Add Memory | Add To Friends
mbenznut (profile) wrote,
on 3-14-2006 at 10:22pm
Music: Josh Zuckerman
"I recently embarked on the Soulforce Equality Ride. Traveling by bus, 33 other young adults and I are crossing the country, making stops at 18 colleges that ban the enrollment of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. With stops at schools like Brigham Young University, Oral Roberts University and West Point, our journey is sure to come with controversy and challenges.

We seek dialogue with students and faculty regarding LGBT issues at these schools. Our message at each school is the same: Learn from history and end religious-based discrimination. For centuries, the Bible has been misused to condemn and exclude. The tenacity with which today's religious leaders condemn LGBT people in light of all the past misuses of the Bible amazes me.

Our first stop was to the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. Falwell chose to arrest us rather than allow us onto campus to share our message with his students. Twenty-four of us were charged with trespassing, and one other organizer and I were charged with an additional count of "inciting others to trespass."

When we were at Liberty, we asked Falwell to learn from his own history. During the era of segregation, based on his reading of the Bible, he did not let African-Americans into his church. He once called the civil rights movement the "civil wrongs movement." Today, Falwell won't let gay and lesbian people come to his school, and he was recently quoted as saying that if Liberty ever embraced gay and lesbian equality it should be "burned to the ground."

Somehow, Falwell sees a difference in these two statements. I don't. As I see it, they both misuse the Bible to justify discrimination.

Thankfully, a majority of the schools we will be visiting on our seven-week tour are not reacting with the same level of hostility as the Rev. Falwell. Most of the schools have said we will be allowed on campus, and, at a little less than a majority of the schools, administrators have worked with us to create programming around our visit. At Azusa Pacific University, we are going to be meeting with the president of the university's Cabinet. At Wheaton University, we will be giving a number of presentations, including a campuswide discussion at the school's Billy Graham center. At Abilene Christian University, we will be having a campus discussion called "The Significance of 'Brokeback Mountain.' "

During the civil rights era, young people from across the country rode into the heart of the segregated South on the Freedom Ride to confront religious-based racial bigotry. Today, the Soulforce Equality Riders are following in the footsteps of these great Americans to confront the religion-based bigotry of our time -- that which denies full equality to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

As we make our journey across the country, we hope you will support us. "

Jacob Reitan is co-director of the Equality Ride. You can read about the journey, which extends through April 26, sign up to stand with riders at one of the stops or make a tax-deductible donation on the Web site at www.equalityride.com.
Post A Comment

mbenznut

03-14-06 11:43pm

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, rocked the quiescent relationship between gays and the Democratic Party last week by calling Sen. Hillary Clinton "a complete disappointment." He went so far as to recommend that the gay community discontinue giving money to her campaign.

"Supporting an LGBT fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton will actually hurt our community," wrote Van Capelle in a leaked memorandum to his board of directors. "We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return."

His comments have started a healthy, if not painful, debate about the place of gay people in the Democratic Party. Van Capelle expressed a growing feeling among many Democrats that the LGBT community isn't getting a good return on its investment. These disgruntled Democrats believe that gay people raise millions of dollars for the party and provide armies of volunteers, but gain little.

Democratic leaders respond that they are going as far as they can while remaining electable, and that the only alternative for gay people is to vote Republican.

The Democratic malcontents would counter that there is little difference between the two parties. For the most part, leading Democrats and Republicans are opposed to allowing gay people to marry. So why not redirect our political donations to other charities or go on a great vacation? If the Democrats don't appreciate us, to hell with them -- we can spend our dough in Canada, Spain or Denmark, where gay people are afforded full equality.

This is an option, of course, but what happens if the Democrats say to hell with us? Without the support of Democrats in Congress, a constitutional amendment banning gay people from marrying would pass. So, while we have the power to "show them," they also have the power to "show us." In such a scenario of mutually assured destruction, both Democrats and gay people lose, to the benefit of the Republican Party.

The reason political parties exist is to win elections, and the Democrats have concluded that to neutralize backlash and achieve victory, they will support civil unions while opposing same-sex marriage. Pragmatists in the LGBT community say this is a wise approach that will lead to equality over time. Meanwhile, many leading gay activists believe this is selling out and an affront to our dignity -- which it most certainly is. However, this may be a sacrifice worth making if it keeps Republicans out of office.

A serious question to ask is: Has the pragmatic approach worked or actually hurt gay people and the Democratic Party?

Not too long ago, civil unions were considered political poison, but they are now the preferred position of Democrats with presidential aspirations. A case can be made that the sooner the Democrats embrace same-sex marriage, the quicker the issue will become politically non-risky. By taking the middle-of-the-road approach, the Democrats have prolonged the shelf life of the issue and made themselves vulnerable to attacks on gay rights.

If John Kerry had embraced allowing gay people to marry in 2004, wouldn't the issue be a bit tired and old-hat by now, thus reducing its power to damage Democrats? After all, the Democrats are still getting accused of supporting same-sex marriage and anyone who cares about this issue enough to change his or her vote is probably a Republican, anyway.

Or maybe not.

As a columnist, I usually have a ready answer for everything. However, this is a vexing issue with no clear solution. Our community wants to push back against the Democratic Party without tripping over the edge. But our own exaggerated fear of an imaginary backlash may sometimes keep us too timid and "in our place." If the civil rights movement taught us one thing, it is that progress is not serendipitous, but a result of constant agitation and the pushing of boundaries.

I think a temporary answer might be for disgruntled Democrats to use the primaries as a time to flex their muscles. They can give their money, time and votes only to presidential candidates who support full equal rights.

In 2004, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun supported marriage, yet most gay Democrats ignored their campaigns. Perhaps for 2008, getting behind such candidates can send a message that we are not to be neglected or taken for granted. This plan can highlight our strength while still allowing us not to commit electoral suicide by sitting out the general election.

Van Capelle's comments jump-started a crucial conversation among gay Democrats. We must intelligently strike a balance in which we get our fair slice of the pie, without being so pie-in-the-sky that we alienate the party and help elect Republicans.


(reply to this)