I adapted this title from one of my favorite books about the rise of Black feminism because it feels appropriate for this essay. This diary will be controversial but here goes anyway.
Why is every gay and lesbian "spokesperson" on TV usually WHITE AND MALE?
Today as I was watching TV coverage of the Rev. Warren "firestorm" as it is being called on cable, I noticed that almost all of the representatives speaking on behalf of the gay and lesbian community were white and male. This, it seems to me is incredibly problematic and counter-productive.
The constant parade of white faces speaking about their "disappointment," "anger," and "hurt" at Obama's choice of Rev. Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural has the effect of actually increasing the silence in communities of color about issues of same sex-marriage and sexuality. Is there no one at the Human Rights Campaign who is a person of color? Why are they not out front expressing their frustration and disappointment at the choice?
The parade of white faces allows many in communities of color to pretend that LGBTQ issues are only relevant to white people. I believe that an unintended consequence of what is happening today will be to set up a backlash against the backlash. I have already begun to hear family members talking about the need to "stand up for Barack." Mark my words, this will become a generalized feeling in the next couple of days as the majority of black people will begin to close ranks around Barack. This will begin to be framed as a gay white community attack on black people. This must be nipped in the bud. Getting other LGBTQ voices speaking up in public forums and sharing their views on the matter is essential at this point.
Diane Finnerty wrote an open letter to her white LGBT brothers and sisters in response to the 2004 Massachussetts same-sex marriage struggle which I believe needs to be referenced again at this time.
http://www.pflag.org/...
There is one particular passage of her letter that struck me today as I listened to some of the representatives speaking on behalf of the gay and lesbian community today. It is particularly relevant in light of a truly egregious blog that I read on Huff Post today. Jeffrey Feldman writes that:
Translating Rick Warren into the terms of previous civil rights eras is the key to seeing why his role at Obama's inauguration is so troubling. By comparison, if this were Lincoln's inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent pro-slavery pastor giving the invocation.
This argument will only serve to anger large segments of the Black community who would otherwise be inclined to support the view that Warren is someone who shouldn't be invited to speak at the inauguration. Why make the analogy between Warren and slavery? Millions of people forcibly removed from their homeland, packed like sardines onto death ships, and then conscripted to work for free for their entire lives is akin to being against gay marriage? This argument doesn't hold water and doesn't win Black allies. It needs to stop. Feldman would have been on firmer ground if he had chosen to reference the modern Black freedom movement instead. Yet Diane Finnerty is instructive as she offers the following admonition to her white LGBT brothers and sisters who would do so:
Piggy-backing on the civil rights struggles of people of color, most notably the Black Civil Rights Movement, without first studying those struggles to honor the true legacy which they have offered this country, nor acknowledging the work yet to be done. I see this happening in our community when we too readily lift quotes and metaphors from the Black Civil Rights movement: regularly quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; evoking Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience by proclaiming that "gays should no longer have to sit at the back of the bus"; equating the Nabozny v. Podlesny (7th Circuit, December 18, 1995)case confronting homophobic harassment in schools as the "Brown v. Board of Education decision for gay people"; using the rhetoric of "separate, but not equal" to confront the difference between civil unions and marriage rights for same sex couples without understanding the historic case law behind it; showing our disingenuous use of these race-based civil rights references by only using comparisons to African American civil rights achievements and ignoring the presence of other communities of color and their struggles for liberation.
The white spokespeople for the LGBTQ who are appearing on cable and writing online would be advised to take her suggestion to heart.
This has been a very tumultuous few weeks since the passage of Prop 8 in California. This period has opened up wounds between straight communities of color and the LGBTQ community. It seems to me that the way to bridge these divides would be to offer more opportunities for LGBTQ people of color to have more prominent voices in the public sphere.