NAACP 102nd Annual Convention: "Overcoming Homophobia"

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY KAREN OCAMB IS REPRINTED HERE:

Civil Rights Icon Julian Bond Speaks at NAACPs First Town Hall Meeting on LGBT Rights

by Karen Ocamb on July 29, 2011 | 12:08 PM

The NAACP held its first-ever town hall meeting to discuss LGBT issues on July 25 as part of its 102nd annual convention held at the Los Angeles Convention Center. The theme was “Our Collective Responsibility: Overcoming Homophobia”. Julian Bond, Civil Rights Icon and Chairman Emeritus NAACP, addresses the NAACP. Video by Renee Sotile & Mary Jo Godges of TraipsingThruFilms for LGBT POV and Frontiers In LA. An extensive piece on the town hall with more video is coming soon.

Dangerous Complacency

On July 2nd, 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that had just been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives a few hours earlier, into law. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.


Passage of that piece of legislation was not easy. It had been bottled up in the House Rules Committee and in the Senate, opponents attempted to kill the legislation with a filibuster. It is a testament to the tireless work and clear vision of people of conscience that the Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. But, what if it all ended with the passage of that landmark legislation? What if all activist decided simply to stop all of their work on July 2nd, 1964? What if the NAACP simply closed its door on that victorious day? What if donors to the advancement of Civil Rights and human dignity decided to stop donating? What if volunteers decided to lend their efforts to other causes, and there were several important causes and good works (the Vietnam War, Peace Corps)? What if the President simply decided to focus on other matters?


Without sustained political pressure, volunteers, donations, activists, we would probably never have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes as a way of assessing whether anyone was fit or unfit to vote. After the passage of the 1965 Act, all you needed to vote was American citizenship and the registration of your name on an electoral list, after the passage of the 1965 Act no form of hindrance to this would be tolerated by the law courts. If everyone threw a party, celebrated and went home after the signing of the 1965 Act’s signing into law, what then?


The Civil Rights Act of 1968 that among other things ended legal housing discrimination, would probably not have been passed into law. If people stopped working for Equality after the signing of the 1968 Act, then there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1991 that protected workers from unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace.


The point of this is that the attainment of Civil Rights and Social Justice are rarely, if ever, “an event,” if history is an accurate guide, this is usually a long, painful, tedious and costly process. There will always be vested interests and uncharitable people who will work, contribute and organize to oppress minorities. Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous quote that the “Arc of history bends towards justice,” is a noble truth meant to inspire in the face of evil and not as a license to do nothing in the face of evil.


In our War for Human Dignity, we will be forced to engage in many battles. We have recently won two major battles, the final repeal of DADT that will occur on September 20th, 2011 and the establishment of Marriage Equality in New York State. Some in our community feel that they have won and that someone else, somewhere else, can fight other battles elsewhere. These sentiments are reported in an article by Alana Horowitz (Full Story).



The line of thought expressed by some members of our community is dangerous on two levels. First, there is still much work that must be accomplished before we reach Full Federal Equality and beyond that goal, Full Equality for members of our community Internationally. Here are just two major mileposts on the road ahead:


• Repeal of DOMA (the falsely named “Defense” of Marriage Act)

• Passage of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act)



Even after we have won, and we will win, Full Federal (legal) Equality. There will be decades of work to be done to establish Full Social Equality for members of our community. There is a distinction between “legal” protection and “social” acceptance. This was tragically pressed home last fall with a spate of suicides of young people in our community. People who were hounded into self-hatred and despair by those who would “keep us in our place” (i.e. silent and invisible).


It is important, healthy and good to celebrate victories in our battles. This encourages future efforts and necessary sacrifices. However, it is a fatal mistake to assume that a victorious outcome to a particular battle, such as the victory in New York State or the Repeal of DADT, marks an end to our War for Human Dignity. It most certainly does not and I promise you that the oppressive elements at NOM and their funders in Salt Lake City and the Knights of Columbus have not stopped trying to restore injustice.

A Fatal Blow for DOMA

President Barack Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the Attorney General Eric Holder gave the rationale of the White House and the Department of Justice for this decision.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).

FULL TEXT

Note the language employed by the U.S. Attorney General in his letter explaining “why” the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA and considers it to be unconstitutional. He specifically states, “the kind of sterotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” This expresses almost verbatim Judge Walker’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in California. In that decision Judge Walker also stated that the proponents were motivated by an animus against same-sex couples.

What is beginning to take shape here is an increasingly clear legal opinion based on the findings of science. The American Psychological Association bluntly states

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

FULL TEXT

This represents reasoned thinking and that is one of two critical components in the advancement of our rights. Julian Bond, the former President of the NAACP stated, “this is the Civil Rights movement of this generation.” The other critical component in our struggle for justice is that our cause be reasonable. For political parties and politicians that means voter approval, and in 2010, according to the Gallup Poll Organization, for the first time fifty percent of Americans accepted Same-Sex relationships.

The hesitation on the part of the judiciary in declaring laws such as DADT and DOMA unconstitutional is historically based. The landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1973 was far ahead of popular opinion at that time. The Court experienced a backlash that still manifested today by the social conservative political movement and accusation of “activist judges.”

What this means is that although the Executive branch will continue to enforce DOMA, it will not defend it in court. Eventually, the law will be ruled unconstitutional and Same-sex married couples will enjoy the federal protections and benefits (e.g. income tax, immigration, etc) currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

Today we have won a battle in an ongoing war to claim full Civil Rights for LGBTQ people, and ENDA is next. It is important to remember that even after the signing of the Equal Rights Act in 1964 and the establishment of full legal equality racism did not end. The NAACP is still fighting for the day of full social equality. So it is premature and unwise to claim this is the “Victory.” We are refreshed and encouraged, but the struggle continues.