In Eugene, is supporting MLK celebration anti-gay?
Karol Collymore
Martin Luther King Jr. ensured that Americans would always consider whether we are a society where everyone is created equal, or if some are more equal than others. He left us in death with a great responsibility for Americans not judge one another on the color of our skin, but the content of one’s character. Next week America - minus Arizona - honors him with a Monday off of work. Many groups, like Hands on Greater Portland, have turned this day into more than a day off. They've honored his memory with a day on; a day of volunteer work around our fair city. Other places have celebrations, remembrances, and collective respect for what he did to make our country better.
In Eugene, City Councilor Bonny Bettman would like to withdraw the city's support of their Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration. Her reasoning, the keynote speaker opposes gay marriage. Reverend Walter Fauntroy, an associate of King's in the 1960's, joined other Black ministers to support a Constitutional amendment to affirm marriage between a man and a woman. I appreciate Councilor Bettman's argument. Her city's code does not allow for discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, therefore the city of Eugene should not condone such discrimination from a guest speaker at a citywide event. Fauntroy’s denial of rights to gay Americans is tantamount to discrimination. The city council of Eugene did not give any attention to Bettman's motion, preventing necessary discussion. And that point is the heart of the issue.
There is never any comprehensive discussion - there are only talking points, talking heads. Race, gender and treatment of minorities were discussions not acceptable for polite company. Those issues had a time and place, though no one was invited to that "time and place." Martin Luther King Jr. and many others – including Rev. Fauntroy – forced the issue on race so that Americans had to talk about it. My guess is that Councilor Bettman was also trying to move gay rights forward by asking colleagues to put their money where their mouths are.
I doubt the thesis of Rev. Fauntroy’s comments will have anything to do with gay marriage. I do think the fact that he is the choice as speaker requires conversation. Eugene has a responsibility to honor its own laws on equality, to not just pay lip service to its residents. The residents, particularly the homosexual residents, need to know that their representatives are paying due diligence to a real conflict with the city’s own law. The city council should have allowed open discussion on Councilor Bettman’s proposal. Signing a law does not make equality automatic with no further conversation needed. Silencing the discussion don’t make minorities go away quietly either. Thank you to Councilor Bettman for forcing us to pay attention.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 10, '07
AMEN Karol!
Jan 10, '07
Next week America - minus Arizona - honors him with a Monday off of work.
Well, if you work for a bank or the government...
Jan 11, '07
A good point Karol, and another good point might be to ask why so many of the victims of the bigotry MLK fought so hard against seem quite happy to engage in it?
It seems a large portion of humanity needs it.
Jan 11, '07
Chuck, since when does being persecuted or marginalized make one less likely to persecute or marginalize others? Among the first things the Puritans did, upon fleeing Old World religious persecution, was turn around and persecute others for their religious beliefs.
There is some irony here in that many gays and lesbians identified strongly with MLK's stand against bigotry, and participated in the struggles against it on behalf of African-Americans. In addition, the nascent struggle for gay & lesbian equality gained a great deal of inspiration and expertise from the struggle for racial equality that MLK helped promulgate. Accordingly, it seems especially sad that homophobia is so rampant in many parts of the black communities. On the other hand, there are and always have been plenty of gay and lesbian racists.
Humanity is a funny, complex thing, far too complex to reduce to race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Jan 11, '07
Let's remember that the Eugene Human Rights Council and the City Council are pretty much unanimous in their opposition to both racism and homophobia, as well as their opposition to Bettman's proposal. There is a consistency here: the MLK event is about racism, not homophobia. I'm sure any speaker they could have invited would have expressed some ill-considered opinions on some issue at some point. Perhaps the "tipping point" would be if Rev. Fauntroy were now a leading anti-gay crusader as opposed to simply "joining other black ministers" in support of the amendment.
For Karol to say the council "should have allowed discussion" means that at least one other councilor "should have" thought Rev. Fauntroy's views on gay marriage were relevant to the MLK event. None did, which simply means that Bettman was not on the same page in this instance.
In Eugene, the legal battles have been fought and won, and bigotry is illegal. Let's focus now on using the power of the law to combat actual bigoted practices whenever we encounter them, not to suppress unrelated speech.
Jan 11, '07
Well Said Karol-- Phen--bit confused--discrimination has been illegal for quite some time--but that does not make it so. Conversation and discussion is what is lacking in our public forums. Bigotry is bigotry and to ignore is not right--and people should not be afraid of challenging people on it. MLK Day in Eugene should be a celebration and part of that celebration is to know that we have not yet met MLK's dream.
9:53 a.m.
Jan 11, '07
And thank you, Karol, for being such an effective advocate for non-discrimination.
We need to face facts. Prejudice is not only negative - seeing minorities as being lesser people than everyone else. It can also be positive - seeing them as somehow more sainted. And while 90% of conservative complaints about "political-correctness" is just whining that racism is no longer acceptable, we do need to guard against excusing hatred simply because it comes from a person who themselves have suffered discrimination.
Equal rights advocates must demand it for everyone, or else they're being hypocritical. And that sets the entire cause back.
Jan 11, '07
Good follow-up, Steve. Fear of being labeled a bigot prevents many from even having discussions about bigotry or in admitting the obviously separate and (for them) cohesive identity of many sub-communities in our society.
That said, I hope Reverend Fauntroy appreciates the victory represented by the fact that he is being judged by the content of his character.
1:59 p.m.
Jan 11, '07
One of MLK's best organizers, responsible in large part for the famous March on Washington (in '65 I think), was Bayard Rustin, a gay African American. While he was primarily behind the scenes in part due to his sexual orientation, it is notable and perhaps laudable on some levels that MLK, or Bayard, had such friendships. I'd be curious to hear what Fauntroy thinks/remembers, what stories he could tell.
While I think that gay rights is more than simply gay marriage, I agree that civil marriage is a civil right. I would love to ask what Fauntroy thinks about the intersections of oppressions.
In peace - Pastor Joseph Santos-Lyons, Unitarian Universalist
Jan 11, '07
Karol Collymore:
Martin Luther King Jr.....left us in death with a great responsibility for Americans not judge one another on the color of our skin, but the content of one’s character.
Bob T:
Which is, sadly, just the opposite of what the American Left has believed ever since.
Bob Tiernan
2:51 p.m.
Jan 11, '07
While we should all be standing arm-in-arm for civil rights for everyone, and for justice for all people, don't assume that progressives in one area are necessarily progressives in another.
I do recall Todd Gitlin's great book "The Sixties" in which he talked about anti-war leaders who said things like, "The only place for a woman in the anti-war movement is flat on her back."
It was offensive then, and offensive now, but it proves the point: Just because someone marched for civil rights for African-Americans doesn't mean they're for civil rights for gay Americans.
That's too bad. We should all make common cause.
[Disclaimer: I'm a straight white male who grew up and remains solidly in the middle-class. I don't feel this stuff personally, but I'm committed to it nonetheless.]
Jan 11, '07
Phen says: The MLK event is about racism, not homophobia. Not so. The event is about Martin Luther King Jr's vision and his dedication to equality. This was well summed up by Coretta Scott King: "My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' On another occasion he said, 'I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.' Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."
Amen. Thanks Karol.
Jan 11, '07
Jamie:
This was well summed up by Coretta Scott King: "My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'
Bob T:
And the Left will cheer, and then support the injustice of the royal screwing of Dorothy English.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 12, '07
"Which is, sadly, just the opposite of what the American Left has believed ever since." - Bob Tiernan
"And the Left will cheer, and then support the injustice of the royal screwing of Dorothy English." - Bob Tiernan
I don't get your point. Aside from rounding up whatever and whoever you define as 'the Left' into one gelatinous mass, I have no clue what you're trying to communicate. Opposition by religion is nothing new. In fact, religion that supports or even tolerates the 'abomination' of same-gender relationships is the exception. It's neither a 'left' or 'right' position, just a dumb one. But, hey, that's just my opinion ...
Jan 12, '07
edison:
"Which is, sadly, just the opposite of what the American Left has believed ever since." - Bob Tiernan
"And the Left will cheer, and then support the injustice of the royal screwing of Dorothy English." - Bob Tiernan
I don't get your point. Aside from rounding up whatever and whoever you define as 'the Left' into one gelatinous mass, I have no clue what you're trying to communicate. Opposition by religion is nothing new. In fact, religion that supports or even tolerates the 'abomination' of same-gender relationships is the exception. It's neither a 'left' or 'right' position, just a dumb one. But, hey, that's just my opinion ...
Bob T:
Regarding quote number 1, the Democrats (is that more specific?) are all about groups rights, not individuals.
Regarding quote number 2, Dorothy English, the 90-something year old lady screwed out of her property values in NW Multnomah County, is being strung out by the city and county hoping she'll die before the next court ruling many months from now. Read how zoning and other land use laws unrelated to safety or infringements on others' rights were used to screw over blacks and other minorities in the name of, well, the "public good". There's injustic in the Doroty English case, and therefore injustice to all. Oh wait! But......
Bob Tiernan
Jan 13, '07
I wonder if Bob T has ever read the Democrats' platforms or the House Democrats' "Roadmap". Characterizing a group as broad as a political party as being "all about" a particular thing is falling into the trap Bob wrongly accuses us of being in.
Why is it so hard to agree that individual people have both rights and responsibilities? We have the right to free speech, which is why I don't think we should try to censor Rev. Fauntroy. We have the responsibility to pitch in and protect each other against the many threats in the world, including discrimination. We have to maintain a dynamic tension between these two extremes to keep our democracy alive.
Jan 13, '07
I am under the distinct impression that Rev. Fauntroy is far unique among African-American clergy in his opposition to same-sex marriage. For example, I believe there are African-American clergy right here in the Rose City who have been quite open about the opposition to same-sex marriage. If this is incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected. Also, perhaps Ms. Collymore could comment on this issue of the attitude of the "black church" towards same-sex marriage: is it any different than the attitude of Christian churches in the US mroe generally?
11:03 p.m.
Jan 13, '07
I think that in a most general sense, most African American churches don't condone gay marriage - however, I don't want to stereotype. I don't know and I don't have experience with it. They are Christian and I think most Christians are of like mind with this issue. As a seperate, there isn't an abundance of Black people who are open about being a homosexual in the first place. Remember the "down low" phenomenon where Black men go to church and meetings to meet other men for gay sex? My guess is it is already hard enough to be a minority, why would anyone add another reason discriminate? This would be a better question for someone who has done the reseach - I have not.
12:22 a.m.
Jan 14, '07
Kari said: "I do recall Todd Gitlin's great book 'The Sixties'" in which he talked about anti-war leaders who said things like, 'The only place for a woman in the anti-war movement is flat on her back.'"
darned if I can find the googlebacking for this statement, but I believe the original is from Huey Newton, who when asked about the position of women in the Black Panthers, was said to have replied "supine."
I thought Gitlin was the bomb in college and grad school, but I've been surprised since at how many people I've met in social science who think he's just Todd the Git. There was a 60's mailing list of academes and activists, and he was deemed a sellout by that crowd. He was encyclopaedic on the decade and pro-hippie, so to speak, so he was a popular source for the leftist crowd, but some people think he tended to play up stereotypes of the age to tell a more compelling narrative.
But the point is made. Sorry for the tangent.
12:22 a.m.
Jan 14, '07
Oh, and the answer is "No."
Jan 14, '07
Karol admitted: "This would be a better question for someone who has done the reseach - I have not."
Yeah, it'd be nice if BlueOregon would actually find some lesbian or gay people to write about these issues.
Jan 14, '07
Apropos the remark from T.B., I have no clue as to Ms. Collymore's sexual orientation, and it is irrelevant in any case.
One doesn't have to be black to think about and write about "black issues" (whatever they are exactly). Ditto for being homosexual and writing about "homosexual issues". And so on and so on.
In other words, ditch the tribalism and identity politics.
Jan 15, '07
Lin Qiao opined: "One doesn't have to be black to think about and write about "black issues" (whatever they are exactly). Ditto for being homosexual and writing about "homosexual issues". And so on and so on."
So, you believe experience is irrelevant to forming opinions, eh?
On the other hand, a lot of folks believe in walking a mile in another's shoes ...
Jan 15, '07
TB--
1) Experience is certainly important to forming opinions, but how can it possibly be some sort of sine qua non? Am I disallowed from expresisng myself about the Iraq War, say, because I'm not a soldier? I may be wrong, but you seem to be endorsing group/identity politics. This is a style of politics that I find fundamental divisive. 2) You seem to assume none of Blue Oregon's regular writers are gay/lesbian. Why assume that? In addition, your statement that "BlueOregon [should] find some lesbian or gay people to write about these issues" is kind of weird. "Find"? Anyone can write for this website as a guest columnist, including you. And BTW your sexual orientation is as of as little concern to me as is Ms. Collymore's.
Jan 16, '07
Phen:
I wonder if Bob T has ever read the Democrats' platforms or the House Democrats' "Roadmap". Characterizing a group as broad as a political party as being "all about" a particular thing is falling into the trap Bob wrongly accuses us of being in.
Bob T:
Okay, so are you ready to repeal affirmative action etc and other legislation that rests on group rights?
Bob T
10:25 a.m.
Jan 16, '07
What's one got to do with the other, Bob?
Jan 16, '07
I am under the distinct impression that Rev. Fauntroy is far unique among African-American clergy in his opposition to same-sex marriage. - lin qiao
My impression is that you're right, lin. I'm not an expert, but a little time on Wikipedia turned up the name of Bayard Rustin, a gay African-American who some claim tutored MLK in the strength of non-violent protest. It seems that the, uh, "discomfort" some of the other civil rights leaders felt around Rustin eventually led to him being marginalized by the SCLC and other mainstream civil rights groups.
Bayard eventually switched his own energies towards GLBT issues. In 1987 he said the following: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
It's an interesting dynamic.
Jan 16, '07
Bob T:
Okay, so are you ready to repeal affirmative action etc and other legislation that rests on group rights?
Kari Chisholm:
What's one got to do with the other, Bob?
Bob T:
Affirmative Action and group rights, or Affirmative Action and the Democratic Party being about "all about" a particular thing?
By the way, who is closer to MLK when it comes to views regarding equality: Jesse Jackson or Shelby Steele?
Bob Tiernan Bob Tiernan
Jan 16, '07
Bob T., You've contributed well-reasoned, on-topic commentary to this blog in the past. Why the sudden change?
Jan 16, '07
Zak J:
Bob T., You've contributed well-reasoned, on-topic commentary to this blog in the past. Why the sudden change?
Bob T:
I think the diff is that this latest is short rather than long, which can always be added to if people demand it, or if I had gotten into the thread earlier than usual.
But having said that, I just happen to have a great interest in this issue and see too many people wedded to the group right nonsense and everything that leads them to thinking that a "conservative" or even a libertarian black person is a "traitor" to his race, as if it's in their genes to be "progressive".
It gets so stupid, this blind worship if diversity, that a group measuring the so-called diversity of cities actually said that Detroit, with about 85% black population, was more diverse than Seattle which was about 60% or so white. I believe their report (following study of the 2000 Census) stated, "Sometimes, diversity is rooted in one race". What a hoot.
One day we'll discuss stuff in this general category, as the opportunity arises. I might even get a chance to post info from an excellent article I copied from a law journal -- an article about how licensing laws have a history of being used against black America, and how free enterprise was a great empowerment tool for all when it wasn't or isn't being over-regulated under the guise of one phony reason or another.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 17, '07
Lin qiao wrote: "you seem to be endorsing group/identity politics. This is a style of politics that I find fundamental divisive."
In most of Oregon and America, someone - perhaps a Reverend - can say "The parts I like to read in my favorite translation of the Bible tell me to hate (or at best, pity and dislike) dykes and fags, so you're fired and evicted", and it's perfectly legal. Job gone. Out on the street. Who cares, God hates you.
If Black Americans had not united around their racial identity, in response to the equally heinous Jim Crow laws, would Martin Luther King Jr. have had an audience? (Sure, there were some White people there, too. Some.) Or was this experience of Black racial identity irrelevant towards the mostly positive changes in race relations which have happened over the past 50 years?
<h2>Group identity politics have their limits, but it's as naively fundamentalist to call them irrelevant, as to think they're all that matters.</h2>