The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Dispiriting

Re: Dispiriting

Jennifer D. — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:32:40 -0000

Thanks. I need a forgiving host sometimes, and I don't even drink anymore.

Re: Dispiriting

Hugo Pottisch — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:44:32 -0000

It's not that blacks are homophobic. Americans are. But less so by the minute.

Re: Dispiriting

Tom T. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:32:21 -0000

So what does it mean that four out of the five ministers in Obama's supposed inner circle of spiritual advisors are strongly opposed to gay equality?

Re: Dispiriting

Darkrose — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:29:44 -0000

I was seriously shocked when I found out he was married to a woman. I totally thought he was a Friend of Dorothy.

Re: Dispiriting

Acromion — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:38:47 -0000

"It's something a lotta breeders have gotten past (like TNC and most of the straight posters in here), but still a minority - including Bill and Obama."

I'm sorry I can't let this slide. I don't think its OK to refer to TNC and the straight posters here as "breeders." Everyone on this blog has been really cool about gay people, so calling them breeders is disrespectful.

Re: Dispiriting

Acromion — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:27:20 -0000

I don't have much to add to this discussion so I should probably just shut my mouth. But I can't resist! Must opinionate!

1. The media can't resist a scintillating two dimensional conflict. Blacks vs. gays! The irony! As if "black" and "gay" are mutually exclusive categories.

2. Obama has been *fantastic* for gay people. We have never had a president more sympathetic to our cause. I mean, to actually acknowledge that gays have a history worth acknowledging! To invite gay folks to the White House on the anniversary of Stonewall!? Hell, I'm gay and I didn't even know about Stonewall until Obama chose to honor it. He is on our side, but he is also a politician. Politics is the art of compromise. Deal with it.

3. Homophobes can be found among all colors and creeds. Go to the countryside and you can find a tractor driving homophobic hillbilly. Go to the city and you can find a homophobic thug. Its racist to blame homophobia on black folks.

4. Its also unfair to say that gays are more racist than non-gays. First of all, gays are not all white. It is also unfair to assume that all gays are activists of some sort, or that they all care about marriage. The majority of gays are ordinary, apolitical, congenial American folk. Not all of us live in San Fran, go to Pride Parades, have children adopted from Laos, and own fabulous condos. A lot of us work at Arby's, take the bus, shop at the dollar store, and get along just fine with our homophobic black neighbors ;)

Re: Dispiriting

rikyrah — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:06:28 -0000

I am, at least in my own limited estimation, a hard-eyed skeptic. I work to not assume bad faith in disagreements. But at some point, as someone in it, you start to conclude that this race shit is real.

There are black people all over the net laughing at me right now. I take that.

And, I'm one of them right now...that was hilarious, Coates.

I just want to say that watching, on the one hand, a black city move toward gay marriage, and on the other hand, people blame Obama's inaction on black people is deeply disappointing. On gay rights, Obama hails from one of the most progressive black churches in the country. Moreover, there's been this ongoing narrative that Obama isn't afraid to tell black people hard truths. And yet when he comes up short, somehow it's because he's caving to the horrid blacks.

In everything else, Obama is postracial. In the matter of gay rights, he is truly black.

This is the Coates that I know and love.

I, too, am disappointed with Rich on this.

Re: Dispiriting

JAD1973 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:51:27 -0000

Well I've just read Frank Rich's post. He does say some impressive stuff. There are some points with which I disagree. I am being pedantic to pick on him for ignoring Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights in the 70's. Specifically I'm not sure I totally buy into Rich's suggestion that he doesn't want to "risk gay issues upending his presidency" True, Rich fully admits that this is not a good reason for him shuffling his feet on LGBT rights. But I still think this isn't the issue: he hasn't worried about other tough issues upending his presidency (environment, health care, Iraq for example). Some will argue that these are more important because they affect everyone, but civil rights issues affect everyone. Still I could go on all day about that, and others have already done so in other posts. But I still feel that a big factor in his foot shuffling is that he just can't see how big a problem antigay discrimination actually is. He knows it's a problem, but he's in that "But it's not as important a problem as others" camp.

So with all that, my original points still stand:

1) If Obama really is so passionate about our issues, even in our current political environment where the LGBT community really does have some political momentum, then he should not be shuffling his feet so dispassionately. It means a lot to see a president do anything to commemorate Stonewall, but that was just a pretext for damage control.

2) Rich is still buying at least in part into the "blacks are homophobic" meme, even if he's saying that he doesn't think it's the motivation for Obama pulling back.

Re: Dispiriting

eltoro — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:05 -0000

BabylonSista,

Actually, it reveals that many WHITES in the gay community are capable of being as racist and as xenophobic toward Blacks and other non-whites as many WHITES in the straight community can be.

Let's not equate the gay community as a whole with the primarily white urban professional political class that tends to grab the media spotlight; there are significant segments of the gay community consisting of Blacks, Hispanics, and other non-Whites, and many of the Black members of the gay community are active members of Black churches, including those headed by TD Jakes and Donny McClurkin.

Re: Dispiriting

Persia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:00 -0000

You're a generous man. Overall, I really liked the column, which probably contributed to the obliviousness.

Re: Dispiriting

dsd25 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:59:44 -0000

Have to admit, I did the same thing.

Being from Memphis, I kind of accepted this "theory" in the past few years because I saw the opponents of gay rights in the news who were typically black preachers (and a few of the megachurch preachers as well). And I never really thought about the fact that as a majority black city, the opponents of gay rights would logically be majority black. Going to college in DC has been something of a welcome revelation to my own blind spot because I have seen that this earlier attitude was incorrect in so many ways. It's unfortunate to see the level of intellectual dishonesty that can blame a problem this embedded in parts of American culture on one minority ethnic group (or at least to blame them in part).

Also, just wanted to say that reading your writing has been another welcome revelation for me; as someone else with a deep interest in the Civil War, your pieces earlier this month on the American south were almost exactly on point in ways that I had never even thought of, so I thank you for that.

Re: Dispiriting

Katie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:57:12 -0000

"Was Bill Clinton's similar level of inaction on LGBT issues attributable to black homophobia, too? Nope. So why is Obama's?"

Not to argue you on anything, but since you haven't read the column, the next paragraph is acutally about how the most prevalent thought(despite the claims of speculators) is that Obama's retinence on gay issues is likely due to being surrounded by people who were with Clinton when he was burned going after gay rights in the 90s. Implicitly, it seems similar to what you're saying, just, like everyone else is saying... sloppy.

Re: Dispiriting

leonardhatred — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:39:31 -0000

yeah, i heard him specifically bring up the African-American church. IMO, it was a head-desk moment. As TNC mentioned, Obama came from an extremely gay-friendly AA church. There are coalitions of black churches who fought for gay rights in California and DC.

The way the whole issue is framed provides for a limited and often prejudiced discussion. It's spoken of in terms of "black homophobia" or in terms of the problem of homophobia in the "black community." Saddleback, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and the Morman Church, aren't viewed through the lens of "white homophobia," and they shouldn't be. It's interesting that Obama doesn't speak of confronting those unfriendly audiences.

Re: Dispiriting

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:30:52 -0000

No one should be embarrassed. My many blind spots are regularly exposed in this comments section.

Re: Dispiriting

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:27:08 -0000

It's total bullshit though. He said it Ebeneezer in Atlanta. He isn't saying hard truths to any "tough audiences." He's saying hard truths to audiences he knows. Let's see him take those "hard truths" to white evangelicals in Alabama. He is the president of the United States, right? He ain't hosting Soul Train, right?

Re: Dispiriting

Jennifer D. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:25:42 -0000

Hah! That's how I felt when I read the whole NYT Magazine article on Sunday, thought "Well, that was a somewhat interesting story about one family's experience," and didn't even register the headline "The Fall of the Black Middle Class" until I came over here.

Re: Dispiriting

MAJeff — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:13:48 -0000

I nearly fell down last year when MA voters approved decriminalization by a 2-1 margin. Still sort of surprises me. (Up to 1 oz is now akin to a parking ticket. Civil fine, no criminal violation.) The legislature, early on, talked about repeal, but has failed to do so.

Re: Dispiriting

abcommentator — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:12:59 -0000

I don't think you'd have any problem seeing that not everyone with that pedigree and self-identification would really grasp other issues like race, gender, or class or, perhaps more to the point, would really feel the need to push for or prioritize them. "Limousine liberal" is a derogatory term for a reason.

I know plenty of people with a similar pedigree (including Harvard Law Review, which is more a mark of gunner achievement than some sort of special enlightenment) that are both personally quite comfortable with gay people, and also quite comfortable with backseating our issues for a few more years...then we'll see...

Re: Dispiriting

deva — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:08:59 -0000

@MAJeff: you can email at devaretha@gmail.com.

Re: Dispiriting

Persia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:59:08 -0000

I'm embarrassed that I read the piece, enjoyed it, and didn't even catch the stuff about black preachers. White privilege: still soaking in it.

Re: Dispiriting

MAJeff — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:58:16 -0000

but because the 'black preachers hate gays' narrative does nothing to advance the cause of queer rights.

One of the interesting things that happened here in MA (esp. in the Globe) was a sort of "dueling Black preachers" discourse." There was the Black Ministerial Alliance organizing demonstrations opposing marriage equality and on the other side were Peter Gomes (Baptist minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard), Byron Rushing (Episcopal Priest and member of the MA House) and William Sinkford (President of the Unitarian Universalists).

Re: Dispiriting

CitizenE — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:58:15 -0000

I agree. While some may argue tokenism, I don't think that Clinton's hiring of Roberta Achtenberg was tokenism, and it along with other Clinton hires were part of the symbolic breakthrough that presaged the evolving political landscape.

Like Clinton, Obama is in the media-political bubble of America, which in every way is more consevative than the populace or the times and always reflects attitudes that have calcified. Look at the issue of marijuana for example. Politicians of both parties are far behind the real attitudes of the populace, but who running for office with a desire to succeed will run advocating the legalization of dope? Nonetheless, that does not mean that the populace has to be so politic. And the President is and should be taking heat for his passivity on gay issues, especially given his public statements.

Re: Dispiriting

LCrawfty — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:53:51 -0000

My dad went to an Elton John concert in Massachusetts in the early 70's and saw two dudes kiss for the first time, so yeah I think just realizing there were gays in New York during the late 70's is pretty hard to swallow (hehe swallow...)

Re: Dispiriting

abcommentator — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:52:13 -0000

Great point well stated, Anna S.

Re: Dispiriting

JAD1973 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:50:14 -0000

Point taken, dude. But: it doesn't excuse the fact that Obama's nevertheless dragging his foot, and that's not stopping gay and bisexual men and women from getting kicked out of the military. Smart they may be, but is he smart enough to realize the price our LGBT troops are paying for being outed whether they'd rather be out or not? Or are they just a reasonable casualty (no pun intended)?

On a tangent: if and (hopefully) when DADT is repealed, will it be retroactive to all servicemembers who have been kicked out for being gay or bi? I'm just curious? Did Obama address this in his meeting with the LGBT community?