A Question for Liberal America: If Not Now, When?

Still thinking about the postings on yesterday’s Arkansas Times blog, in response to Mr. Obama’s clarion call for Americans to recognize that equality is a moral imperative when it comes to how the nation treats its gay citizens.

I read on yesterday’s Towleroad blog that Obama spoke out clearly again in Beaumont, Texas. As he addressed a crowd about the evils of discrimination—against people of color, against women—he received loud acclaim. When he included gays and lesbians, the audience fell silent. He then told the crowd that homophobia is unchristian, and got at least a few cheers.

Homophobia: the prejudice that dare not speak its name—as in being identified squarely and unambiguously as prejudice, as discrimination that is just as evil as racial or gender discrimination. It takes courage to name this prejudice in American culture today, particularly when one is a political leader seeking to win a national election. It takes courage for an African-American leader to name this ugly prejudice, since it continues to be far too acceptable among African Americans who rightly decry racial prejudice to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

And on today’s Bilerico blog, I read that the vigil to remember African-American gay teen Simmie Williams in Ft. Lauderdale on Wednesday addressed “what many see as a growing war on gay and transgendered people in Florida.” Bilerico’s report calls for a frank, open conversation in Florida and nationwide about homophobic violence:

“It is time that Florida, and all of America, begin to have the conversation about hate-based violence and the terror that hate crimes inflict. We demand that EVERY official from every level of government needs to speak out and say we will not tolerate this violence in our communities.”

Reading that statement leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach—primarily because of the senseless waste of gay youths’ lives, but also because of experiences that I’ve recounted in previous postings. I went to Florida in 2006 to take a job at a United Methodist institution that prides itself on its civic engagement initiatives. I was charged with leading faculty to develop a curriculum to enhance civic engagement on the part of students and faculty.

On one occasion, I made reference to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) as an organization whose model of civic engagement faculty might wish to examine, as they crafted civic engagement initiatives for students. For citing that organization as one among many models of civic engagement, I was punished, told that I had “put my lifestyle into the face of colleagues.”

It should not be this way. It was evident to me from the time I arrived at this church-based college that there was a real, a serious, problem with homophobia among students and in the community at large. Since the college’s civic engagement curriculum is based on the belief that students must be taught to involve themselves in every social ill found in their community, it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that a church-based, civic-engagement oriented college would punish faculty leaders who called for open, honest discussion of homophobic violence—or, for that matter, of youth violence against homeless people.

We have a long way to go: Equality is a moral imperative. And even the churches and their educational institutions cannot skirt that moral imperative. Churches fail dismally in their moral responsibility to educate when they remain silent about homophobic violence. Churches make themselves part of the problem and not the solution, when they punish those they empower to deal with social problems, when those punished have sought to include homophobic violence among the social problems to be addressed.

These reflections lead me to wonder again about those bloggers on yesterday’s Arkansas Times forum about Obama’s moral imperative statement. I wonder, in particular, about all the “liberals” across the nation who seem to believe, as quite a few bloggers stated yesterday, that now is not the right time for the nation and its leaders to decry homophobia.

What can they be thinking, I wonder? I’d like to ask these liberals: What precisely is ambiguous to you about that statement, Equality is a moral imperative?

What do you imagine those of us who are gay and living beside you should do? What is your advice to your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Do you want us to stand and wait for the crumbs you are willing to dole out, as you sit at the table and feast?

Is this the best you are willing to offer your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Would you accept this humiliating treatment for yourselves?

Should we simply leave your communities, so that you can live comfortably without confronting your prejudice?

Is this the best you are willing to offer your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Would you accept this humiliating treatment for yourselves?

Should we hide and be silent, or engage in bogus and totally ineffectual conversion therapies, to make you more comfortable?

Is this the best you are willing to offer your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Would you accept this humiliating treatment for yourselves?

Would you prefer that we apologize for being gay, and agree that we deserve only what you are willing to offer us by way of the crumbs of justice, when you decide it is time for us to have those crumbs?

Is this the best you are willing to offer your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Would you accept this humiliating treatment for yourselves?

Would you like for us to stand up and claim our rights, but have you sitting on the sidelines clucking your tongues and saying, “Oh, but now is not the right time”?

Is this the best you are willing to offer your gay children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers?

Would you accept this humiliating treatment for yourselves?

If not now, when, liberals of America—those of you who profess to value tolerance, those of you churchgoers who claim to have open hearts, open minds, and open doors?

For those denied justice, for those whose basic human rights are being trampled on, is there ever any right time to accord justice except right now? How many more young lives need to be destroyed before you are willing to hear this moral imperative?

Week in Review: Equality Is a Moral Imperative

Another Friday. And wow. When I gathered material last night for my weekly Friday news round-up, little did I know how much the news sites and blogs would be popping this morning with fresh items worth mentioning.

Above all, the open letter Barack Obama issued yesterday to the LGBT community (and to all Americans, since we all suffer when any of us are oppressed) deserves attention. The full text may be found at today’s Bilerico Project Blog at http://www.bilerico.com/.

This statement is significant. It centers on one simple, stark claim: Equality is a moral imperative. The beloved community that constitutes America at its best is a community, rather than a collection of disparate individuals with competing interests, precisely because it regards equality as a moral imperative. The vision of American democracy at its best centers on the astonishing moral claim that all human beings are made equal by the hand of God and have an equal claim on the right to pursue their destiny without being fettered by the prejudice of others.

It’s interesting to me how this moral imperative seems to fall on deaf ears not merely among Americans to the right of the political spectrum, but also among Americans who identify as liberal. That is, it falls on deaf ears among liberals when the moral imperative involves LGBT Americans. It is still difficult for many liberals to hear the moral imperative to accord full human rights to gay human beings. It is still hard for many liberals to understand that standing in solidarity with LGBT Americans and working with us to eradicate the many barriers we experience to equality is a moral imperative involving all of us—not just gay people.

A case in point: the lively blog at my statewide “liberal” weekly newspaper the Arkansas Times. Yesterday, the paper’s editor Max Brantley excerpted Mr. Obama’s statement in a posting entitled “Today I Am an Obamaist": see www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog. The responses of bloggers to Obama’s statement have been astonishing. They’ve been deeply saddening.

There are, of course, the predictable wing-nut rantings and ravings: if you think Katrina was a disaster, just wait for what God will do to the nation when we let the mire and cess of queers rise to the top. What’s shocking to read, though, are not these predictable comments: what's shocking are the postings of self-professed liberals who say they had planned to vote Democratic in the coming election, no matter which candidate is chosen.

One poster says he will now change his vote to McCain. Many others chide Obama for having miscalculated politically. Some of these say that making this statement—that is, enunciating the clear moral imperative that binds us together as a beloved community—will drive centrist voters into the Republican fold.

The subtext of these comments is worrisome to me. For these "liberals," gay human beings are obviously still the Other. We who are gay are not the children, the brothers, the sisters of those who are content to see us still denied full human rights. We are clearly the poor unfortunates who should stand beside the table while they sit to feast, and be grateful when a crumb is dropped into our outstretched hands.

These “liberals” just haven’t yet gotten the message. They haven’t yet heard the moral imperative. The concerns—the lives—of gay human beings are somehow at a remove from their lives. Whereas they have no difficulty at all hearing the imperative for women or African Americans to be given a chance at a full human life, they have yet to hear that moral imperative when it comes to LGBT people.

And this in a state in which, a half century ago, most white people responded to the moral imperative to treat black citizens as fully human with the same timid truculence they now apply to that moral imperative in the case of their gay children, brothers, and sisters. Fifty years ago, it was politically unpopular—politically disastrous—to stand up and speak forthrightly about the full humanity of African Americans in Arkansas.

Today, we celebrate and admire those who had the courage to speak out. Those who vacillated, who sat on the fence, who calculated the political odds and did the expedient thing: their names are all but forgotten. They did not make the choice that moved our society closer to the vision of a beloved community. They deserve not to be remembered, frankly, because they obstructed rather than participated in history in the making, in the realization of the vision of the beloved community.

Speaking of remembering, a theme I have stressed repeatedly regarding gay youth like Lawrence King or Simmie Williams, whose lives were recently tragically cut short by hate crimes, this week’s Arkansas Times carries a story that has touched the depths of my soul. Leslie Newell Peacock’s “Stirring the Ashes” at www.arktimes.com discusses a horrendous event that occurred just outside Little Rock on 5 March 1959.

On that day, 21 African-American youth aged 13 to 16 died at a fire at the Negro Boys Industrial School. These teens were sleeping in a dormitory whose doors were padlocked on the outside. When a fire broke out in the adjacent chapel, they burned to death. Fourteen of the young men were so badly burnt that their bodies could not be recognized. They are buried together in an unmarked grave at a cemetery in Little Rock.

A number of these young men were placed in the Industrial School—a correctional institution for wayward black youth—on outrageously slim charges: e.g., for soaping windows at Halloween time, or for riding the bike of a white friend (with the friend’s permission). This story is a reminder of where we have come from in places such as Little Rock, when it comes to the rights of African Americans.

Just as we should not forget the names and lives of Lawrence King or Matthew Shepard or Simmie Williams, we must challenge ourselves to remember the names of Lindsey Cross, Charles L. Thomas, William Loyd Piggee, and the other young men who died in this horrible fire in 1959. The Arkansas Times article prints those names, and I, for one, will do my best to keep them in memory, as a reminder that the life of every human being counts, that the life of no one who dies tragically young due to prejudice deserves to fall into the darkness of forgetting: Equality is a moral imperative.

As I read this article side by side with the Arkansas Times blog regarding Mr. Obama’s statement yesterday—with the Cassandra-like moanings of liberals because Mr. Obama has chosen to do what is right if not politically expedient—I call to mind the Pete Seeger commemorative that Steve and I watched this past week on PBS. Since that special aired, we’ve been playing Pete Seeger’s protest songs over and over.

In a Carnegie Hall performance of that stirring anthem of the Civil Rights movement, “We Shall Overcome,” Seeger noted how much the youth of the Civil Rights struggle taught their elders. He notes that the verse, “We are not afraid,” was inspired by youths’ willingness to demonstrate fearlessly for equal rights, when their elders, both white and black, cautioned prudence and political calculation.

PBS’s choice to air this special now strikes me as fortuitous. We are at a similar turning point in our history today, with regard to the fundamental direction our nation will take. We are at a crossroads at which we must either choose to accord fundamental rights to LGBT Americans, or frankly admit that we have given up on the vision of a beloved community.

What I wish desperately to say to my “liberal” fellow citizens who are now wringing their hands about the unwisdom of Mr. Obama’s statement yesterday is, Equality is a moral imperative. I want to tell these fellow citizens that another death of any gay youth—the killing of a single other gay youth because he or she is gay—is unacceptable. We must make this a nation in which such deaths are no longer thinkable. These youth are not just the children of the biological parents who gave birth to them: they are all of our children; they are the children of you liberals who still hear the call to equality for LGBT citizens with deaf ears.

Today’s Towleroad blog contains a posting entitled “Ellen Degeneres on Lawrence King: We Must Change Our Country”: see http://www.towleroad.com/. This posting notes that on her show today, Ellen will issue an appeal for us to remember Lawrence King and to make what happened to this youth unthinkable in our nation in the future. Ellen will appeal to us to vote in the coming elections with this moral imperative in mind. The posting links to a clip of that segment of today’s “Ellen.”

And finally, I want to leave readers with a thought-provoking quote from today’s Christian Science Monitor. The Monitor carries an editorial today entitled, “What Is ‘Good Theology?’ ” The editorial excerpts a statement from Karen Armstrong’s The Spiral Staircase, in which Armstrong defines what constitutes authentic theology in the religious traditions of the world. Armstrong states:

The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology.

The one and only test of a valid religious idea . . . is that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If only all of us could hear that moral imperative today. And, in particular, would it not be inspiring if the churches examined themselves on this point, and asked whether their proclamations about LGBT human beings lead directly to practical compassion. If they lead in some other direction—if, for instance, they foster ignorance or distortion of the real lives of gay persons, or if they fuel violence in any form towards LGBT persons—it seems the conclusion is inescapable: the churches are misrepresenting the authentic Christian tradition, when they use it to support callous or destructive attitudes towards gay human beings.