The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the civil rights organization founded 52 years ago by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been thrust into the gay marriage debate by its Los Angeles president, who last year campaigned against an amendment to the California constitution prohibiting gay marriage.
The Atlanta-based organization is now trying to remove the Rev. Eric P. Lee, who took over the L.A. chapter two years ago. But SCLC chapters operate autonomously, and Lee has the full support of his board.
Anyway, the SCLC, like similar groups, is far from the institution it once was. And I imagine this split between shaft and branch would not have risen to the attention of The New York Times if it wasn’t for the apparent irony of a civil rights organization punishing one of its leaders for standing up for gay rights.
The Times’ L.A. bureau chief Jennifer Steinhauer explains Lee’s burden this way:
While the Mormon Church raised a great deal of the money in support of the proposition, the role of African-American churches, and their voting parishioners, was not insignificant. The Edison/Mitofsky exit poll in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 had “created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy.”
“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.”
(skip)
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.
“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.”
Let’s excuse the way that people choose to exploit MLK in advancing their causes — see: comparisons made between King and the late late-term abortion doctor George Tiller — and why the Rev. Lee has run adrift of his national leadership.
GetReligion readers need no reminding that the Church isn’t unanimous in its treatment of homosexuality. Denominations, congregations, even brothers, have been divided by this debate.
The SCLC is an ecumenical organization, but its Southern roots give it a certain Baptist flair. Might that have been a factor in the decision to come down on Lee?
I suspect it wasn’t inconsequential.
But the NYT doesn’t get into theology. This rift is presented strictly with a political perspective, and with Lee coming off as the martyr.
We never learn why blacks so strongly supported Prop. 8, why they were more likely to support putting the kibosh on gay marriage than white Protestants (65 percent) and white Catholics (64 percent). Might it have had something to do with the way they understand the Bible?
This Sacramento Bee article from last November suggests it did:
Ida Francis, 77, who worships at Kyle’s Temple AME Zion Church in Sacramento, is an Obama supporter who voted for Proposition 8.
She grew up in segregated Arkansas, attending segregated schools and subjected to Jim Crow laws.
She said her church on 42nd Street doesn’t tell people how to vote — just to go and exercise that right. She based her decision to vote for Proposition 8 on her Christian upbringing and faith.
“If there are people in our society who wish to live together as a man and man, well, that’s their own personal opinion,” she said.
However, she said, “I don’t believe God intended marriage to be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
“We’re just trying to hold on to what people see in the Bible,” she said. “The family, one man, one woman, children.”
Beyond making a quick statistical reference, a comment like Francis’ might have been worth mentioning.
Wedding topper by Magic Mud
 | Posted at 12:09 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (30) |
July 14, 2009, at 12:39 am
In what is becoming a Get Religion standard feature, we are linked to articles that discuss Gay people and their interests but never actually talk to any Gay people. When the press does this with Episcopalians or Catholics, the fact is always noticed and commented upon. Why is there a different standard for Gay and Lesbian people? Do we not also deserve dignified treatment when the press deals with our issues?
Later studies that relied upon voting districts, lowered the Black Prop8 vote to about 60%. There were a number of Asian and Hispanic people prominent in Noon8, so it was not an ‘all white’ affair. There were a number of Black Gay people active also; but they are as invisible as Gay people in general.
That is a ghost in the story.
July 14, 2009, at 12:59 am
“There were a number of Black Gay people active also; but they are as invisible as Gay people in general.”
What world are you living on? You can not open a magazine, turn on the television, or go to the movies with out seeing strong positively portrayed gay men and women. It’s the Christians that are viewed as narrow minded, child molesting, villains.
July 14, 2009, at 12:59 am
What the press fails to look into is the relationship between Black politicians, Black churches and Gay people. Black elected officials are among the best friends and supporters of Gay Rights. And Gay people have been major supporters and funders of Black politicians. Many an ambitious Black politician starting out has gone to the Gay community for help and support. Barak Obama raised money for his first campaigns far from his district, in heavily gay areas.
On Prop8, virtually every elected Black Democrat in California stood against it. It was the expectation of the Gay Community that our allies in the minority communities would carry the message for us as we had so often carried their messages to ourselves. The NAACP and SCLC offered to do so. The Black officials screwed up big-time, as the Gay press has been saying since November.
This culminated a few months ago in a general consensus to shut down the GayTM for Democrats. The pressure on the White House over Gay issues was reported in the NY Times and other papers. This pressure comes directly from the actions of the Black church, which set the whole controversy off. The message is in part that there will be no more votes, volunteers or money until rank and file Democrats (ie The Black Church in particular) become more supportive. This is the situation Black politicians are in now. And don’t know how they will deal with the churches.
July 14, 2009, at 1:05 am
David,
I am living in the world that Get Religion draws its press coverage from. All these articles about Gay issues and Gay subjects with no input from actual Gay people.
Don’t watch much teevee. The only positive Gay character I am aware of is Captain Jack in BBC’s Torchwood. Can’t think of any on ScFy. Nor on PBS. There is the hideously stereotypical Mark on Ugly Betty. Add in Ellen and Neil Patrick Harris, the subject is pretty much exhausted.
July 14, 2009, at 2:06 am
The issue is WHY Black churches are selective in their support for civil rights and have mostly chosen not to read the bible in favor of social justice. The knee-jerk explanation cites “clear” biblical mandates, but that begs the question: isn’t it understood that the “clear” biblical passages used [by white southern churches & LDS] to support racial injustice must be disavowed by Black churches. Thus, Black churches must acknowledge there is room to interpret even “clear” scripture in striving for justice.
Here are some theories I’ve run across. But I remain at a loss.
Fear of diluting the 1950’s racial perception of civil rights.
The need to look down on another minority as “the other”, especially one perceived as white and affluent, but disfavored.
The fear of losing potentially straight black boys in the limited pool of marriageable black men & family fathers. The corollary is that a straight-acting man on the down-low is desirable, along with the fear of losing even them to other men.
The imperative of the hyper-masculine man in tough urban neighborhoods for survival does not allow the acceptance of gay men, and appears to threaten that community’s survival.
The tenuous hold on leadership by clergy in black churches doesn’t allow a principled but unpopular positions. They must go with the flow, especially if they are small unaffiliated congregations.
The absence of positive gay role models in the black community; black voters have no frame of reference.
The older, more conservative nature of blacks who vote / go to church.
The Michael Jackson effect: effete black men seem so alien and un-black, so there are no real black men who are gay in the community.
In historical context, the fear of further emasculation of black men by “promoting” homosexuality.
July 14, 2009, at 10:07 am
From an outside (ie, straight white) perspective it seems to me that the supposed paradox of alleged excess Black homophobia may be a mirage. The apparent paradox arises from a population that benefited from a civil rights movement not showing massive support for another civil rights movement.
When the Black civil rights movement was at its most active, BGLT concerns were not seen as a category of civil rights. Generations since have not had direct experience of that civil rights movment and do not perceive the BGLT rights campaign as resonant with their life stories.
Whites who think of Blacks as “beneficiaries of a civil rights movement” may be guilty of one-dimensional perception. An equally valid description would be “the most church-going demographic in the country.” I would not be surprised if whites in the MSM fell into the same trap.
July 14, 2009, at 3:20 pm
Sadly, there is very little real debate about the real issues at play.
Most arguments (like Shaddow Man’s) simply start with an unprovable premise (All gays are born with only homosexual tendencies) and then argues that because of those tendencies the state must change all marriage laws to treat everyone equally.
There are several questions that people avoid talking about and instead make emotional arguments about how ‘expression of love are never wrong’.
A few of the more serious questions few people ask are:
-Just because the state has found that it must treat individuals equally (based on gender or race) does this mean that is must treat all couples equally?
-Can the state acknowledge the existence of gender? Can the state acknowledge that a man is not the same thing as a women? Can the state acknowledge that an opposite-sex couple is not the same thing as a same-sex couple?
-Is it reasonable to have the state law encourage opposite sex coupling to promote population growth and as well as a more compelling interest to most assist children healthy development? Is it possible for the state to also allow for same-sex couples to have legal rights without having to have the state declare that gender no longer exists?
-Why is the current restriction on gender the only marriage law that violates civil rights? Polygamists can also argue that they are born to feel attracted to multiple partners … does this mean their civil rights are being violated by not having the state encourage their lifestyle?
July 14, 2009, at 3:41 pm
dalea,
I may have misinterpreted your original stance. What I thought you said was that gay people are invisible in our culture. Which is a different story entirely than saying they are not present in this or similar articles.
I would agree with you with the one but to say they are invisible in our culture is simply false.
As far as “teevee’ goes both the show Greek and How I Met Your Mother have black gay men as recurring characters. The list of gay characters is really long and on and you can find it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_shows_with_LGBT_characters
July 14, 2009, at 8:32 pm
Shadow_man says: “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.”
Well, no, there isn’t. In fact, there’s exactly ZERO evidence, and, 20-year-old speculation about enlarged hypothalami causing” a gay predisposition aside, a “gay gene” simply has never been found that “causes” homosexuality. There is, however, a HUGE assumption that such evidence exists and that it’s settled science. This is endlessly repeated in the media (and the classroom) but again, it has NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. How can this be allowed to continue, unquestioned, on such a huge scale?
Like other pseudo scientific statements that are political hot potatoes, we cannot dare mention this, for fear of.. what, exactly? Learning the truth?
Truly Orwellian.
All this is totally separate, of course, from the POLICY debate about whether gays should be granted marriage. Compelling arguments about fairness may indeed sway people of good will.
But if one side of the debate continues to paint the other as no better than those who defended slavery, the argument will continue, and the hyperbolic accusers will appear quite foolish when the facts finally come out and the Emperor will be seen having no clothes.
July 14, 2009, at 9:06 pm
While there is indeed a great debate over whether gays should be allowed to marry and whether biology explains homosexuality, neither are the focus of this post. Instead, the discussion here concerns the way media cover religious reactions to gay marriage.
July 14, 2009, at 11:44 pm
Marco Luxe says:
There is a quandry here; the press over the years has reported on quite a few openly Black Gay Men and Black Lesbians. Bayard Rustin who organized the first March on Washington and was associated with MLK was an out Gay man in the 1950’s. James Baldwin, was Black and openly Gay in the 1960’s. Keith Boykin is Black and Gay, and on teevee all the time. The list goes on and on; there are loads of well known Black Gay and Lesbian people. This has been well publicized.
The Black Church refuses to acknowlege this fact, for reasons I do not begin to comprehend.
July 15, 2009, at 12:00 am
Dave,
In a list that covers 37 years of network series in English, I count 67 Gay characters. That is less than 2 per year. A number of them are listed as Drag Queens which is at the StepanFetchet level of cliche. More are in the mysterious bisexual category. Quite a few of these shows are English or Canadian. Many of them appear on networks with few viewers. So in a country where between 4 and 5 per cent of the population, yielding a community of at least 12 million people, is presented at a rate of slightly over 1 per season, this is the media showing Gay people everywhere?
This looks much more like an almost total media blackout.
July 15, 2009, at 12:19 am
That’s the silliest thing I’ve heard in a very long while. Gay people are the most celebrated minority group, and arguably the most powerful, in modern American (and Western) Culture.
Few on TV? You’re joking, right? Off the top of my head: Ellen on Ellen, Will & Jack and many others on Will & Grace, the Queer Eye guys, Kenny on My Name is Earl, Oscar on The Office, Brian & Steve on Sarah Silverman Show, Kyle & Aaron on The Class, many on comedies and sitcoms (Just glanced at that WP link. Forgot many more, like Reno 911, etc.)
I have no idea what you expect “teevee” to be - 100% gay 24/7? I have to add these are POSITIVE portrayals. Doesn’t an organization give out awards for gay characters and actors each year? For 4-5%, they get a LOT of play - far more play on TV than Hispanics, for example.
Now how many conservative Christians are portrayed positively on TV, or at all? (For that matter, aside from “Charmed” how many PAGANS are on TV?)
July 15, 2009, at 1:34 am
Steve A,
I didn’t just glance at the list. I counted it and applied statistical analysis to portrayals in the US MSM on teevee. The totals shown here include many English, Canadian and one Spanish program. Let us assume that each of the MS networks produces 3 programs per day (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS)for a total of 105 programs. Let’s then assume that 25 of these are reality, news, documentary and exclude them.
That leaves us with 80 fictional programs. Most will have 2 leads and 2 supporting characters, for a total of 320 main characters. Looking at the list, many of those mentioned are minor characters or non-recurring. But let me go with the numbers, there is a tad over 1 per year in the period covered, which is defined by the list maker, not me. The rate at which Gay people appear in Main Stream television is about 00.3% of the time. For 2008, there is no MS teevee show that has a Gay character according to the list provided as evidence for the prevelance of Gay characters. The rate is 0%.
This is evidence of a media blackout. I would expect given the number of GL people in the population that of the 320 lead roles, 10 to 15 would be GL. Do you have hard data to support your contention that Gay people are everywhere on teevee?
July 15, 2009, at 9:37 am
dalea, your comment #14 is interesting but why did you address it to me? I’m not the one disputing you over TV coverage of BGLTs.
July 15, 2009, at 10:19 am
dalea, I think your analysis is flawed - I’m not sure you included the numerous gay soap opera characters in the list, for one - but there are other factors, like whether Wikipedia has a complete list, and the influence on the culture of each character (Ellen, for instance) and the fact that Will & Grace was a HUGE mainstream hit, with its suburb writing and acting, while 50% of the “straight” shows were flops.
Playing with numbers is tricky. I think women on TV are far overrepresented, and as I said, a positive Christian character probably is in that .03% range. Blacks, I believe, are slightly overrepresented, but as I said, Hispanics are probably 5% of the TV characters and 15-20% of the population at this point.
Back to blacks and the article, the story of how many did NOT support gay marriage, and are not fans of gay sexuality, has not been told in the media for almost obvious reasons: it undermines the “civil rights” storyline of the gay marriage advocates - something that’s gone unquestioned in the media, like many other points of “fact” that are endlessly repeated.
July 15, 2009, at 1:38 pm
Stephan A says:
Well, this has been done endlessly in the Gay media, along with really angry comments. The MSM do not seem to cover this much. Interestingly, and counter to what you insinuate, the pressure to kill the story comes from Black politicians and activists. The process is clear at any progressive or liberal blog: Gays want this story out; Blacks want it killed.
July 15, 2009, at 1:39 pm
Stephan A says:
Statistics is a straight forward, logical process. Nothing tricky about it.
July 15, 2009, at 1:41 pm
Dalea, I was unaware of the pressure black preachers and others were putting on the MSM to “kill” the gay marriage story, so that’s good information on your part to be sharing here. It’s also completely consistent with what I said.
July 15, 2009, at 1:43 pm
As anyone well knows, statistics can be manipulated endlessly to make any point the speaker wants to make.
Ask anyone of the conservative persuasion and they will happily give their experiential opinion of the vast number of gay characters and avalanche of pro-gay references in the entertainment and news media. Perhaps total dominance of the positive portrayal of gays in the media isn’t enough for some.
July 15, 2009, at 3:00 pm
Stephen A. says:
I know nothing of the sort. My impression has been that most religion beat reporters are inemnumerate, and probably share your notions about quantitative analysis.
The press should not be relying on experiential opinion when it is entirely possible to do a simple count. Which I did using the reference you directed me to. I did a simple count, and found that in the English speaking world, prime time/MS teevee has produced 67 GLBT characters in 37 years. Removing the English, Canadian and Australian, that gives us about 1 per year. No rational observer would call this vast or an avalanche. And if you don’t like that, produce your own objective numbers, which the press should be doing.
July 15, 2009, at 3:30 pm
dalea, I learned to use statistics professionally in physics and agree with you that they are a valid means for getting facts out of data.
However, in the ’80s I ran into many news stories that were just clones of press releases from conservative think-tanks, that used statistics to distort some aspect of society in the service of some obvious policy position. Eventually I came to be suspicious on principle of any statistical statement about society from anyone with an axe to grind.
Stephen A may have had comparable experiences and, if he is less than familiar with statistics, have no way of separating the wheat from the chaff.
It makes me angry that numbers, which were invented to clarify things, have become such a tool of misrepresenting things that they can no longer be trusted. And of course my anger also covers a mathematically ignorant press that uncritically passes along such garbage from sources that know it will work that way. I could start a blog called GetMath.
July 15, 2009, at 3:51 pm
Dave:
The religion beat press seems particularly prone to this. They really need to have a better understanding of statistics. There was one here about the RC Deacon program where it was stated that Hispanic men were ‘pouring in’. I looked at the numbers and did some simple calculations. Found that 30% of RC’s in the US are Hispanic and 18% of the Deacons are Hispanic. That is a shortfall of 40% just to maintain parity. The dominant method of counting seems to be: one, two, three, many.
July 15, 2009, at 5:34 pm
Dave, let me assure you that I am familiar with statistics, and anyone who has an ounce of education beyond the 7th grade knows they can be manipulated and the consumer of them needs to question them relentlessly. Even more so for the news media. Perhaps the liberal-leaning media, and you, buy into them when they come from the “correct” sources. I do not, and question them whatever the source.
BTW, leftist think-tanks and those actors and actresses who bill themselves as “experts” on marriage, science and culture get plenty of press releases and soundbites regurgitated in the MSM, too, not just the libertarian and Right wing ones.
July 15, 2009, at 5:48 pm
Delea, if you honestly think there’s ONE gay character on TV right now, and ONE for every year going backwards, you’re entitled to that fantasy. I suggest Step One is to not rely on Wikipedia for accurate statistics or analysis, and maybe watch “teevee” some more.
Start with House, Weeds, Grey’s Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, Torchwood, The Office, Ugly Betty, 30 Rock, Dirty Sexy Money, Mad Men, Desperate Housewives, and Brothers & Sisters. All have regular cast members as gay characters.
Or, check out that Right-Wing think-tank GLAAD, which sent out a press release which was dutifully regurgitated by that TOTALLY Right-leaning blog, The Huffington Post, which reported finding 16 gay characters on “teevee” last fall:
So, to sum up. .3%? No, it’s more like 2.6 percent. “One” gay character is on TV? No, at least 16 REGULAR characters (with no doubt many more “recurring” and “guest” characters.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/gay-characters-on-tv-doub_n_128526.html
July 15, 2009, at 7:01 pm
Stephen, my personal policy is exactly what I stated, no more and no less: Suspicion of any effort to move social policy based on statistics. It happens to have been conservative duplicity that alerted me to this deplorable situation.
July 16, 2009, at 4:56 pm
What year is this data for? Torchwood did not have a 2008-09 series, so it is obviously earlier. One year with a slightly better showing does not make a trend. One fourth of the characters are on Ugly Betty, which is one show. Several of the programs listed are on premium or cable only networks, which means they are not mainstream media. And how many of these are going to be offensive, demeaning stereotypes like Will and Grace ?
July 16, 2009, at 5:39 pm
dalea, GLAAD disagrees with you on all counts. If you’re to the left of GLAAD, socially, I can’t begin to convince you that gays are *not* demeaned, ignored and degraded in today’s entertainment media.
One quick Google search shows that your views on Will & Grace and the show’s portrayal of homosexuality are out of date by a decade:
http://archive.glaad.org/eye/will_grace.php (hint: read beyond the first paragraph.)
Personally, I found (and find, in the reruns) Will & Grace to be genuinely funny, with excellent writing and great comic timing. It didn’t compromise yet still had great crossover appeal.
As for the numbers, I can see you’re not going to be satisfied by the facts, an choose to dwell on some kind of expectation game of what the number of gay characters *should* be (and also ignoring guest/recurring roles, soap operas, etc.) So I’m done with that.
Again, you don’t watch “teevee” so let me help you. re: Torchwood is currently showing in the UK and USA. “A five part mini-series entitled Torchwood: Children of Earth, aired on BBC One and BBC HD between 6 July and 10 July 2009.” (from Wikipedia. It airs starting July 20 on BBC America.)
In the vast majority of American homes, cable or satellite is the way we get TV (esp. after the Digital switchover) so basic cable no longer counts as “premium” channels, necessarily.
July 16, 2009, at 5:43 pm
Sorry this is off-topic, but I don’t like people talking out of their hats:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/‘WILL+&+GRACE’+GLAAD+TO+BE+HONORED.-a0144362047
July 17, 2009, at 2:37 am
Stephen,
My view of Will and Grace was formed by watching an episode. I then understood how Black people feel about Amos and Andy. From what I read in the gay press, and from informal discussions, this view is widespread among Gays.
GLAAD does excellent work. But GLAAD exists to interface with the outside world, not represent Gay people, but to represent our interests, which are different things. GLAAD can endorse all sorts of things that Gay people find offensive if it is not hostile. I much prefered Queer as Folk which GLAAD sort of avoided.
In LA BBCAmerica is on channel 131 which involves a fairly major level of cable. I will watch Torchwood next week, been on my timetable for weeks. Its star, John Barrowman, has an interesting take on being Gay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m27Awmlgi38
This is the first of 6 videos on the subject, just keep moving from one to the next.