Activism | AIDS/HIV | Andy Roddick | Catholic Church | Discrimination | Film | Harvey Milk | Jake Gyllenhaal | Louisiana | Meg Whitman | Models | News | Salt Lake City | Transgender | True Blood | Utah | Wisconsin

BigGayDeal.com

News: Simon Curtis, Salt Lake City, The English Patient, Wisconsin

 road  Salt Lake City's landmark LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances take effect.

Simoncurtis road Who is Simon Curtis and why should you care?

 roadEnough is Enough: J Lo like you've never wanted to hear her before.

 roadFederal court in Wisconsin says transgender people can receive medical care while incarcerated: "This decision recognizes that many transgender prisoners require individualized medical treatment. While the court’s ruling does not require any particular treatment, it does mean that doctors are the ones who make these medical decisions."

 roadSpy who inspired The Engish Patient was gay: "Letters have surfaced in Germany proving that the World War Two spy who inspired the hero the the Oscar-winning film The English Patient was no womaniser but a gay man in love with a young soldier called Hans Entholt."

 roadJake Gyllenhaal looking good at Wondercon.

 roadNAACP President Benjamin Jealous blames LGBT community for lack of support of the gay rights movement from African-Americans.

 road  Andy Roddick wins one!

Alcide   roadFirst look: True Blood werewolf Alcide.

 roadThe Asian version of Jersey Shore now casting.

 roadFormer homophobe looks back on his religion-inspired bigotry: "My hatred of homosexuality finally subsided when I began questioning the Bible — the ultimate source of my hatred. Without the Bible, there was no reason to hate homosexuality. It was a natural desire, and though I didn’t have that desire myself, I wouldn’t want to be persecuted if I did. It didn’t hurt anyone and in fact made people happy. It was not rational to oppose it. Now both my friend and I are both vocal supporters of gay rights — and that means other people just as crazy as us can turn around too."

 roadMeg Whitman: Blinded by H8.

 roadGays protest Pope at NYC's St. Patrick's Cathedral.

 roadArrest made in Christmas Day murder at Houma, Louisiana gay bar: "A 23-year-old former employee of a gay bar has been booked with murdering the bar's manager, 39-year-old Robert LeCompte. Jorell Young was held in lieu of $2 million bond after being booked Friday with first-degree murder and armed robbery. Young was among the last people seen at the Drama Club before it closed Christmas morning, said Maj. Malcolm Wolfe, a spokesman for the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office."

Miguel   roadMale model fix: Miguel Iglesias.

 roadStudents urged to submit entries for Harvey Milk Day essay/art contest.

 roadRoyal sex tape blackmailer Ian Strachan paints horrific pictures of the Queen from his prison cell.

 roadSperm depicted with skulls in French AIDS-prevention ad.

 road'Ticked Off Trannies' protest tomorrow in NYC.

 roadGay blood donation: A pro-gay liberal woman with AIDS, whose husband is a hemophiliac who died of AIDS finds herself at conflict with the policy: "Today, Gerus-Darbison is caught in a trap set by history -- forced by terrible experiences into taking a position that challenges some of her core beliefs. Her plight and the public policy question at the heart of it have attracted little public notice. But the issue has turned Gerus-Darbison and others in the hemophilia community into an army of Davids standing in the path of political Goliaths -- America's highly organized gay rights community, the Red Cross, the American Medical Assn. and others."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. It was called COURAGE Liamb.

    It takes COURAGE to stand up to police dogs, beatings, lychings, Klansman.

    All you are doing is justifying LACK OF COURAGE.

    WE had it. WHITE GAYS did not.

    The fact that you can't see that is why the African American community does not feel your pain.

    But whatever guys. I'm done with this.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 7:32:44 PM


  2. Marty,
    Did blacks lack courage from the years 1600-1950?
    I didn't see much standing up in those years. Where were the massive nation-wide slave revolts? Why was there such little movement from blacks in the century of Jim Crow post Civil War?

    Was it lack of courage that shut them up?

    Or rather, I think it was similar reasons that shut them up in 1600-1950 as what shut up most gay white men (and most gays, for that matter) until recent years.

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 7:49:54 PM


  3. Brad,

    August 30 1800 - Gabriel Prosser's attempt to lead a slave rebellion in Richmond, Virginia was suppressed.

    July 14 1822 - Denmark Vesey's slave rebellion in Charleston, South Carolina was suppressed.

    August 1831 - Nat Turner leads the most successful slave rebellion in U.S. history. The rebellion is suppressed, but only after many deaths.


    Read a history book...

    oh, and bite me.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 8:09:37 PM


  4. Three revolts in over 30 years. How many dozens of blacks took part compared to the millions here?
    Those are peanuts, not the "standing up" you lauded in the 1950s and 1960s.

    But I agree with the suppression bit. Blacks were suppressed for so long it was virtually impossible for them to rise up, dummy! Same with the gays for a long, long time. (*knocks on Marty's head)

    How about this? The black community saying, "though you didn't support us publicly and openly, gay community, during our Civil Rights Movement, we will show *true courage* and fight for your rights even though you didn't find for ours!"

    But I guess your mantra is "civil rights for me, and not for thee."

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 8:21:56 PM


  5. Brad, maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. You are not seriously equating the lives of (and the courage needed by) enslaved Blacks to that of free closeted gay white men, are you?

    Posted by: SB | Apr 5, 2010 8:25:39 PM



  6. You are right marty I don;t know you and i truly dounbt that I would ever want to.

    But all this aside lets get down to your basic point which is you say the gay community didn't support the black community so why should the black community support the gay community now.

    Other than the fact that it's HIGHLY doubtful that NO gays and lesbians, NOT ONE supported or helped fight for the African Community's Civil Rights.

    Your argument to justify the NAACP and black activists non support is TOTALLY shallow and lacks integrity. You stand up for people because iots the right thing to do. NOT because someone did you a solid in the past. Thats true integrity and courage. Your argument is the arument of politicians and punks. I'll do for you but what do I get for it.

    Posted by: Wolf | Apr 5, 2010 8:31:17 PM


  7. Brad, you are truly a dumb individual.

    And I mean that.

    There were DOZENS AND DOZENS of revolts throughout history, I simply posted three....including the biggest with Nat Turner.

    A simple (no pun intended) google search will reveal this. I mean, you know they invented computers right?

    I kinda feel sorry for you.

    I mean, you are a DUMB gay man.

    Wow.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 8:31:47 PM


  8. Wolf, I agree that we likely would never want to meet each other and I'm ok with that. Really.

    My point was not just that it didn't happen THEN, but that it doesn't happen NOW.

    When has any gay organization taken a stand on ANY African Amerian issue THEN OR NOW?

    Why doesn't the "but it's the right thing to do" argument apply to gay organizations?

    Sorry, but nobody is going to support you if you don't support them (and I don't mean just in theory, actions speaker louder than words)

    Welcome to the real world.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 8:43:21 PM


  9. What a dolt.

    Marty,
    you noted that black stood up en masse during the Civil Rights Movement and gays didn't, as if that means "good blacks" and "cowardly gays."
    Dozens and dozens, and DOZENS and SCORES of slave revolts were nothing compared to the en masse uprising of blacks in the 50s and 60s. The overwhelming majority of blacks from 1600-1950 were docile, did not rise up, and dealt with their miserable lot.

    Revolts were the exception, not the rule.

    You can make an analogy between blacks pre-1950s and gays pre-Stonewall or AIDS crisis. Both groups were largely quiet. The revolts were the exception, not the rule. Both for the most part accept, unhappily, their lot.

    You seem to argue that it was due to lack of courage. I seem to be a more sympathetic person than you, because I see societal forces are too strong to overcome, until the late 20th century for both groups. When they could, when the moment was right, they rose up.

    You say gays who didn't stand up with blacks in the Civil Rights Movement were cowards. With that logic, those slaves pre 1865 or oppressed blacks after the Civil War were cowards, too.

    and you are saying blacks get a pass for not supporting gays.

    Well...where were the blacks demanding rights for the Irish in the 1820s? Where were when fighting with Mexico broke out in the Mexican-American War? Why didn't they stand up with Thoreau against the war?

    COWARDS! Mexicans and Irish should NOT help blacks because of this slap in the face!
    "BLACK COWARDS," you cry.

    I, on the other hand, believe they didn't stand up, not because they didn't necessarily want to, but THEY COULDN'T.

    Let's cut out the racism hate, Marty, and defend EVERYONE'S rights', not just "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine."

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 8:47:50 PM


  10. Again Brad you're a dumb man.

    I highly doubt you attended higher education.

    Let me let you in a little secret...but don't tell anyone...Rosa Parks was not the first to refuse to give up her seat. Shhhh!

    Idiot, there were major revolts pre-Civil rights.

    Brad, I can't talk to you. Your level of discourse is boarding on kindergarten.

    Is this your country of birth?

    No, don't answer. please

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 8:57:55 PM


  11. I attended an Ivy League school (without affirmative action, thank you very much).

    You are missing what I am saying, and thus, missing your own point.

    You say, gays didn't help blacks, therefore blacks won't help gays.

    Logically, it follows therefore that: blacks didn't help Mexicans, women, Irish, Jews, Italians, Chinese, etc., so these groups had every right to say "help yourselves, blacks."

    I disagree with that. If Group A didn't help Group B, Group B should still do the right think and help Group A anyway. It's the decent thing to do. Otherwise, to paint all of Group B as bad, is RACISM!

    Point 2: Posters here say that gays were barely open as of the Civil Rights Movement, therefore couldn't help. You say "too bad! Get some courage and stand up."

    Logically, therefore, according to your, ahem, "logic," any black who didn't pull a Rosa Parks or Nat Turner is a coward, too. I disagree, stating that it wasn't easy for blacks to stand up under oppression, just like it wasn't easy for gays to stand up in the 1950s and 1960s. You argue that that means blacks get a pass to say, "fuck off, fag." Well, following that logic, any aggrieved group which was not helped by blacks either, can say, "fuck off, N----"

    I want to help any group I can today.

    You seem to want to play the same game that the KKK and other terror groups played, just with the players changed around a bit.

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 9:08:24 PM


  12. Brad if that is what you are taking from all of my post, then I respectfully disagree with your first "point".

    You "may" attend an Ivy League School but you CLEARLY did so by virtue of Affirmative Action!

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 9:13:31 PM


  13. Fantastic, we see eye to eye, then.

    Even though gays didn't openly support the Civil Rights Movement (though I would argue there was essentially *no* gay "community" to speak of until AFTER the Civil Rights Movement), that shouldn't stop the NAACP and other "civil rights groups" from hoisting the rainbow banner and yelling, "we are with you, brothers!"

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 9:16:30 PM


  14. LOL!

    I'm glad you are on the other side Brad!

    Hahahahahaha!

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 5, 2010 9:19:47 PM


  15. The NAACP owes the gay community nothing.

    POSTED BY: MARTY | APR 5, 2010 6:09:24 PM

    So we're passed that nonsense now?

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 9:23:01 PM


  16. *past

    -nods head

    Posted by: Brad | Apr 5, 2010 9:24:09 PM


  17. Everyone on here is being a fucking idiot.
    Being black and gay, both side piss me off.
    The gay community is definitely racist and deserves to be called on it. The black community is homophobic and needs to grow up, in more ways than one. No group is better than the other. To even try and justify any stance other than that is equal to proclaiming that your an asshole. Simple as that.

    Posted by: Pekemo | Apr 6, 2010 12:45:26 AM


  18. Let me weigh in on the NAACP story.

    I met Benjamin here in Las Vegas and we had a very long talk about his Gay brother. He knows firsthand what Gays go through, and from what he said, his brother wasn't handling things very well.

    Now, flash forward to the National Equality March. As Director of Diversity Outreach, I went to all of the big Black organizations, straight and Gay. NONE of them were interested in supporting the march. I was told time and again, "everytime some Gay people come to us they tell us that Black people are homophobic and we need to change that perception by supporting Gay causes. It was always a bunch of white guys. No Blacks and no women. We figured why bother with them if there's no people of color or women. And they were arrogant." AND they never asked what they could do to support Black causes. It was a one way street.

    I am not making up that quote AND I heard it pretty much verbatim over and over.

    I'll tell you something else, the LGBT media only wanted to talk to the white guys who were on the executive cmte of the NEM. Even though Robin Mcgehee fought long and hard to include women, Transgender and people of color, certain people (I call him "The Ego") felt that MSNBC wouldn't be interested in seeing Black people unless it was Julian Bond. Of course that made it seem like all of us minorities within a minority didn't exist. That led to people thinking the NEM was yet another white boy thing.Towleroad interviewed the white folks even though they had to know from all of our postings right here that there were people of color all over the executive board of the NEM.

    So, why would the NAACP feel that it "owed" anything to Gays? And PLEASE do not try and claim Bayard Rustin at this point. It reeks of you aint got nothing else.

    I love my fellow Gays, but, I'm more than a little bored with the whole Gays vs. Blacks meme. Are some(even a lot) of Blacks homophobic? YES. Whites? YES. Hispanics, Asians, Siberians, Floridians...YES! Stop trying to blame the troubles of the Gays on Blacks.

    In my own little burgh, I take loads of shit from the local white guys club. They , in over twenty years, have NEVER reached out to the Black community, the youth, the Transgender, LAtino or even women for that matter. I came in and within days found all of the above to work with me on building up our LGBT community. So, all of this Blacks are horrible BS is really just an excuse for the failings of self and the "leadership" of the LGBT community up to this point. If the dolts who ran the No on 8 campaign had done any research , let alone outreach, we would still have Gay marriage in Cali. Instead, they just assumed the darkies would come along.

    Fail. Epic Fail.

    So, stop blaming us and look at yourselves.

    Posted by: Derek Washington | Apr 6, 2010 5:30:37 AM



  19. It amazes me that the black perspective on this thread is so hateful and lacks integrity.

    And as for Homo's being racist. Its really more like being cliquie and shallow. Because those preppy white elitist gays you talk about who look down on black gays also look down on the Trans Community, The Bears amd other social groups within our community that they don;t associate with. So in fact they aren't racist. Just elitist snobs. Get it right huh.

    Posted by: Wolf | Apr 6, 2010 6:33:45 AM


  20. So, was it ever a secret that JLo is a talentless whore?

    Posted by: Shane | Apr 6, 2010 9:28:52 AM


  21. I knew this thread would be a hot mess and I was not disappointed.

    Wolf and Derek Washington actually have the most spot on comments.

    If you read you gay history really, really carefully and in detail then you will know who the (mostly young) white gays that helped out in the black civil rights movement, though they could not do it as a group.

    It's far far more than Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin and I can't even call off all of the names (although I could recommend a few books).

    As as someone who's black and gay myself, I'm with Pekemo; both the gay and the black communities are highly bigoted and neither community can really toss stones.

    Oh, and Marty, those black men who led slave revolts back in the day were, in fact, slave preachers.

    How sad that the loudest black pastors nowadays (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright being one notable exception) felt free to disregard the Biblical edicts about slaves being good to their masters (among other Biblical passages) yet the Bible is so, so true when it comes to certain passages in Leviticus for them.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Apr 6, 2010 9:46:31 AM


  22. It may be far, far more than james baldwin and bayard rustin, but don't discredit them or downplay their roles in history. I'm not claiming either side of the coin as one or the other, but rather am calling attention to the fact that it's not one or the other (gay or black); personal identity doesn't work that way, and neither does systemic oppression. As long as there are gay black people, the NAACP can't coherently just represent heterosexual black people, just like any lgbt advocacy group can't coherently just represent white people or people of a certain socioeconomic strata. Specifically, the charge of not doing enough to advance an agenda within a community disregards the sincere efforts of outreach that have been attempted. And to say that outreach to the black community during prop 8 would yeild a different result gives explicit support to the premise that black people were responsible for its passage. Further, what makes it true? Where are you deriving that truth value? Just saying that "sufficient outreach" would have resulted in a different outcome trades on an ambiguity in 'sufficient' that, under one reading, may not have been actually possible. Of course, more could have been done as it was poorly managed, but enough? I don't know, and neither do you. But some sort of dialogue needs to occur if attitudes are to change. To say that antigay attitudes within black culture are equal per capita to those amongst whites isn't really accurate, and this is provable by polling data. So a dialogue is needed, but many (and even many gay black people) are of the attitude that it's not the responsibility of any oppressed community to educate another on their bigotry. Many people consider that yet another form of discrimination...not only do they have to deal with bigotry, but the burden of decreasing the amount of bigotry in other communities is also on their shoulders. I know many black people who would insist that it's racist to suggest that they're obligated to pursuade racist whites that racism is wrong.

    As long as oppression intersects, any minority advocacy group denying support or blaming another is one that has no credibility in a sincere commitment to ending bigotry.

    Posted by: TANK | Apr 6, 2010 10:25:25 AM


  23. Hi Chitown Kev,

    My point in referencing a few slave revolts was to refute Brad (who wins the crown for dumbest of them all) who said there were no uprisings pre-Civil Rights march. My point all along was that the gay community wants to cry about how little support they get from the Black community, yet it's been pointed out time and time again (Derek Washington said it better than me, but it appears he's far more diplomatic than I could ever hope or want to be) that the
    gay community makes NO effort to support ANY Black causes
    THEN OR NOW.

    This guy Tank seems determined to hold Black groups to a different standard than say, HRC or GLAAD or any gay group which has YET to ISSUE A STATEMENT on any matter related to the Black community and yet they get a pass.

    I stand by what I said. If they gay community wants support then it must give support. Team Ben Jealous.

    Take your "sincere commitment/integrity blah" and cram it.

    And no, as a gay man of color it is NOT my job to educate you on bigotry. Please. Read a Book.

    Posted by: Marty | Apr 6, 2010 10:55:46 AM


  24. One source that I can remember off of the top of my head is Meb Seagrest's "Memoirs of a Race Traitor."

    Of course Ms. Seagrest herself (a white lesbian) was an activist in the black community against Klan violence in North Carolina in the 1980's but she has an essay about a white gay male friend of hers that participated in the civil rights movement in Newark in the 1960's (that activist died of AIDS).

    I personally know a white gay man that was in Brown Chapel in Selma, Alabama in 1965 right before Sunday Bloddy Sunday (and I've seen the pictures of him in the chapel).

    And I've read may snippets of stories like this (the Unitarian Church marched with King, you can't tell me that a lot of those Unitarians weren't gay)

    So the fact that NO white gays marched or weren't courageous during the black civil rights movement is a bunch of bullshit. (Even though the SNCC essentially told white activists to leave the organization and to work on racism in the white community)

    For the most part, gays weren't organized and it's also important to remember that those that were organized were also subject to red-baiting during that time as well as being arrested for sodomy.

    And also, it's not as if every black in America was out in the street marching for black civil rights either nor was there a uniform opinion on the activism of Dr. King. Some (like Roy Wilkins of the NAACP) thought that King was going too far; others thought that King didn't go far enough (King got as much resistance in the North from Blacks as he did whites).

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Apr 6, 2010 10:56:51 AM


  25. @Marty

    You're right that the national organizations don't but there are state and local organization that do.

    For example, think waht you will of the politics behing Equality Illinois' support of Jeremiah Wright against charges of being "anti-gay" but the organization strongly supported him.

    And, actually, NGLTF (who I have other issues with) really does attempt to work intersectionally but I do agree with you that black organizations should not be held to a higher standard.

    And people forget that Jealous received a lot of pushback when the California NAACP came out against Proposition 8 prior to the 2008 election. Personally, I think that Jealous' statement here (which he said before in the NY Times Magazine) implies that it's ALL the gays fault.

    I think it has to be a two way street and some of those old religious farts that are in the national NAACP and some of its' local chapters are as intractable as any religious person that happens to be white.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Apr 6, 2010 11:09:40 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: NYC Subway Riders Get Rick'Rolled« «