As a follow up to yesterday's post concerning the 26 AIDS activists protesting in the Capitol rotunda, some news from Ryan Grim at Huffington Post:
House Democrats have reversed a decision by President Obama and removed a ban on federal funding for needle-exchange programs that he included in the 2010 budget. Including the ban broke a campaign pledge and the flip-flop set off outrage in the gay community and among HIV/AIDS activists. Twenty-six activists were arrested Thursday in the Capitol protesting the policy."For us this is a major positive development," said Allan Clear of the Harm Reduction Coalition. "We're optimistic it will stay out. We don't think Democrats would do this unless they thought they could keep it out."
"The fact that Democrats took it out in subcommittee means they're willing to take it all the way," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Excellent. To be clear, numerous scientific studies worldwide and medical experts agree that Syringe Exchange Programs (SEP) save lives by reducing HIV and Hepatitis C infection via Intravenous Drug Use (IDU). Many state and local governments, such as Nancy Pelosi's home district of San Francisco, already have SEPs in place in their municipalities. San Francisco's doesn't depend on federal funding, but in a time of state budget crises and wedge politics, those programs in many other states go unfunded, leaving the public at higher risk of HIV and Hep C infections. Candidate Obama promised to be on the side of science, and see that those programs stood to be reinstated via a lifting of the federal ban on funding Snding SEPs. Like so many other times, and so many other issues, he backed away from that promise, allowing wedge politics and centrist sentiments to kill a public health policy based on science and common sense.
AIDS activists noticed Obama's failure to deliver, and they made damn sure everyone else did, too. The protestors got no response from the White House (please, try to contain your shock and surprise). But they sure got attention in Congress. More below the fold, including a call to action.
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) highlighted the reversal of Obama's decision when releasing the budget Friday. Obey is also the chairman of the subcommittee that removed the ban."One key exception that I want to mention concerns needle exchange programs. This bill deletes the prohibition on the use of funds for needle exchange programs," he said. "Scientific studies have documented that needle exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention for reducing AIDS/HIV infections and do not promote drug use. The judgment we make in this bill is that it is time to lift this ban and let State and local jurisdictions determine if they want to pursue this approach."
However, the battle is far from over. As usual, GOP members of the committee are exploiting children for the purposes of playing wedge politics with public health.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) offered an amendment Thursday that Democrats in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government accepted. It bans funding for distribution of syringes "in the District of Columbia within a thousand feet of a public or private daycare center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college or university or any public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade or youth center or an event sponsored by any such entity."Setting aside whether there is still such a thing as "video arcade," the amendment telegraphs what the GOP strategy is. A Kingston spokesman said that the language of the bill does leave some space in D.C. where a syringe exchange program (SEP) could operate. But it certainly doesn't leave much.
"This restriction is really designed to shut down" needle exchange, said Clear. "Long-standing and effective SEPs in cities such as New York and San Francisco would have to close down if subjected to arbitrary restrictions similar to the one imposed in Washington D.C.... Congress should not be in the business of local zoning. Many communities with SEPs have already adopted policies addressing location issues and the federal government should not be second-guessing these decisions."
The amendment only effects funding coming through the specific subcommittee involved and funding through Obey's subcommittee could still go toward needle exchange in the District. But if the GOP succeeds in adding the amendment in the full committee, the lifting of the ban will have been effectively undermined.
The list of the members of the House Appropriations Committee is here. Please, take a moment, click over, and if your Representative is listed, call his or her office and voice your support for lifting the federal ban on Syringe Exchange Programs without the proposed amendment. These are the members of the Subcommittee on Finance Services and General Government, where the amendment was originally proposed. Those of you who are constituents of these subcommittee members, we ESPECIALLY need you to call and voice your support for rejecting the amendment and lifting the ban. Please, call 202-224-3121, ask to be put through the offices, and make the statement.
MAJORITY
Chair: José E. Ser E. Serrano (NY)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
Barbara Lee (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
David R. Obey (WI), Ex Officio
MINORITY
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
John Abney Culberson (TX)
Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
Ander Crenshaw (FL)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio
So what does this yet-another-White-House-flip-flop mean?
At the time of Obama's reversal, spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the president left the ban in because he wanted Congress to take the lead and that the president didn't want to fight policy battles in the budget language."We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change," he said. "We are committed to doing this as part of a National HIV/AIDS strategy and are confident that we can build support for these scientifically-based programs."
He added, "In recent years, Washington has used the budget process to litigate divisive issues and score political points. This practice, which both sides have engaged in, has limited our ability to tackle our major economic challenges. President Obama decided not to play politics as usual with this budget and while he remains committed to supporting the program he wants to address that through the normal legislative process."
It means that the lives of people with AIDS and people at higher risk of contracting HIV via IDU are just as disposable to him as LGBT lives. It means publicly reversing damn near every progressive stance he'd taken on policies affecting LGBT and HIV+ lives. It means refusing to acknowledge our presence, our struggles, and the threats to our lives, health, and families. It means more of same, business as usual, pander to the right and refuse to take the lead. That's what it portends, more of the same cowardice we've had shoved down our throats since Inauguration Day. Take note, Mr. President: We are not stupid. Don't lie and tell us that the shit in the sandwich is really dijon mustard. We're not buying it.
Is this guy EVER going to step outside the 1993 time warp bubble and actually move forward with the progressive agenda on which he campaigned?
STATEMENT FROM INCOMING GLAAD PRESIDENT JARRETT BARRIOS ON BR?NONew York, NY, July 10, 2009 - The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today issued the following statement from incoming President Jarrett Barrios in response to the film "Br?no," which opens in movie theatres nationwide today.
"In many parts of the United States, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people live life in harm's way. We are among the most frequently targeted for hate crimes-including physical attacks, verbal assaults and destruction of our property. In particular, LGBT youth experience bullying and violence in school and social settings--harassment that contributes to lower self-respect, depression and increased ieased incidence of suicide.
Into this context steps the movie "Br?no," an 80-some-minute series of sketches apparently intended to skewer these homophobic attitudes-and get some laughs along the way. Clearly, the filmmakers wanted to use satire to highlight and challenge homophobia. But their film also reinforces troubling attitudes about gay people in ways that run counter to the intentions of the filmmakers.
The movie repeatedly builds entire scenes around stock stereotypes and situations that make gay people and families the butt of crude jokes. I can't help but think of all the teenage kids already getting bullied, beat up and ridiculed for being--or for being thought to be--gay.. For these kids, this movie will give their tormentors one more word in the anti-gay lexicon of slurs: Bruno.
Instead of challenging stereotypes, it reinforces them for many of the those who voted to take away the freedom to marry from loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California. Many states have gone even further-Arkansans went to the polls and effectively eliminated the ability of gay people to adopt or foster children in that state. In a cruel twist, "Br?no," some of which was actually shot in Arkansas, includes a scene where the title character shows a talk-show audience photos of sexual activity occurring in the presence of an infant child. Can this help the gay families across the country who continue to be reduced to political punching bags at the ballot box?
It's unfortunate that "Br?no" ultimately misses the mark, particularly when there are still far too few positive images of gay people in major studio films. Some members of our community will not be offended by this film. Others, like those of us at GLAAD, find it frustrating and discouraging to be confronted with a movie that wants to increase America's discomfort with homophobia, but which for much of America, seems likely to decrease its comfort with gay people."
I just went to get my mail a few minutes ago and overheard the college kids who live next door talking about me as I came up the stairs. My name is pretty rare. So when I hear somebody say it, I can usually bet they're not talking about another person named Fritz.
College Kid #1: "...he kind of reminds me of Fritz."
College Kid #2: (Laughing) "Yeah, maybe we should start calling him Bruno."
College Kid #1: (With accent) "Ya! How do you protect yourself from a man with a dildo?"
Needless to say, I was stunned. These are seemingly nice young men. They have been very polite and friendly since I moved in a couple of months ago. When I stepped onto the landing where they could see me, their laughter stopped cold. It appeared that their girlfriends were not amused by the conversation. One of them turned quickly and walked through the open door of their apartment. I just went inside my apartment without saying a word.
So there you have it. Thanks to Sasha Baron Cohen, people now have just one word they can use to slur both my sexual orientation and my ethnic heritage -- Bruno. Blond hair? Germanic? Gay? Yep. Must be a Bruno. (The Bruno character is supposed to be Austrian.)
I don't recall ever being called "faggot" to my face. And, I seriously doubt that these young men would engage in that kind of behavior. This is just one of those unfortunate cases when you hear what people are saying about you behinu behind your back.
I don't speak with an accent. I am a third-generation American. I just happen to have a name that identifies me as being of German heritage -- an unusual name that many people make fun of anyway.
Now, I guess I'm going to have to deal with being identified as the gay stereotype presented in this Bruno movie. Frankly, I never saw that coming. I simply thought that the film would present a generic stereotype that could negatively impact all gay men.
I don't know much about the movie. I don't know what the dildo reference is all about and I am afraid to find out. (Please don't tell me Bruno chases after young college guys.)
I guess it doesn't really matter that I don't dress flamboyantly and giggle like a schoolgirl. Some people see me as a deviant anyway. I may as well put on bright yellow lederhosen and act like a big queen.
It is going to take me a few days to get over this. Thank you, Sasha Baron Cohen for making my life just a little more difficult. I guess I should be grateful that Cohen didn't actually give his character the name Fritz -- perhaps that would have been too much of a stereotype.
This is so sad. Dr. King and Coretta Scott King are rolling in their graves over the way some of the members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization the slain civil rights leader founded, are treating the Rev. Eric Lee, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the org. Lee stood up against many of his fellow members and opposed Proposition 8 in support of marriage equality. Now his status as a straight ally has put his head on the chopping block for the small-minded, narrow-thinking people around him at SCLC. (NYT):
Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 had "created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy."A month after that he was told to come to Atlanta to meet with the National Board of Directors. When Lee said he could not come on short notice he was sent two letters from attorneys for SCLC that he faced suspension or firing if he didn't "explain himself.""But it was clear to me," he added, "that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that."
In April, Mr. Lee attended a board meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo., and found himself once again in the minority position among his colleagues on the issue of same-sex marriage, but he was told, he said, by the group's interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.
The thing is, since the chapters are autonomous (Lee was elected by a local board), it's a question whether the national board can do a damn thing other than look like top-down homophobic bullies. Reginald Byron Jones-SJones-Sawyer, who is chairman of the local board has contacted the national board to clarify if any SCLC regulations have been violated -- there has been no response.
Mr. Lee, the former pastor of In His Steps, an African-American Wesleyan church in Los Angeles that he described as "very conservative," said he saw failures both in the leadership of the conference ("Dr. King would be turning over in his grave right now," he said) and the largely white anti-Proposition 8 movement that did not more actively seek the support of church-going African-Americans.And he's right. Anti-Prop 8 forces readily admit that outreach to the black community was poor or non-existent. The challenges of reaching the religious conservative black community (non-church attending blacks voted no different than the rest of the pop) are myriad. One approach that has been launched recently by Equality California and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition. This ad hits the mark, featuring, Xavier and Michael Boykin-Haggood, along with three of their five children, Dante, Emmanuel and Fatima, who live in LA's Leimert Park neighborhood."The black church played a significant role in Proposition 8 passing," Mr. Lee said. "The failure of the campaign was to presume that African-Americans would see this as a civil rights issue."
See it below the fold.
Related:
Michael (to the children): Has everyone said grace? Alright.Xavier and Michael (nodding): We have five -- five children.
Xavier: You know Michael and I have been planning what our day was going to be like for eleven, twelve years. And now you tell me I can't get married? I'm free to love who I love.
Michael: At its core level it's just totally unfair to actually take away anyone's right[s]. And so I have no doubt that this will inevitably be turned back the right way.
* What Would MLK Say? Pastor Faces Ousting from MLK's Organization for Supporting Marriage Equality
The Rev. Lee stood up for us. He went to No on 8 rallies, he spoke to the media, he spoke at protests, he spoke to Unite the Fight! In the video below, Rev. Lee gave us an amazing interview after speaking at Meet in the Middle in Fresno, CA, detailing why believes denying LGBT the right to marry is not only wrong, but unethical. It's a MUST SEE.
As a follow up to yesterday's post concerning the 26 AIDS activists protesting in the Capitol rotunda, some news from Ryan Grim at Huffington Post:
House Democrats have reversed a decision by President Obama and removed a ban on federal funding for needle-exchange programs that he included in the 2010 budget. Including the ban broke a campaign pledge and the flip-flop set off outrage in the gay community and among HIV/AIDS activists. Twenty-six activists were arrested Thursday in the Capitol protesting the policy."For us this is a major positive development," said Allan Clear of the Harm Reduction Coalition. "We're optimistic it will stay out. We don't think Democrats would do this unless they thought they could keep it out."
"The fact that Democrats took it out in subcommittee means they're willing to take it all the way," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Excellent. To be clear, numerous scientific studies worldwide and medical experts agree that Syringe Exchange Programs (SEP) save lives by reducing HIV and Hepatitis C infection via Intravenous Drug Use (IDU). Many state and local governments, such as Nancy Pelosi's home district of San Francisco, already have SEPs in place in their municipalities. San Francisco's doesn't depend on federal funding, but in a time of state budget crises and wedge politics, those programs in many other states go unfunded, leaving the public at higher risk of HIV and Hep C infections. Candidate Obama promised to be on the side of science, and see that those programs stood to be reinstated via a lifting of the federal ban on funding Snding SEPs. Like so many other times, and so many other issues, he backed away from that promise, allowing wedge politics and centrist sentiments to kill a public health policy based on science and common sense.
AIDS activists noticed Obama's failure to deliver, and they made damn sure everyone else did, too. The protestors got no response from the White House (please, try to contain your shock and surprise). But they sure got attention in Congress. More below the fold, including a call to action.
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) highlighted the reversal of Obama's decision when releasing the budget Friday. Obey is also the chairman of the subcommittee that removed the ban."One key exception that I want to mention concerns needle exchange programs. This bill deletes the prohibition on the use of funds for needle exchange programs," he said. "Scientific studies have documented that needle exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention for reducing AIDS/HIV infections and do not promote drug use. The judgment we make in this bill is that it is time to lift this ban and let State and local jurisdictions determine if they want to pursue this approach."
However, the battle is far from over. As usual, GOP members of the committee are exploiting children for the purposes of playing wedge politics with public health.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) offered an amendment Thursday that Democrats in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government accepted. It bans funding for distribution of syringes "in the District of Columbia within a thousand feet of a public or private daycare center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college or university or any public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade or youth center or an event sponsored by any such entity."Setting aside whether there is still such a thing as "video arcade," the amendment telegraphs what the GOP strategy is. A Kingston spokesman said that the language of the bill does leave some space in D.C. where a syringe exchange program (SEP) could operate. But it certainly doesn't leave much.
"This restriction is really designed to shut down" needle exchange, said Clear. "Long-standing and effective SEPs in cities such as New York and San Francisco would have to close down if subjected to arbitrary restrictions similar to the one imposed in Washington D.C.... Congress should not be in the business of local zoning. Many communities with SEPs have already adopted policies addressing location issues and the federal government should not be second-guessing these decisions."
The amendment only effects funding coming through the specific subcommittee involved and funding through Obey's subcommittee could still go toward needle exchange in the District. But if the GOP succeeds in adding the amendment in the full committee, the lifting of the ban will have been effectively undermined.
The list of the members of the House Appropriations Committee is here. Please, take a moment, click over, and if your Representative is listed, call his or her office and voice your support for lifting the federal ban on Syringe Exchange Programs without the proposed amendment. These are the members of the Subcommittee on Finance Services and General Government, where the amendment was originally proposed. Those of you who are constituents of these subcommittee members, we ESPECIALLY need you to call and voice your support for rejecting the amendment and lifting the ban. Please, call 202-224-3121, ask to be put through the offices, and make the statement.
MAJORITY
Chair: José E. Ser E. Serrano (NY)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
Barbara Lee (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
David R. Obey (WI), Ex Officio
MINORITY
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
John Abney Culberson (TX)
Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
Ander Crenshaw (FL)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio
So what does this yet-another-White-House-flip-flop mean?
At the time of Obama's reversal, spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the president left the ban in because he wanted Congress to take the lead and that the president didn't want to fight policy battles in the budget language."We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change," he said. "We are committed to doing this as part of a National HIV/AIDS strategy and are confident that we can build support for these scientifically-based programs."
He added, "In recent years, Washington has used the budget process to litigate divisive issues and score political points. This practice, which both sides have engaged in, has limited our ability to tackle our major economic challenges. President Obama decided not to play politics as usual with this budget and while he remains committed to supporting the program he wants to address that through the normal legislative process."
It means that the lives of people with AIDS and people at higher risk of contracting HIV via IDU are just as disposable to him as LGBT lives. It means publicly reversing damn near every progressive stance he'd taken on policies affecting LGBT and HIV+ lives. It means refusing to acknowledge our presence, our struggles, and the threats to our lives, health, and families. It means more of same, business as usual, pander to the right and refuse to take the lead. That's what it portends, more of the same cowardice we've had shoved down our throats since Inauguration Day. Take note, Mr. President: We are not stupid. Don't lie and tell us that the shit in the sandwich is really dijon mustard. We're not buying it.
Is this guy EVER going to step outside the 1993 time warp bubble and actually move forward with the progressive agenda on which he campaigned?
STATEMENT FROM INCOMING GLAAD PRESIDENT JARRETT BARRIOS ON BR?NONew York, NY, July 10, 2009 - The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today issued the following statement from incoming President Jarrett Barrios in response to the film "Br?no," which opens in movie theatres nationwide today.
"In many parts of the United States, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people live life in harm's way. We are among the most frequently targeted for hate crimes-including physical attacks, verbal assaults and destruction of our property. In particular, LGBT youth experience bullying and violence in school and social settings--harassment that contributes to lower self-respect, depression and increased ieased incidence of suicide.
Into this context steps the movie "Br?no," an 80-some-minute series of sketches apparently intended to skewer these homophobic attitudes-and get some laughs along the way. Clearly, the filmmakers wanted to use satire to highlight and challenge homophobia. But their film also reinforces troubling attitudes about gay people in ways that run counter to the intentions of the filmmakers.
The movie repeatedly builds entire scenes around stock stereotypes and situations that make gay people and families the butt of crude jokes. I can't help but think of all the teenage kids already getting bullied, beat up and ridiculed for being--or for being thought to be--gay.. For these kids, this movie will give their tormentors one more word in the anti-gay lexicon of slurs: Bruno.
Instead of challenging stereotypes, it reinforces them for many of the those who voted to take away the freedom to marry from loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California. Many states have gone even further-Arkansans went to the polls and effectively eliminated the ability of gay people to adopt or foster children in that state. In a cruel twist, "Br?no," some of which was actually shot in Arkansas, includes a scene where the title character shows a talk-show audience photos of sexual activity occurring in the presence of an infant child. Can this help the gay families across the country who continue to be reduced to political punching bags at the ballot box?
It's unfortunate that "Br?no" ultimately misses the mark, particularly when there are still far too few positive images of gay people in major studio films. Some members of our community will not be offended by this film. Others, like those of us at GLAAD, find it frustrating and discouraging to be confronted with a movie that wants to increase America's discomfort with homophobia, but which for much of America, seems likely to decrease its comfort with gay people."
I just went to get my mail a few minutes ago and overheard the college kids who live next door talking about me as I came up the stairs. My name is pretty rare. So when I hear somebody say it, I can usually bet they're not talking about another person named Fritz.
College Kid #1: "...he kind of reminds me of Fritz."
College Kid #2: (Laughing) "Yeah, maybe we should start calling him Bruno."
College Kid #1: (With accent) "Ya! How do you protect yourself from a man with a dildo?"
Needless to say, I was stunned. These are seemingly nice young men. They have been very polite and friendly since I moved in a couple of months ago. When I stepped onto the landing where they could see me, their laughter stopped cold. It appeared that their girlfriends were not amused by the conversation. One of them turned quickly and walked through the open door of their apartment. I just went inside my apartment without saying a word.
So there you have it. Thanks to Sasha Baron Cohen, people now have just one word they can use to slur both my sexual orientation and my ethnic heritage -- Bruno. Blond hair? Germanic? Gay? Yep. Must be a Bruno. (The Bruno character is supposed to be Austrian.)
I don't recall ever being called "faggot" to my face. And, I seriously doubt that these young men would engage in that kind of behavior. This is just one of those unfortunate cases when you hear what people are saying about you behinu behind your back.
I don't speak with an accent. I am a third-generation American. I just happen to have a name that identifies me as being of German heritage -- an unusual name that many people make fun of anyway.
Now, I guess I'm going to have to deal with being identified as the gay stereotype presented in this Bruno movie. Frankly, I never saw that coming. I simply thought that the film would present a generic stereotype that could negatively impact all gay men.
I don't know much about the movie. I don't know what the dildo reference is all about and I am afraid to find out. (Please don't tell me Bruno chases after young college guys.)
I guess it doesn't really matter that I don't dress flamboyantly and giggle like a schoolgirl. Some people see me as a deviant anyway. I may as well put on bright yellow lederhosen and act like a big queen.
It is going to take me a few days to get over this. Thank you, Sasha Baron Cohen for making my life just a little more difficult. I guess I should be grateful that Cohen didn't actually give his character the name Fritz -- perhaps that would have been too much of a stereotype.
This is so sad. Dr. King and Coretta Scott King are rolling in their graves over the way some of the members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization the slain civil rights leader founded, are treating the Rev. Eric Lee, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the org.
Lee stood up against many of his fellow members and opposed Proposition 8 in support of marriage equality. Now his status as a straight ally has put his head on the chopping block for the small-minded, narrow-thinking people around him at SCLC. (NYT):
Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 had "created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy."A month after that he was told to come to Atlanta to meet with the National Board of Directors. When Lee said he could not come on short notice he was sent two letters from attorneys for SCLC that he faced suspension or firing if he didn't "explain himself.""But it was clear to me," he added, "that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that."
In April, Mr. Lee attended a board meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo., and found himself once again in the minority position among his colleagues on the issue of same-sex marriage, but he was told, he said, by the group's interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.
The thing is, since the chapters are autonomous (Lee was elected by a local board), it's a question whether the national board can do a damn thing other than look like top-down homophobic bullies. Reginald Byron Jones-SJones-Sawyer, who is chairman of the local board has contacted the national board to clarify if any SCLC regulations have been violated -- there has been no response.
Mr. Lee, the former pastor of In His Steps, an African-American Wesleyan church in Los Angeles that he described as "very conservative," said he saw failures both in the leadership of the conference ("Dr. King would be turning over in his grave right now," he said) and the largely white anti-Proposition 8 movement that did not more actively seek the support of church-going African-Americans.And he's right. Anti-Prop 8 forces readily admit that outreach to the black community was poor or non-existent. The challenges of reaching the religious conservative black community (non-church attending blacks voted no different than the rest of the pop) are myriad. One approach that has been launched recently by Equality California and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition. This ad hits the mark, featuring, Xavier and Michael Boykin-Haggood, along with three of their five children, Dante, Emmanuel and Fatima, who live in LA's Leimert Park neighborhood."The black church played a significant role in Proposition 8 passing," Mr. Lee said. "The failure of the campaign was to presume that African-Americans would see this as a civil rights issue."
See it below the fold.
Related:
Michael (to the children): Has everyone said grace? Alright.Xavier and Michael (nodding): We have five -- five children.
Xavier: You know Michael and I have been planning what our day was going to be like for eleven, twelve years. And now you tell me I can't get married? I'm free to love who I love.
Michael: At its core level it's just totally unfair to actually take away anyone's right[s]. And so I have no doubt that this will inevitably be turned back the right way.
* What Would MLK Say? Pastor Faces Ousting from MLK's Organization for Supporting Marriage Equality
The Rev. Lee stood up for us. He went to No on 8 rallies, he spoke to the media, he spoke at protests, he spoke to Unite the Fight! In the video below, Rev. Lee gave us an amazing interview after speaking at Meet in the Middle in Fresno, CA, detailing why believes denying LGBT the right to marry is not only wrong, but unethical. It's a MUST SEE.
No comments:
Post a Comment