President Obama gave a stirring emotional speech to the NAACP today at the 100th convention of the oldest civil rights organization in the U.S.
Obama expanded his message of equal rights beyond the black communities. He said many Americans still face discrimination. Racism, he said, is felt "by African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."
He wasn't booed, and got a lot of applause, so at least the African-Americans at the NAACP understand that racism is not the only form of discrimination and African-Americans are not the only group fighting for their civil rights. He was echoing the words of MLK, that injustice against anyone is an injustice against all.
Well, not everyone understand MLK's vision of civil rights. Some still think that "civil rights" = BLACK rights.
Many of us are perplexed by LZ Granderson's column on CNN today, Gay is Not the New Black Black gays are not upset with Obama's lack of progress on his campaign promises to LGBT people, so gay whites should not attack Obama? Gay rights should not be compared to (black) civil rights?
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave a great speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Gala Saturday, and makes the case that "Gay Rights are Civil Rights!" Some homophobic black preachers need to watch this:
My only problem with Bond's speech is his emphasis on sexuality being an "immutable" trait like race, and that the constitution protects us from discrimination based on immutable traits. First, sexual orientation is NOT totally biologically or immutable (See Queer By Choice), and Second, our rights are not only based on biological characteristics. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law and freedom of conscience--i.e., the freedom to CHOOSE our religious, political and yes choose our sexual identity/preference. The liberal "biological" argument for gay rights leaves out bisexuals and those who do CHOOSE to be gay, bi, or straight. Anyway, still a good speech that should persuade most rational people to support LGBT rights.
(I wish people at the Human Rights Campaign would read David Richards' IDENTITY AND THE CASE FOR GAY RIGHTS to learn how to make the case for LGBT rights without resorting to questionable scientific claims about sexual orientation being a biologically immutable trait.)