Jesse Jackson is willing to wage the equal rights battle for all Americans, except gays.
Speaking before an audience at Holy Cross College in Boston last week, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. marginalized the importance of gay rights as an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.…
Article comments
26 - Eric Olsen
They should - that's the equal protection aspect of it.
27 - Mac Diva
Scott, I must mainly disagree with your assailing Rev. Jackson. I read the sources. What he is refusing to do is say the histories of African-Americans and gay Americans are the same. That is a completely rational thing to do, and quite accurate. What the Rev. is not doing is saying homosexual Americans are not oppressed and do not deserve equal rights under the law. He could be more explicit about marriage. But, he is hardly in bed with the Christian Right in regard to the issue.
I also find the sloppiness of what you are saying revealing. Obviously, you know very little about African-American history.
*Africans in America (not yet citizens) were denied the right to marry during slavery.
*African-Americans had their marriage rights circumscribed, as did other nonwhite Americans, until SCOTUS' 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia was actually enforced. (At least one Southern state still has a statute barring interracial marriage.)
*The legacy of slavery and unrecognized marriages still impacts African-Americans today in regard to property rights issues, and, some would say, family relations.
As for Rev. Jackson saying he does not want gay marriage to become a front burner political issue, that is an opinion being expressed by many liberal pundits. They fear that forcing of the issue to the forefront is a GOP ploy. My take on the topic is that it is, but that does not make gay unions any less of an important issue.
Over the years, I've noticed a tendency of white Americans who are also minorities in some ways to ignore their own complicity in racism and its fruits. The truth of the matter is that white homosexuals, women, handicapped people, etc., have benefitted from racism just as white people in general have. Their histories may be similar in regard to being oppressed people in some way, but it is not the same as those who have suffered from the only form of bigotry sanctioned by the U.S. government from the beginning. Perhaps that is what Rev. Jackson was thinking.
Note to other Blogcritics: I am skeptical when someone posts an entry that does not link to the material it is supposedly quoting. That had me raising a brow and looking for a fuller telling right away in this case. One of the analysis I read is here. I believe it is a more fair assessment of Jackson's position.
28 - Mac Diva
A word on the EP Clause. It has not been extended to include gays, qua gays. Will this very conservative U.S. Supreme Court make the leap? Place your wagers here.
29 - Scott Pepper
Mac,
Thanks for enlightening me. Given your comments, though, I'm unsure how you can continue to support Rev. Jackson's hypocrisy in this case.
While I agree that the still-lingering repercussions of slavery in this country should not be compared to discrimination against gays, there are nonetheless specific parallels to be drawn between the two. You yourself mention the detrimental effects of unrecognized marriages on African-Americans. How is the failure to recognize gay marriages today any different, particularly in regards to property rights and health care?
While certainly not in bed with Jerry Falwell, et al., Jackson is in essence toeing the same line as the White House in this case, namely that marriage should be one man/one woman, and gays get "civil unions" as a consolation prize.
Such an outcome amounts to nothing more than a separate-but-equal ploy.
The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal...
As to your second point, I don't believe I fundamentally misrepresented Jackson position. However, in addition to the link you posted, other comments on his remarks can be found here and here. I find it particularly telling that his comments were not reported more broadly in the mainstream press.
Lastly, my post was not intended to "assail" Rev. Jackson. The mission statement of his Rainbow/PUSH coalition reads as follows:
The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field.
His comments in regards to gay marriage do not live up to these lofty goals.
30 - Eric Olsen
Good point Mac - I agree that the legacy is unique in the U.S.
I am not sure what you mean by "benefitted from racism," though.
31 - Mac Diva
I just finished reading Edward P. Jones wonderful new novel The Known World. So, let me use an example from it to describe how a person can benefit from being born a certain race, gender or class. There are well-meaning slaveowners, both black and white in the book. John Skiffington is given a little slave girl as a gift. He has turned against slavery. But, he keeps the child. He and his wife claim they consider her a daughter, but never free her and put out lost slave signs for her when she escapes in Philadelphia. For all his right thinking, Skiffington is benefitting from his status. Another man, Cartwright, gay and mixed race, holds similar views as Skiffington. But, he serves his slaveowning mother until she dies. He benefits from slavery, too, holding other human beings as property and getting the benefit of their labors. The fact he is a homosexual makes no difference. It is subsumed by his status as a free man and ability to participate in the peculiar institution.
By and large, gay white people have merged into America, particularly if they were men. Any slave auction, any Ku Klux Klan rally, any hostile environment at work or school, had/has gay white people right there being oppressors with their straight white brethen. So, much of this 'we're all oppressed together' stuff is nonsense. Oppressed? Yes. Together? Sometimes. More often not. (Except for nonwhite gays.) So, though I support gay marriage, I have no illusions about gay people necessarily being any more sympathetic to the rights of people of color than any other white people. I believe a minority is, and the rest are just as indifferent as 'breeders.' Some, including a few I've known, are very high up on the racism scale, possibly in compensation for being in an outgroup themselves.
The reality of the situation is that Rev. Jesse Jackson has taken a moderate stance in regard to the gay unions issue so far. He has in fact, been a lot more supportive of gays than their leaders have been of the continuing struggles of people of color. (With the exception of those who are both gay and people of color like Natalie, again. On the other hand, there are the Armstrong Williamses, too. . . .) So, what Pepper has done is take a complex situation he clearly knows little about and turned it into 'let's kick Jesse Jackson because he is a hockey puck.' That is not analysis. It is silliness.
32 - Scott Pepper
Mac,
Sorry if I'm continuing to over-simplify the issue, but I wonder if you could respond to the question I posted in my previous comment:
How is the failure to recognize marriages between gays today significantly different than the failure to historically recognize marriages between blacks?
And, if all whites, gay or straight, are complicit in racism by not speaking out against it, aren't all heterosexuals, regardless of race, complicit in discrimination against gays by not speaking out against it?
Finally, my disappointment in Rev. Jackson in this case is solely due to the fact that I do not believe he is living up to the stated goals of his organization (as I quoted above): social justice and equality for all.
33 - Shark
MD: "...what Pepper has done is take a complex situation he clearly knows little about and turned it into 'let's kick Jesse Jackson because he is a hockey puck.' That is not analysis. It is silliness."
No, what's silly is the size of your brush when painting the Evil Others... ---well, that... and your ridiculous, rambling summary of some fictional scenario you think represents a universal law of some sort.
AND NOTHING can top this for SILLINESS:
MD: "...The truth of the matter is that white homosexuals, women, handicapped people have benefitted from racism just as white people in general have."
This is the most blatantly biased, bigoted piece of nonsense I've seen in a while. BENEFITTED? ALL WHITES BENEFIT FROM RACISM?
Kinda like ALL BLACKS -------- fill in the blank? (ya know, sometimes I think The World is lucky you weren't born white, 'cause with this kind of thinking, you'd fit right in with the KKK.)
MD, you would do well to learn a new phrase: "some but not all". Repeat after me: "SOME BUT NOT ALL"
Anyway, here's Mr. Pepper's "CHECK!" "MATE!" and "SEEYA!"
SCOTT: "I do not believe he is living up to the stated goals of his organization: ...social justice and equality for all."
34 - Mac Diva
Neither I nor Jesse Jackson said we oppose gay marriage, Scott. It is your Republican brethren, who you salute on your blog before launching into your attack on Jackson, who oppose gay marriage. It seems to me that your questions and criticisms would be more accurate if directed to Shrub and company. So, why aren't they?
In regard to your second remark, though people of all colorations and political persuasions may be biased against gays, it is your people, the Republicans, who have decided to try to ride this hobby horse into the White House. So, again, why aren't your criticisms and questions directed at Shrub and company?
I think the answer is that, like many conservatives, you perceive people of color, particularly African-Americans, as wearing a kick me sign. You instinctively seek out a black public figure to attack when in fact, the very white leader you support is much more culpable in regard to this issue.
BTW, is there fly buzzing around here?
35 - Shark
bzzzz.... bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
MD: "Neither I nor Jesse Jackson said we oppose gay marriage..."
Jackson: (in his own little pandering mode) "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."
Well, that's no, that's not an explicit opposition. But it's pretty friggin' implicit, don't cha think?
And shouldn't Jackson have added, "a man-woman relationship where the man is free to have illicit, baby-making affairs..."?
And does his implicit opposition fall anywhere short of "The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field."--- or should that be amended to include, "equal protection under the law except for gay couples..." ??
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
36 - Scott Pepper
Mac,
Please don't put words into my mouth.
MD: It is your Republican brethren, who you salute on your blog before launching into your attack on Jackson, who oppose gay marriage.
What I said on my blog:
While I am a registered Republican, my support for civil rights, particularly for gay marriage, is unequivocal. I do not believe it hurts our society in any way for two committed people, regardless of gender, to codify their union in a civil or religious ceremony.
It's a shame not all Democrats feel that way.
If you read carefully, you'll see I was actual drawing a contrast between myself as a supporter of gay rights and most Republicans, including GWB, who are not.
MD: In regard to your second remark, though people of all colorations and political persuasions may be biased against gays, it is your people, the Republicans, who have decided to try to ride this hobby horse into the White House.
The Supreme Judicial Court in my home state and Gavin Newsom made this an issue. Bush's comments, which I disagree with, were in direct response to the events in Massachusetts and San Francisco.
MD: You instinctively seek out a black public figure to attack when in fact, the very white leader you support is much more culpable in regard to this issue.
GWB, as a conservative Christian, believes gay marriage to be wrong as a matter of faith. As much as I disagree with him on this point, to my knowledge, he has been consistent on this issue.
Additionally, while Republicans are largely culpable here, both leading Democratic presidential candidates are against gay marriage.
Rev. Jackson purports to support equal rights for all. In this case, it is difficult to reconcile the stated mission of his organization with his lack of support for gay civil rights.
On the other hand, Rev. Al Sharpton, has been consistent in his fight for civil rights for all, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. Were I permitted to vote in my state's Democratic primary, he'd likely get my vote.
37 - Scott Pepper
By the way, Mac, very nice response to my original post on your blog.
My areas of expertise are healthcare and finance, not civil rights and black history, so I found your comments very educational.
38 - Mac Diva
My blog? I already knew about that entry, since that is a blog I read religiously. But, thanks for the clue-in anyway,
Seriously. I don't write about quantum physics. When economics or theology get too deep for a generalist, I call on blog friends who have expertise in those fields for help. It is beyond me why someone who is not grounded in either gay or African-American history would try to write about either. Doing so is not only likely to lead to embarrassment, but needlessly insult people. Furthermore, it happens to be Black History Month. I would hope people not at all versed in the topic might take a moment and consider learning a little (or more) about it. Instead, I am seeing the same kind of 'oh, those folks with the kick me sign, let he tee off' entries I see every month in the blogosphere. Apparently, it is true that you can lead a horse to water, but. . . .
39 - Shark
Here we go: a lecture on Scott Pepper's ignorance of black history, and a condescending kick in the teeth to anyone else who isn't friggin' Malcom X.
MD, before you ride too far off track on your high horse of victimization (the "kick me" thing should bring out the hankies) you might want to reconsider EXACTLY what Pepper's point has been throughout this 'debate---
y'know THE ONE YOU'VE CONSTANTLY IGNORED:
PEPPER: "Lastly, my post was not intended to "assail" Rev. Jackson. The mission statement of his Rainbow/PUSH coalition reads as follows:
The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field.
His comments in regards to gay marriage do not live up to these lofty goals."