at least honest in how he felt, something none of the others have the backbone to do with gay issus, just lies and pandering.

For the life of me I still don't see why Hillary is this great saviour of gays, just what has she done to earn that label? And do ya'll really think that this country is ready for her? She has enough baggage to sink a ship and the GOP is going to chew her up and spit her out. You heard it from me first, LOL! Well, at least second :).

Anonymous
August 11 2007, 11:44PM

Tulo: Most people period, be they black or white or whatever, are just average, fallible, and moderately-achieving.

We can't all be genuises, Ivy League educated, or brilliant.

Being average and fallible and even, sometimes, thinking and speaking ignorantly is not a black thing; it's a human thing. Your over-generalizations about black people's intelligence unnecessarily patholigizes us and, Lord knows we've had enough of that for hundreds of years.

And why do people talk about this mythic thing, "the black community"?

There are, in fact, many black communities (plural).

Black people are not some huge monolith that has to be held to different standards of intelligence or deviancy than everyone else.

This over-generalizing blights us.

Instead, just say what really needs to be said: Homophobic blacks are ignorant, just like homophobes of every hue and creed.

edvince
August 12 2007, 2:43AM

Given the fact the all the candidates provided what answers they did albeit pos/neg marriage equality. The US political machine has really come a long way baby in even having a GAY DEBATE. This wouldn't have been unheard of in '92, '96 or even 02'presidental debates.

edwin greene
August 12 2007, 9:59AM

Anonymous, I understand what you are saying but: what about this currently unfolding development in Nigeria where 18 allegedly gay men are facing the DEATH penalty (by stoning and amputation) for being gay. This is happening in a BLACK-run African country, it's not happening in Europe, Asia, South America, etc.

Something can and will be made of this by many, in terms of whether blacks (in general, there are exceptions to everything) are "more or less homophobic" than other races/groups.

Derrick_the other one
August 12 2007, 11:04AM

PhD2Be I completely agree with you that we should look “into the cultural nuances of how homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism as institutionalized oppression are manifested in particular communites.” Nuance is beautiful thing.
It’s when you state “...and that those peoples are homophobic, transphobic, and heterosexist because America is homophobic, transphobic, and heterosexist. Period.” This is what sounds mildly apologist. I guess I want us to move beyond this as an explanation and I believe that suggesting that we look into “cultural nuances” may be the way.
“Because America is homophobic,...heterosexist...” is the very argument still being used to explain the heterosexism, homophobia, and sexism in many facets of the Black Power Movement during the 1960's. I just feel we need to advance this argument. I may have simply misunderstood you, as Anonymous has suggested, and I should’ve have asked you to clarify before I responded. If that is the case, I do apologize.

Luther
August 12 2007, 11:52AM

Mr Green did you not see on this site and other gay sites the hanging of the men in Iran for allegedly being gay? Sorry, I refuse to think that blacks here or in Africa are more homophobic than any other group. In Guatemala and other Central American countries gay bashing's are up and the governments not doing anything about it. So, your theory is quite simply wrong.

I think that the issue that all blacks are so anti-gay is based on some posters personal dealings with anti-gay blacks and not on the real world where I still think most black people could care less about it and its the over the top zealous religious ones who obsess over it, but not without of wedlock kids etc. Try being gay in any country outside of the so called industrialized ones and see just how easy it is. Homosexuality can mean the death sentence in quite a few countries and not all are in Africa or as some put it "black led countries."

J
August 12 2007, 12:03PM

It's funny, I don't really remember so many SGLs screaming about gay marriage until that clown threw up the smoke screen and now some people actually believe it's a priority.

I can understand where some people are coming from, and I do agree that those who have the same relationship as enslaved married fools people should have all of the same perks, but I just don't see why we should be so passionate about this. It's really strange for black folk to be so hot over it. Gay, straight, or whatever we all have the same issues.

It may sound a little tired, but it's easy for clear people to sit around moaning about marriage "rights" because they have damn near everything else. I don't think black SGLs need to be on that bandwagon.

elg
August 12 2007, 1:23PM

J, "It may sound a little tired, but it's easy for clear people to sit around moaning about marriage "rights" because they have damn near everything else. I don't think black SGLs need to be on that bandwagon".

Well, J, what bandwagon should black SGLs be on? What bandwagon are you on?

Luther
August 12 2007, 1:33PM

I think you are right J, until Bush use gay marriage as a typical GOP "wedge" issue, few in the glbt communities even cared about it. This election its anti-immigration, before it was blacks, anything to instill fear and hatered into a dimwitted public.

I'm on the fence about the whole marriage issue, I would much prefer to hear one of them say they are for more funding for HIV education and help for those living with it. And for the Hate Crimes Bill to be passed and enforced around the country. Make it illegal for gay kids to be bashed in school with it being a crime and with a punishment other than a slap on the hand and lesson in "tolerance," loads of other issues to be concerned with over gay marriage of which, I wonder just how many have or would take advantage of it were it legal?

PhD2Be
August 12 2007, 2:33PM

(I don't think this posted, so again).

Derrick, I see what you are saying. Point taken. No need to apologize, this is intellectual exchange and how we all grow...right.I think that we are saying similar things, however, I think that where we differ is that I think looking at homophobia in Black communities in relation to our social/cultural/spiritual/political encounters with America goes hand in hand with getting to these other places you want the conversation to go. They aren't mutually exclusive, for me because isms and phobias don't occur in a vacuum. And since "nuance is a beautiful thing" (PS- That was hilarious, you sounded like a friend of mine with that.)I think you might agree.
I wanted to repost this article too, as it brings up related points about the debates: http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/08/you_and_i_both_know_americas_b.html

Anonymous
August 12 2007, 4:48PM

Derrick (the other one): I really understand what you are saying now even more than before and I admire the nuance of both your own and PhD2be's ideas.

Mr. Keith Boykin, Esq: The level of intelligent powerful exchange has often been strong in the comments section of your blog. However, recently the breadth, depth, and respectfulness of your readers' ideas has grown.

What a tremendous blessing (palm up-splayed to the sky; head bowed and nodding slowly; voice humming)!

Ron Lee
August 12 2007, 4:52PM

If you think about it brothers the GAY MOVEMENT here in America is affecting our brothers & sisters throughout The World. As long as Heterosexuals of Color throughout the Globe are oppressed so shall be their Homosexual brothern. And for those who don't know it's vestiges of COLONIALISM that has AFRICANS,ARABS,ASIANS & Hispanics PERPETUATING OLD EUROPEAN PREJIDICES in many of the formention cultures homosexuality was Accepted. It's when they use European terminology & behavior to define themselves is when their Governments go Ballistic. Any how it looks like we may have four more years of REPUBLICANISM. If the majority of white Americans won't vote for a white male Democrat,why would they vote for a woman or a black. Besides brothers, I though we wanted to see a Black man become President before any woman. Alot of us don't get it,the white power struture is realigning themselves for the future,when master not at home his wife is in charge. GET IT , PEACE OUT.

BookishGuy
August 12 2007, 7:22PM

Ron Lee: I hear you brother.

May I add this to the equation:

1) Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities by Will Roscoe and Stephen O. Murray is the classic, book-length account of same sex practices on the continent of Africa.

2) European colonialism helped decimate many indigenous African practices, including same-sex and even transgender practices (see Sex and the Empire That is No More: Gender and the Politics of Metaphor in Oyo Yoruba Religion by J. Lorand Matory for an excellent examination of transgender ritual among the Yoruba).

3) Nonetheless, we must be careful not to attribute some African people's homophobia only to European Judeo-Christian biases. Arab colonialists also decimated indigenous African cultures (that's what happened to the Nuba in Sudan and look where Sudan is now). Also, African peoples have done their own decimating due to infighting.

As for wanting a black man over "any woman": I think it's about whose better for the job. Obama seems more truthful.

Luther
August 12 2007, 7:58PM

You know Bookishguy, the same thing happened in this country with the Native Americans, they use to have the "third" sex, men who filled in for women when a wife died or something like that. It has been documented, and now some tribes the Navajo's in particular are now saying it never happened in order to not have to deal with gays and transgendered tribe members and that gay is from the white man. Amazing the length people will go to be "free and clear" of homosexuality, including forgetting their own history.

BookishGuy
August 12 2007, 8:17PM

Luther: Thank you for the feedback. You are very right. The specific gender type that you mentioned among Native Americans was the berdache.

In 1998 I read a good anthology about Native American homosexuality: Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality Edited by Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang.

I include references to the literature because some may not know (as you nicely point out) that homosexuality among non-White peoples in pre-20th century times has been well-documented and discussed a great deal in contemporary studies of sexuality and in Anthropology, especially after the 1980s.

See also:

1) Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country By Brian Joseph Gilley;

2) The Zuni Man-Woman By Will Roscoe;

3) Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America by Will Roscoe

4) Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture By Walter L. Williams.

Regan DuCasse
August 12 2007, 9:02PM

Melissa Etheridge's gushing....the candidates articulate non answer answers...
for a batch of people with law degrees...they sure don't know how to defend gay folks in the court of public opinion.

I saw many friends of mine in the audience of that forum.
Quite a cross section of the LGBT community that was representative at large.
I was very underwhelmed and underimpressed.

NEXT!

PhD2Be
August 12 2007, 10:09PM

Yeah, call me a geek...but I have to agree with Anonymous. I am feeling the level of conversation here. lol. Whether I agree or not.

Especially feeling the works cited section... (smile). Thanks for the intellectual "ups."

Mel Smith
August 13 2007, 12:02AM

Look, I know you all may not give a damn, but the black heterosexuals are killing us on that site blackprof.com.

Owen
August 13 2007, 12:07AM

We in the gay community along with the straights on both sides of the gay marriage issue are taking the wrong tack. The "state" should be out of the marriage business entirely, leave it where it belongs, in the religeous sphere, issue only domestic partner licenses, and do so without regard to the gender or race of the applicants. The only imperitive of the "state" is to record these agreements for certain legal purposes, such as inheritance, medical, and end of life issues.

Nigel
August 13 2007, 6:05AM

Gay Nigerians face Sharia death

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6940061.stm

I am concerned about the opinions of those seeking office for presidency regarding these harsh measures....

(Eighteen men have been remanded in prison following their arrest for alleged sodomy in northern Nigeria, the state-owned news agency, Nan, reports. The Sharia punishment for sodomy is death by stoning.)....

Anonymous
August 13 2007, 8:33AM

Mel Smith:

I do give a damn. I posted a comment with a quotation from first Corinthians in the bible about the true meaning of love. I applaud all the things you are saying, Mel, on blackprof.com. You are truly our brother-in-arms.

Also, it was actually I who originally linked to the blackprof.com piece within this thread on Keith's blog. Then PhD2Be linked to it again.

In fact, a lot of the respondents on blackprof.com in the comments section are actually white male trolls or sock puppets (these are internet terms for people who come on to threads anonymously purely to defame and abuse). Anonymity is good to protect oneself from undue censure professionally but bad if one uses it to spread abuse. I find the white sock puppets' comments to be just as abusive as the black church folks who posted passages from the bible.

Professor Charlton Copeland's original essay on blackprof.com about the strangely framed question to Obama at the gay debate was so strong. That's what's most important

cmoney
August 13 2007, 11:04AM

Anonymous: You are right about blackprof.com. There are a couple of White conservatives who troll on that blog all day long under different names. They usually have the most posts and the longest posts with the most outrageous, false and racist information straight out of the White Supremacist handbook and Rush Limbaugh. Most of the regular visitors know who they are (by their writings) and call them out or just ignore them.

J
August 13 2007, 11:17AM

People referring to those who've destroyed our culture and way of life are sort of making the point I want to about us all regardless of sexuality or what tag we have needing to be on the same page.

Black SGL people are just that, people, and have the same daily issues and struggles as other black folk. I don't care how many sissies or dykes SGLs have been called by a drunk, slow uncle or the GLAAD whiteyMcWhite brigade and their lies. Excuse me while I get my Sinead on for a second, but "fight the real enemy."

Derrick from Philly
August 13 2007, 12:23PM

Well, well...well...I'm not going to argue that the Coloreds are more homophobic that the Ofays (anymore), but they sure was hard on my queenified ass (not in a pleasant way). I guess it was because I came across like the "white woman clutching her handbag" type of faggot. 'Course being pretty and yella' didn't help either. Y'all sure are hard on yella' nigras.

As for the candidates: I guess we might as well get used to Miss Hillary--I'm 'bout sick of her already. But I'll vote for Barack in the primary. I want to give the yella' brotha' a chance.

Cedric Jackson
August 13 2007, 12:50PM

These white trolls, straight and gay ones who can spew racist trash just as good as the straight ones, seem to be on every Internet board out there with their trash, straight black boards, black gay boards, its as if they have nothing to do but live and breathe and hate black folks. Thank God they are becoming the minority in this country, even though they still have all the power, but soon it will be diluted big time.

And, btw, anyone catch the stories about how good old gal Hillary, a Democratic in a Republican power suit will bring down the rest of the Democratic party if the nominee? This woman has way too many issues swirling around her, I guess its true, you love her or hate her with no in between. I for one am just not feeling her at all.

Theo
August 13 2007, 4:08PM

Let me guess Derrickphilly, the same ones who were hardest on you for being a "queen" were also the same ones trying to get some and creeping around you when no one was watching! That's the problem with being loud and anti-gay, you always revert back to being "curious."

And just when did the gay marriage thing become the focal point of the fight when basic civil rights are still denied? And, just what can any President do to get it approved and into law, not much the way this system is set up. So lip service and nothing more. Bush and Rove picked the perfect wedge issue, one that still is out there when there are way more pressing issues around for gays and lesbians.

David
August 14 2007, 3:58PM

Anyone the Democrats nominate will be viciously attacked
by the Republicans.
Will the Democratic nominee fight back?
I thought the 2004 election was a mess not only because Kerry didn't respond to the Swiftboat attacks, but also because the Democratic party didn't rally to his defense.
In 2000 when our rights as Black voters were being undermined, there didn't seem to be much of an effort by the party to insure the our rights before or during election day.
This unwillingness to defend their most supportive constituents and their own nominee makes the party look weak and has emboldened the Republicans.
I hope that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and the other candidates understand this. If this lesson is not learned, the Democrats will loose again.

Cafetino
August 15 2007, 4:02PM

Well, after watching the movie Zeitgeist, it really doesn't matter who we want as President. There is a "Political Agenda" and reguardless of what any of us want, the "Agenda" will be fulfilled. We just need to hope that while they're in the business of lining their pockets,they take the time to give us rights.