Some LGBT people first entered into civil rights through the black movement

I always like to hear what others are thinking on issues that may affect our community. I am not sure what I would do, for instance, if I could make the decision on what to do about the Russian laws, the Olympics, etc.

In regard to the “issue” in Bay Windows, if I even understand it, there can be misunderstanding between male and female homosexuals and black and white homosexuals. It is time to stop allowing bigots, even those who are not anti-gay, to make a distinction among civil rights groups/fights.

I  got involved in a small way over the issue of racial segregation in Lousiana in the late 1940s as a teenager—long before I was aware of civil rights issues for homosexuals. Many of us had not even heard the terms or thought of us as a community.

This is example of how no issue is simple.  I, like most LGBT people, consider religion as our greatest enemy—Christian, much less Islam, etc. But, it was religious groups that formed my view of why discrimination is wrong.  The YMCA had student organizations in high schools (H-Y) clubs, and students, boys, who went to their summer camp worked and lived in an interracial place for the first time.

Then, starting in 1950, LSU dealt with the issue when it started integration under court order. To help students start dealing with the end of racial segregation, the YM/YWCA and, in my case, the Methodist Church/Wesley Foundation, started hosting meetings between students of LSU and Southern. We did small things such as writing letters to businesses urging them to not discriminate. This is the same time when the first bus boycott took place, in Baton Rouge.

Most of us now know of the problem black homosexuals faced, Bayard Rustin being a great example.  But many of us who had to choose, decided to work in the effort to gain civil/equal rights for homosexual Americans.  We supported womens’ rights, black Americans’ rights, etc. Our main movement co-founder, Harry Hay, found time to work for the rights of American Indians/Native Americans/tribal rights.

With millions of us working for the cause, there is now no problem with specializing: lesbian issues, religious issues, legal issues, health issues, which we could not do when there were only two or three groups in our movement. What we can never afford is for one LGBT group to fight the work of another, or to undercut one effort, such as marriage equality, fearing that it gets more publicity and support than another issue, such as equal employment, etc.  And there is no excuse for us to fight over gender issues.

Can we talk—about waiting for perfection and getting what we can each day for our civil rights?

The founders of our nation were willkng to risk their all to make us free and to set a goal of equal rights for all who would become Americans. The leaders were intelligent, and did not all agree on issues but put aside their disagremetns for the good of the cause.

The same thing can be said about the founders of the civil rights rights movement for homosexuals. They wisely understood that the then radical idea that homosexual Americans had equal civil rights was going to take a while to get across to even intelligent, thinking Americans, sadly including most homosexuals.

The main problem of any cause is that some people insist on perfection in order for them to support it. And it seems to me that the companion problem is, for instance, that many people, in ignorance, support and believe in some one or some idea that has a perfect answer, a simple answer, that doesn't take any thinking or study, or explanation, and doesn't leave room for doubt. They want instant certainty. That is why, for instance, the fundamentalist churches are successful more than the main stream ones that don't tell the believers that religion has the perfect answer for every issue, including ones never thought about by early Christians, etc.

A politician who promises instant solution to any problem may win, and even after years of his or her failure to actually solve the problem, many voters still keep trusting them, election after election. A church that promises that by just doing one thing, getting the right type baptism, or giving the right portion of income to the church will get you to heaven will get suport even when common sense tells us that that is not true.

Unfortunately, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals, and in our cause/movement/community we keep getting people who push their way to the front, get control of newspapers, organizations, and, like the bigots who want to force us all to follow their beliefs, thus taking away our right to choose, these sudden experts on all things homosexual—while they fervently tell us only to use the “right” terms—usually the word gay—spend their time, energy and space in publications attacking those who disagree with their beliefs, rather than attacking the real enemy: those bigots who want to, at the least, make us second-class citizens, and at worst (think radical Islamists) kill us.

So their prerception keeps them from the big picture, and they spend their time seeking for the small things. That is why, when a big, historic event happens, they miss the important point and focus on the small irrelevant word or idea included in the event. A perfect example again is the columnist in the Washington Blade, who hears Gov. Palin, and then Senator McCain actually say they have gay friends, and seek our vote which is a notable first for Republicans. What the columist "hears" is that Palin uses the word “choice.” Horrors!

Well, friends, no one hs the final anser as to much about sexuality, and certainly about homosexuality. And so no one can say that no one can use the word choice. No one has the authority to speak for our community/movement.

But I question the “gayness” of anyone who feels the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. It seems as though they are not comfortable being gay. And the most important point is that it is irrelevant, since our civil rights—and the civil rights of all Americans—do not depend on if we chose a lifestyle, or who we choose to have sex with, or our skin color, or gender. They are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now if only certain U. S. Supreme Court Justices could learn of these documents, especially the Ninth Amendment. But those who want to speak for our community/movement have a duty to learn about homosexuality first, and our history. They don't have all the answers. Unless they are as fearful of democracy as the bigots who want to kill us.


Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now