The One Black Guy Who Voted Anti-Gay
By Keith Boykin, in sexuality
Thursday, November 8 2007, 2:36PM
All but one of the 38 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted on the Employment Non Discrimination Act on Wednesday support laws outlawing discrimination against gays and lesbians. Of the 43 members of the Caucus, 2 (Eleanor Holmes Norton and Donna Christian-Christensen) are not eligible to vote, 2 (Julia Carson and William Jefferson) did not vote, and 1 (Barack Obama) is a senator, so the issue has not yet come up for a vote in his chamber of the legislature. Two New York members (Yvette Clarke and Edolphus Towns) support ENDA but voted against the bill because it did not include protection for transgendered individuals.
That leaves just one guy, Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama. Davis (shown above) is the only member of the Caucus who has now gone on record to indicate that he does not support a federal law requiring equal treatment for gays and lesbians.
ENDA passed the House 235-184, and the CBC members played a critical role in the passage of the bill. If the CBC members had switched their votes, the bill would have failed. So the CBC deserves credit for doing the right thing. Except, that is, for Rep. Artur Davis. I called Rep. Davis's office today for a comment about his "No" vote, and his press secretary immediately emailed me a statement outlining Davis's position.
After going on for a full paragraph about his support for hate crimes protection, even though that was not the issue at hand, the statement finally comes to the point. ENDA, he said, "goes too far to win my support." Davis said he would only support the bill if it applied exclusively to hiring decisions by the federal government.
"But the act would also allow private organizations or small businesses to be sued if they decided against hiring or promoting gay employees," he said. "Our country remains split on the degree to which homosexuality should enjoy fully protected legal status, and it remains a fact of life that some employers have faith based objections to measures like ENDA. Other groups, like the Boy Scouts, have a distinctive culture that promotes traditional family structures. I believe that the constitutional right of free exercise of religion, as well as the right of association, could both be compromised by ENDA."
Davis is dead wrong, and he, of all people, ought to know better. White racists in Alabama opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using almost the same identical argument he uses to justify his opposition to this legislation. In 1964, they said the civil rights law would unfairly impede on the rights of individual employers to make their own decisions. But our country rejected those arguments in 1964, and we ought to reject them now in 2007. The only way the civil rights employment discrimination laws can be meaningful is if they apply to private businesses, which employ the vast majority of American workers. To apply those laws only to the federal government is to severely restrict the effect of civil rights in the first place.
Rep. Davis raises two red herrings in his statement when he introduces the issue of small businesses and religion. The Employment Non Discrimination Act clearly exempts small businesses and religious organizations from abiding by the law. For Davis to throw up this smokescreen indicates he either did not read the bill or purposefully wanted to mislead the public about the bill's contents. Either way it's disturbing.
Davis offers another excuse for his opposition later. "Congress should also not be too casual about adding another set of enforcement obligations for our courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," he said. "Race and gender discrimination laws are already not enforced aggressively enough, and the backlog of cases around both has grown in the face of EEOC budget cuts in this decade. The load will get worse if another class of litigants is added to the rolls."
That's another bogus argument based on the principle of scarcity of resources. If the EEOC is really overtaxed, then the solution is to provide additional resources so the commission can do its job. Denying access to justice because of an administrative backlog is like denying some people access to hospitals because there aren't enough doctors. The solution is not to penalize the people in need; the answer is to get more doctors, or in this case, more administrators, to help everyone.
Most Americans do not realize that there is no federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation, and only 20 states have laws that forbid such discrimination. As a result, LGBT people can be fired from their jobs, not hired, or not promoted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and in most parts of the country (including Alabama), there's nothing they can do about it.
Davis clearly needs some education. But fortunately, he's the only one. The good news is that every other member of the Congressional Black Caucus seems to get it. I can't say that for sure about Julia Carson and William Jefferson because they didn't vote. But everyone who did vote, except for Davis, voted the right way.
That's a good sign for the black caucus, and a good thing for black America. It's time for black leaders to stop pandering to the anti-gay bigots in the community and start leading. Even if some black churches do not like the idea of black politicians supporting gay rights, the black leaders still need to do the right thing. They need to lead and not just follow. And they need to appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."
Black America cannot allow a few loudmouthed anti-gay bigots to dictate what is acceptable in the black community. It's time to challenge that bigotry and to speak up loudly for justice for the LGBT community, just as we have spoken up for justice for our own community.
For the most part, the Congressional Black Caucus seems to get it. Sadly, Congressman Davis still doesn't. Yet.
The Honorable Artur Davis
208 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2665 (phone)
(202) 226-9567 (fax)
BIRMINGHAM OFFICE
The Honorable Artur Davis
2 20th Street North
Suite #1130
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 254-1960 (phone)
(205) 254-1974 (fax)
Comments conceal
Darian
November 8 2007, 3:14PM
The actions of Congressman Davis gives me yet another reason to be embarrassed by my home state of Alabama. It's sad that it seems the rest of the world is making progress(slowly but surely) on LGBT issues and red states like Alabama are determined to live up to it's horrible reputation for being racist, discriminatory, and anti-gay. My letter to his office is in the mail.
Liquid Fonts
November 8 2007, 3:18PM
It would be one thing if he knew what he was talking about and actually had a good reason for voting down Enda but he didn't attempt to understand it..Isn't that their job? Great to see he was the only one though.
Derrick from Philly
November 8 2007, 3:58PM
"...and he, of all people ought to know better."
Many times, white "children" used that argument against a black homophobe. And I've found myself in the peculiar (and uncomfortable) postition of arguing why I CAN say that to a black homophobe, but the white gay guy CAN'T. And sometimes I have not been confident about my own arguments. I tell white "children" that if you have sincerely worked on ending racism in your life, among your friends, and done what you can to embarass white racists in the white gay community, then you may tell a black homophobe, "you ought to know better."
But I certainly am not self-conscious about making that argument here on Keith's blog. The Congressman knows damn well that there are black gay people who hold jobs all over frickin' Alabama and the South who have to lie to hold on to their jobs...his attitude helps force people on the "down low".
As for ENDA, making the distinction between trans and gay folk makes me furious, and y'all know that. Don't mess wit' me.
Billy
November 8 2007, 4:20PM
Wow!
castiron
November 8 2007, 4:45PM
if and when this legislation passes, I'm coming out of the closet at work. This is what I've been waiting for. I've been waiting for this kind of protection.
MidwestGuy
November 8 2007, 4:48PM
I really hope that you have grossly mischaracterized what this fool said. What sane person would drop a line about how the EEOC shouldn't be "bogged" down by the additional caseload? That is the greatest insult. Does he not realize that it does not make sense? Who is he expecting to appeal to with this one?
I think this is great. It does reinforce my unpopular point about how we need the support of the black community.
But, let's remember that it has to get through the Senate in order for it to become law. That will be the real test. Right now, it's only symbolic.
Keith, I will say one thing. You should be careful about doing the civil rights vs. gay rights comparison. I know that opinion is not popular but it's such murky water for a lot of people, including me.
By the way, somebody should go to DC and slap the shit out of Davis, just because. My best friend lives there, maybe I should plan a quick trip!
FRE
November 8 2007, 5:26PM
It may be that the Dishonerable Davis is concerned that if resources are used to prevent discrimination against LGBT persons, there will not be enough resources to prevent discrimination against blacks. Obviously that thinking would be an insult. There are many of us gay whites who firmly opposed racial discrimination well before 1964, and surely we deserve the same protection which we supported for others.
All of us, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic which results in unfair discrimination, deserve equal protection. A person who fails to support justice for others has no right to complain when he is unjustly treated. Perhaps we should use a time machine to send the Dishonerable Davis to a plantation in the anti-bellum south.
Note also that if the 35 or so Republicans who voted for the bill had voted against it, that it would not have passed. That shows the importance of working with BOTH parties.
MLee
November 8 2007, 6:30PM
MidwestGuy, you are right. ENDA has to get through the Senate in order for it to become law. But, it also has to get passed Bush’s sure veto.
Amazed
November 8 2007, 7:19PM
He sounds of the ilk of Clarence Thomas, don't clog up the judicial system or EEOC when he was running the show there with frivolous things, such as basic fairness under the law. These chumps are too much, I wonder what the make-up of his district is, and, if that along with his bible views, since that has to be a factor lead him along this silly path, and, a total loss for words.
loi wade
November 8 2007, 7:32PM
People act as though you can change a bigot. No matter what we do or say, he is not going to change his stance. The only thing that can be done is to override his voice and that is exactly what the CBC did. Besides, he is just a small fish in a big pond. There are much bigger hurdles to jump. When it comes time for us to vote on local laws, lets get our asses out there and do it!
Jonathan
November 8 2007, 10:04PM
Davis is also considered a rising star in the Democratic party. This Congress, he was given a seat on Ways & Means -- arguably the most prominent House Committee -- and he's now Chair of the DCCC's Recruitment Committee. I hope that this serious deviation from the Democratic agenda will stop his ascent.
I noticed on his bio that Davis clerked for Judge Myron Thompson, a black champion of lgbt equality. I'm sure Judge Thompson is ashamed of this vote.
June
November 9 2007, 12:05AM
Another excellent essay. This blog is starting to be one of my favorites on my whole set of feeds (in any subject).
Chris
November 9 2007, 2:09AM
Poor Guy,
He stills lives in the same south that he was in as a kid. Doing whatever his "massa" tell him. And you would think anyone that really comes from that enviorment would have a sense of compassion. But don't worry family. If this bill passes. Fine Ol' Dad Charlie Rangel who is the chairman of that committee will spank him and knock him down. LIKE HE SHOULD!!
elg
November 9 2007, 8:41AM
If an individual sees evil being perpetrated in the world they should speak up against it or be complicit in the evil itself. Following that line of reasoning, if a white gay person says to a black homophobe, "he of all people ought to know better" I say more power to him or her. If I'm being attacked by a black homophobe, and a white gay man defends me, I'm not going to reject his support because he's white. Discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation is different in some ways and similar in some ways. Keith writes that one of the arguments Davis used to justify his oppositon to the ENDA is almost the same argument white racists in Alabama used to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There's nothing "murky" here. Keith demonstrates, in this case, the similarity between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on race.
Carl
November 9 2007, 9:14AM
Keith - Thank you so very much for your comentary on this most important issue facing not only the LBGT community but the American Community as a whole. Rep. Davis' actions and simplistic evasions give new meaning to the term "Bama." Though he is not my representative I too will pen a letter to his attention regsitering my disappointment and disgust with such antiquated and harmful actions. Shame on him.
anonymous
November 9 2007, 9:18AM
is this torwards a victory party? or is bush really waiting with a teargas. and dont spend any time on a fool.
MidwestGuy
November 9 2007, 10:29AM
There are those who will agree with the "murky" sentiment and those who won't. You obviously do not agree and it is an opinion of which you are entitled to.
Describing the comparison as murky does not change the fact that the descrimination is real.
I think that it is "murky" waters for gays to fight for "marriage" when the institution, based on biblical principle, has never condoned it. It does not change the fact that it's discrimination nonetheless.
So, in my opinion, the civil/gay rights analogy is murky regardless of correctness in Keith's comparison.
loi wade
November 9 2007, 11:12AM
Maybe Mr. Davis is related to Dog the bounty hunter(lol). Keith, when are you going to post on that? Did you hear that phone convo?! He always did make my skin crawl.
Karmatic
November 9 2007, 11:13AM
Just looking at his picture makes me wanna smack the shit
out of his smug looking ass!
But what angers me most, is the fact that he will be re-elected in his district despite his actions on this issue..I guess he's doing the work the great people of ole "Alabama" elected him to do......SAD
Derrick from Philly
November 9 2007, 12:46PM
elg:
I understand and respect your perspective. I can't think of anyone (on black gay blogs) who has been more "out-of-control" when counter-attacking anti-gay blacks than me. I've said things you'd expect to come out the mouth of some KKK bitch. But on the otherhand when I read/hear white gays telling blacks, "you ought to know better," it bothers me because I want to know what "moral authority" does the white gay guy have. They can attack the black homophobe as an individual, but don't tell me what obligations black people have as a group--that is a black gay prerogative.
It's like a Palestinian saying to an Israeli, "as a Jew, you ought to know better than to persecute another group." The Jew's answer may be, "don't you talk--how did you Arabs treat Africans?"
It is pretentious (and maybe hypocritical) when you criticize a whole race/ethnic group with that "you, of all people ought to know better."
Homos look down on transgender folk--y'all ought to know better.
loi wade
November 9 2007, 1:48PM
I agree karmatic! Isn't his face annoying?! Like the saying goes 'the eyes are the mirror to the soul'.
elg
November 9 2007, 3:43PM
Derrick from Philly: Some black gays feel as you do. Your point of view, however, seems to say that you can't call someone out for being an anti-gay bigot unless you have no prejudices yourself. Can anyone honestly say that he has never acted badly when it comes to prejudging others.
Since white gays are far better organized than black gays, they are in a better position to respond quickly and agressively to a homophobe of any race than we are. If a white gay activist decides to sink his teeth into the ass of a black homophobe I say more power to him as long as he's doing the exact same thing to the white homophobe.
Monica Roberts
November 9 2007, 4:04PM
As passed, ENDA only protects you if you are a straight-acting gay male or femme lesbian. If you're a lesbian whose presentation is deemed a little too masculine (ask Khadijah Farmer about that) ENDA DOES NOT protect you. It doesn't protect you if you are a femme looking gay male.
Thanks to Barney cutting transpeople and the 'gender identity' or 'perceived gender identity' out of it this ENDA bill only protects 10% of the GLB/SGL community.
Derrick from Philly
November 9 2007, 4:34PM
Monica, you know that, and I know that; but don't no other folks that come to these blogs seem to know it. Girl, I'm so weary from arguing about the exclusion of transgender folk. Most transfolk are NOT transsexual, they have no intention of having a sex change. Most transfolk still call themselves "gay", and can't nobody take that away from them.
Lord, I'm so weary. I wish Pepper Labeija was still here to explain it, then these uppity homos might listen.
Michael Hinson
November 9 2007, 6:44PM
Folks, I don't know how we celebrate this poor strategy designed by the Congressional leadership and sadly adopted by one of our own "LGBT" leaders (HRC).
First, lets be clear, Monica is correct. The language not only leaves out trans people, who are the most vulnerable among us when it comes to employment issues, but it absolutely fails many test as they relate to specified and stereotypical gender roles. Further, it includes broad religious exemptions, in a time when religion has been (under the current Administration) used so aggresively against us.
On top of this, this was an unneeded fight, since its not going to become law under this Congress and this President. We had time to do more education and get an inclusive bill passed, but some thought it was okay to leave behind certain parts of our communities. Shameful!
elg
November 10 2007, 10:19AM
ENDA makes it illegal for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation". The measure exempts the U.S. military, churches and religious institutions, and employers with 15 or fewer workers. I realize that Bush is not going to sign ENDA into law should it reach his desk.
Kevin
November 10 2007, 12:12PM
How unfortunate, yet, I'm not surprised...
Kevin Ross
Radio Facts
Urban Entertainment Industry Expert
MLee
November 10 2007, 5:48PM
Elg, I thought I read the same thing as you about the contents of the ENDA legislation including “...individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation" and the religious exemptions.
Erik
November 11 2007, 3:26AM
Great post!
But in the comments... I don't get why people keep saying the current form of ENDA doesn't cover you unless you're a butch gay man or femme lesbian. Is a defendant actually going to go to court and say, "oh no, I fired this individual because they eschewed traditional gender roles, not because of their sexuality!" I really don't see that happening. That would be too close to an admission of guilt.
J
November 11 2007, 12:35PM
The gay and lesbian community isn't some catchall for everyone that doesn't fit the straight mold perfectly. The community doesn't even represent all gays and lesbians.
There's no reason why transpeople can't unite and take care of themselves, and that doesn't mean they won't get support from other groups. It does mean others won't be used or suffer because they choose to drag them along. I understand that some people feel connected to them, but the fact is that people aren't bots with different skin. We all have different experiences and needs.
Calling that discrimination is like calling Malcolm X racist.
Michael Hinson
November 13 2007, 11:58AM
I wonder if the folks would feel the same way if the ones left out of the bill were gays and lesbians? What a privelege to be inculded...
I am sure after reading these post that not nearly enough education on EDNA has been done in our communities. While some gays and lesbians will be covered by the Bill (that as another reader properly noted will not become law under this President), many legal experts have gone on record to say that defense arguments could be made on the basis of gender identity by employers when they take action against an employee who doesn't conform to expected gender roles.
Also, there is case law already where such arguments have been asserted.
In any event, the policy argument to some degree misses the point entirely. We are talking about whether a group of "United States Citizens will be protected against unfair laws that stop them from realizing the American Dream, like other protected classes of people.
B
November 13 2007, 12:40PM
I agree with comments made by Darian. I had the opportunity to work for this congressman and now I see why it did not work out. It is sad that I come from this pathetic state of Alabama but everything I not am makes me everything I am. The other sad thing is that he plans on running for governor soon.
Be Be
November 13 2007, 1:08PM
So I know Mr. Davis's opinion/priciples? I at least respect that he made his voice known.
But where were Mr Jefferson and Ms Carson? Where is their voice? As far as I am concerned not showing up to vote is the same as a vote against.
And in the end a bill that practices exclusion to benefit the privledged doesnt deserve to pass anyway.
Uncle Tom
November 28 2007, 4:24PM
It's damned time a MAN stepped up to the plate, and voted against the "politically correct" kneegrows that has sided with the perverted homosexuals on this issue!
I say, right on, speak out against the perverts that would like to ride on the coattails of "civil rights".
And no, I do NOT consider homosexuality being NORMAL!
Get back in the closet where you belong!
Comment Preview