« Van Sant: Milk Camera Shop Visited by Harvey's Ghost |
Main
| News: Subway Deli, California, Cheyenne Jackson, India Adoption »
11/18/2008
Dan Savage Talks Race and Prop 8 with D.L. Hughley
Dan Savage appeared on D.L. Hughley's show over the weekend to discuss race, the Prop 8 vote, and the civil rights movement. Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 2:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, D.L. Hughley, Dan Savage, Gay Marriage, News, Proposition 8 | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I've always though D.L. Hughley's show was a very weak attempt to get into the space of The Daily Show. This compounds that. D.L. Hughley is just not smart and not funny. Jon Stewart could run circles around him.
Posted by: Gregus | Nov 18, 2008 3:24:21 PM
Hughley's never met a Black atheist?
Where in the hell does he live? Obviously not LA.
Regardless, I certainly do AGREE with much of what Hughley said, but I give him credit for having a calm and civil discussion about their disagreements. I don't see that very often.
Posted by: damien | Nov 18, 2008 3:26:17 PM
I'm really starting to get sick of the line that our struggle is not akin to "The Civil Rights Movement". How many gays and lesbians have to be beaten and tied to a fence post and left for dead before we can make that claim? How many have to die in The Holocaust before we get to be seen as oppressed? How many have to have their families and lives ripped apart, before they understand that oppression is oppression. Gays and lesbians didn't run away from their families to the big cities like SF, LA, NYC for the fun of it ... we did it many times for our safety and chance at a normal lifestyle. It is very akin to the slaves running from the South to the North for freedom.
Posted by: Garrett in SF | Nov 18, 2008 3:27:47 PM
Perhaps if our biggest concern in the wake of Prop 8 was to reach reach white big city intellectual voters, but our biggest problem is making inroads with religious Americans, middle Americans, and Black and Latino Americans, and Dan Savage is not the best person to do that. He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that some religious groups bless same-sex unions. In order to fight religious and cultural/ethnic anti-gay arguments, you need people who have credibility in those communities, who can discuss issues from those perspectives. His responses are stridently secular without any understanding of religious matters and culturally bland. He is culturally incompetent to undertake the outreach to people of color and religious Americans that we need.
Posted by: Jamal | Nov 18, 2008 3:29:05 PM
Any why do we not bring up that Martin Luther King Jr. believe our struggle to be the same. Hell, The Civil Rights March (yes, capital TCRM) was organized by a gay man, Bayard Rustin.
Posted by: Garrett in SF | Nov 18, 2008 3:32:30 PM
Whenever the discussion turns to whose struggle is worse or harder, we all lose. Anyone's civil rights being violated is a problem for everyone. I give Dan much credit as he's been out there more than almost anyone lately. And I think it's a bonus he's in a committed relationship with a kid. Has anyone else noticed the major LGBT organizations have been practically absent the last 2 weeks? It seems like all of the moving and shaking is happening from the grass roots and from individuals like Savage – which strikes me as increasingly effective.
Posted by: Scott B. | Nov 18, 2008 3:32:36 PM
Really Damien? What exactly do you agree with D.L. on?
Posted by: Jai | Nov 18, 2008 3:34:24 PM
I <3 Dan in the worst possible way. Dan, you should move here to Massachusetts! We got done what California couldn't and I'm sure it's just a cold here as it is in Seattle but with less rain. Give it a thought. Bean Town is pretty awesome.
Posted by: CJ | Nov 18, 2008 3:39:54 PM
This is the problem with civil rights as a "woe-is-me" race to the victimhood bottom. The conversations go: "I've been oppressed the most." "No, I've been oppressed the most!" "How can you say that?? Clearly you don't know how bad I've got it!" blah, blah, blah... And we're one step removed from a Monty Python skit. Gaining marriage privileges has nothing to do with past victimhood and everything to do with political power. You have to assert the power you have and make it work for you. We aren't requesting marriage rights, we are demanding them. Are opponents can throw up whatever arguments they think will stick, no matter how ridiculous, because that is purely a political tactic. These arguments are simply cover for those who oppose us to vote against us, whatever their actually reasons (largely selfish I should think).
Posted by: anon | Nov 18, 2008 3:41:26 PM
bobbo, you quoted the wrong person. I didn't say that.
Posted by: Wes | Nov 18, 2008 3:53:55 PM
I thought the interview went really well when I watched it earlier, and after reading all these comments, I re-watched it, and _still_ think it went really well.
If I were trying to have a conversation with someone and they started correcting my choice of words, I would get defensive, and distracted. Unproductive.
If we say gay civil rights equals black civil rights, we lose the argument. Even if you think everyone's civil rights matter, they are not the same. The struggles were not the same. Like Scott B said, Whenever the discussion turns to whose struggle is worse or harder, we all lose. And by equating the two, a lot of people get offended. Unproductive.
I thought he did a great job of creating rapport with Hughley. He agreed with him a lot, which might be frustrating, but succeeded in having a constructive conversation. In the end, Hughley even said "...it might happen. I promise... I hope it works out for you," which is a pretty good way to end a conversation with someone who doesn't necessarily agree with you.
And of course having a different guest would provide a different viewpoint. That doesn't mean Dan's viewpoint is wrong. It only means that he is not and should not be the only spokesmodel for all glbtlmnopq people.
Posted by: Alan | Nov 18, 2008 4:19:07 PM
I cannot understand in the least how D.L. Hughley got a show on CNN ??? It boggles the mind that valuable airtime on a news network was allocated to such a halfass excuse for a broadcast personality. He's barely good enough for BET or FOX.
meanwhile, thru all of Dan Savages appearances since November 4th, it doesn't seem that he is able to put his foot down and plainly state the obvious... this debate for our civil rights has zero/nada to do with race... it is religion and oppression by religious believers that has absolute no place whatsoever in a civil rights political debate. It is very simple, people choose to believe in their religion and subsequently choose to judge and oppress others according to their religion.
Someone else's God has no place in anyone else's life, period. When anyone mentions their religious view in regards to our civil rights they need to be corrected that such inappropriate behavior is unsuitable to the debate.
Posted by: Pbar | Nov 18, 2008 4:23:05 PM
THere is a book by Horace Griffin "Their Own Receive Them Not" in which Griffin explains the "strange" relationship that the larger black community has with black gay people--they believe we exist, but we're supposed to be invisible.
White gays are forcing black church folk to deal with gays as a legitimate political/social movement--the problem is, then the face of "gay" becomes white.
Yes, we need more black gay representation on venues such as Hughley's show...other elequent voices beyond the ones I mentioned above: Reverend Kevin TAylor, Pam Spaulding, Taylor Siluwe, Clay Cane, Frank Leon Roberts...the black gay voices are out there--they just don't get invited. It's almost as though the media wants this to develop into a black vs gay conflict, and that's stupid, sinnister, and deceptive.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 18, 2008 4:28:09 PM
Why don't the media invite these people on repeatedly to discuss gay issues?: Keith Boykin, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Pastor Carlton Pearson, Rev Peter Gomes, John Ameache, Jasmyne Cannick, Rod McCollum, Charles Barkley, Rep. John Lewis, Governor Deval Patrick, Wanda Sykes, Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, Rev. Dennis Meredith, Common, George Takei, Rev. Jimmy Creech, Pam Spaulding, Rev Eric Lee, Julian Bond, Carol Mosley Braun, Cornel West, and Antonio Villaraigrosa.
Posted by: jamal | Nov 18, 2008 4:38:32 PM
Gay blacks do not get invited Derrick because TV likes fake contrasts. It would been extremely hard for DL to pull that shit with a black gay man. I, and half of my friends, would have read him. The reality is that I as an African American can say stuff that Dan can not. Dan simply was a bad choice to represent us in front of the a black audience. Another black person like me is. I agree with all of the choices that you mentioned. Any of them would have cut DL down, and summed up in a way a black audience would have understood. Instead, it became about white versus black. This is something that will never be understood. By having only white people represent the gay movement- the perception is that it is about race. By removing the race element- one settles on the real discussion.
Posted by: The Gay Numbers | Nov 18, 2008 4:45:44 PM
Jamal:
Gomes especially would be a brilliant choice. Here is a guy who a preacher and scholar and who is black and gay. He's written a book on the subject in the form of Good Book. Even Boykin has written on the subject in One More River To Cross. I just don't get it. Do these people not do any research? Is this only about career building?
Posted by: The Gay Numbers | Nov 18, 2008 4:48:22 PM
Thanks to those who mentioned Bayard Rustin whom BOTH Professional Victim Hughely and Silly Savage need a lesson on, and every other gay person, of whatever color, left mute by pigs like Hughely and Jasmyne Coulter er Cannick. Let's start with the fact that gay Rustin TAUGHT Martin Luther King, Jr., the finer points of Gandhian theory AND organized the Great "I Have A Dream” March on Washington. Here he is telling the truth over 20 years ago. Feel free to use it whenever anyone plays the victim card with you [after you remind them it's not 1863]:
“Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from racial discrimination. The new ‘niggers’ are gays. No person who hopes to get politically elected, even in the deep South...would dare stand in the school door to keep blacks out. Nobody would dare openly and publicly argue that blacks should not have the right to public accommodations. Nobody would dare to say any number of things about blacks that they are perfectly prepared to say about gay people. It is in that sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change.
Indeed, if you want to know whether today people believe in democracy if you want to know whether they are true democrats, if you want to know whether they are human rights activists, the question to ask is, ‘What about gay people?’ Because that is now the litmus paper by which this democracy is to be judged. The barometer for social change is measured by selecting the group that is most mistreated. To determine where society is with respect to change, one does not ask, ‘What do you think about the education of children’? Nor does one ask, ‘Do you believe the aged should have Social Security?” The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people.”
Or, as Mel Boozer, the black president of DC’s Gay Activist Alliance when he addressed the 1980 Democratic National Convention, put it:
"Would you ask me how I'd dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare, and I do compare them. I know what it means to be called a nigger. I know what it means to be called a faggot. And I can sum up the difference in one word: none.”
AND Rustin again: "Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Nov 18, 2008 4:52:14 PM
Wasn't a fan of the interview, but I LOVED the Now, Voyager reference.
Oh, Jerry, lets not ask for the moon; we have the stars!
Posted by: Pierre | Nov 18, 2008 4:53:00 PM
Some say gays should make inroads within communities of Color. I say we just skip them because imho they need us more than we need them.*
Last time I checked, despite Barack being our new President, white people still - for the most part - are not having Blacks. Also, just look to the illegal immigration issue to see how a lot of people still feel about Latinos.
*White gay people in the closet, I contend though very hard to prove, were probably instrumental in gaining minority rights in American History BECAUSE closeted gays (living in quiet desperation) could see the injustice.
To me, communities of color shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting gay people, to me communities of color need gay people on their side whereas we can get what we need without them outside of letting a stupid mob pull a popular vote.
Lastly, I would asked D.L. if Christianity was the religion of African American ancestors. The answer is NO. I would then ask him the origin of today's African American Christianity and he would say it came from the Slave Masters. I would then ask him why would African Americans continue to buy into the religion of their oppressors and does this religion STILL keep them in check/keep them down. I say the answer is YES!
Posted by: Alan | Nov 18, 2008 4:53:15 PM
@Damien: Really? Really? Please get some perspective from black gay people who truly have an understanding of both sides of this argument.
Before black people in this country were allowed the freedom to move to the North, the overwhelming majority of them were owned property for generations. A systematic institution of daily, sub-human treatment as children - then as adults - without the ability to move away. Unless of course "moving away" meant attempting (usually unsuccessfully) to "escape."
Look...we want marriage. This IS a civil rights issue. Gay people have been oppressed throughout history. Before the birth of this nation and after. We are in the throws of and are continuing the Gay Civil Rights Movement. There are parallels to the Black Civil Rights Movement in this country. But it is not the same.
The sooner we begin to understand this and approach the fight from this perspective, the more successful we will be. Please...all the gay organizations...all the gay blogs...all the coordinators of this fight, begin to enlist the help of gay black people to craft and communicate an effective message that is not myopic. I agree. Keith Boykin, where are you??
Posted by: asa1973 | Nov 18, 2008 4:55:47 PM
D.L.,
I'm a black atheist. You can kiss my black ass and take your corny ass somewhere else.
We are never going to see a change in the AA community when it comes to how they view the LGBT community until we start having our own stand up. Someone please put Dan Savage back on the shelf and let someone with experience (I.E....Gay and of Colour) go head to head with these people.
Posted by: MissNee | Nov 18, 2008 4:57:01 PM
Wow, Savage must really be desperate to stay in the limelight to go on a show that has a complete nitwit as its host who could tear him apart with words. Savage is the new Sarah Palin it seems with this need to talk about whatever it is, race? Gay rights? Savage is the last person to be talking about race after his vile comments and slurs on election day. Since he seems to only have one set of people who actually understand what he is talking about and no way was he going to change one black person's mind watching that trash to see why the glbt's are fighting for fairness and equality, why not an out black person to spar and put Hugley in his place??
And, why did Savage seem so scared sitting next to the nitwit?
Posted by: Sebastian | Nov 18, 2008 5:04:12 PM
"To me, communities of color shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting gay people, to me communities of color need gay people on their side whereas we can get what we need without them outside of letting a stupid mob pull a popular vote."
What's the use? Jasmyne, girl, I know why you say some of the things you say.
Posted by: Derrick from PHIlly | Nov 18, 2008 5:04:50 PM
DID DL Hughley say he's "not PARTICULARLY homophobic?"
I guess that's like as AVENUE Q says "everybody is a little bit racsist?"
PARTICULARLY HOMOPHOBIC?
Posted by: MCnNYC | Nov 18, 2008 5:06:36 PM
@Gay Numbers: Good post. Thanks for the quotes from gay black people. The fight is the same in that we are asking for the government to protect the rights of all. What people have experienced in these two groups is different. I'll always stand by that. But maybe I should stop arguing the point and just focus on equality.
@Pierre: Really? Again...REALLY? What about those of us who are black and gay? Who supports us? Whom are we supposed to support? I'm gay and black. Should I ignore black people because I'm gay? Should I ignore gay people because I'm black?
Posted by: asa1973 | Nov 18, 2008 5:07:00 PM