To listen to SoulForce’s Interview on the John McMullen Show on GayBC go to:
http://verbotenmedia.net/contents/JM072607h1.mp3
or go to:
http://www.gaybc.com/jmarchive.html
Click on the orange link for July 26th next to the description:
Matthew Nelson, Director of SoulForce Q, re: NY State Equality Issues
Hostility toward marriage equality is certainly not exclusive to one political party, although unceremonious bigotry against the bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender (BGLT) community is most often found with social conservatives in the Republican party. While the South Bus has encountered fierce opposition against marriage equality from these Republican senators and assemblypersons on The Right to Marry Campaign (as well as relative support), the last couple of days we have met with strident homophobia from some Democrats in racially diverse districts, which is usually fueled by fundamentalist religious influence. The link between the conservative religious influence of many people of color and their opposition to BGLT civil rights has been well-documented, and persists in spite of stalwart advocates like the late Coretta Scott King, Senator John Lewis, and the NAACP. And it is important to mention that hostility toward marriage equality is not exclusive to any one race, socio-economic status, and creed. However, what is still disturbing is the instance of the lack of leadership on the part of the representatives of these communities, especially concerning this issue of marriage equality. That Democratic leaders in communities that have known and still know discrimination and prejudice do not take a stand for marriage equality is baffling, hypocritical, and scandalous. Perhaps it is unfashionable to highlight the rampant homophobia that still exists in these racially diverse, religiously fundamental, and economically depressed areas, but some recent examples from our Campaign deserve a hearing.
For weeks leading up to the Campaign, the co-directors called all of the assemblypersons and senators with whom we wanted to have a conversation. While some offices were disorganized and in others personnel was lacking, which made it difficult to schedule a meeting with the legislator or the chief-of-staff, other offices were clear in their unwillingness to have a conversation with us about marriage equality. Two such representatives in NYC, representing districts where most oppose marriage equality, refused a conference with us.
Senator Huntley, an African American female, dodged our many attempts to schedule a conference. Consequently, we arrived at her office ready to have the discussion anyway. Her third in command decided to meet with us to stave off any controversy that would ensue had she continued to refuse us. We sat down at a conference table in the back of her office. After exchanging the necessary pleasantries, we began to talk about marriage for the BGLT community. Huntley’s representative informed us that the Senator did not support marriage equality, civil unions, or any approximations thereof.
First, Savannah and I contested that equal protection under the law promised under the Fourteenth Amendment compelled the Senator to vote in favor of marriage equality. Second, we tried to make analogies between the civil rights’ struggle for African Americans and the BGLT community’s struggle for marriage rights. Both of these attempts failed, and the reasoning that was given by the Huntley office as to why same-sex couples should not yet have the freedom to marry was utterly appalling. Huntley’s representative spoke of the substantial sacrifice that women and African Americans gave for equality and their freedoms: hundreds of years, deaths of leaders and activists, deaths of bystanders, and the deaths of children. Surely, as Savannah and I remembered these sacrifices, we felt sorrow that freedom had to be secured at such a high cost. And even though women and racial minorities are still fiercely contending for their rights to this very day, this redemptive suffering and death has delivered them countless victories for freedom and equality. Likewise, Soulforce Q is continuing the struggle for civil rights in American by advocating for marriage equality for same-sex couples. This is where Huntley’s representative took a caustic, insulting, hateful, and absurd turn. She claimed that the BGLT community had not suffered enough, and that we could not expect to have marriage rights so soon. We had to put in our dues. She claimed that more time must elapse, and that more BGLT people and their children must suffer and die. I could not believe that I was listening to such inflammatory messages out of this woman’s mouth. That people have to die for their freedom is deplorable, but that we have come to expect that there is a certain threshold of pain, suffering, and death that a certain minority must exceed – as if “earning their stripes” – in order to garner their freedom is downright ghastly. We could not stomach any more of the conversation, and politely excused ourselves.
The next day the South Bus traveled to the Bronx to meet with yet another Senator who refused us a hearing. Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz, an African American minister in the Pentecostal Christian tradition, vehemently denied us any opportunity to sit with him or his staff for a conversation about marriage equality. Therefore, because Soulforce believes in the inherent value of civic engagement and peaceful discourse, we traveled to Diaz’s office to give him an opportunity to rectify his undemocratic approach to this conversation. Upon our arrival we were met by hostility, and were refused a meeting. Upon hearing this, we staged a sit-in on the floor of Diaz’s office (for press coverage see: www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=23356038). By force of police intervention, we were removed from the Diaz’s office, and with police support we protested and passed out literature outside.
Should we expect this attitude from our elected officials? Not only do some refuse to meet with us but are thoroughly dedicated to our persecution. How can women and racial minorities who know the scourge of discrimination and inequality contribute to the barbarism and brutality perpetuated on gays and lesbians? Why do Dr. King’s words that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” not apply? Can we not see that the civil rights advancement of one group, in this case the BGLT community, means the civil rights advancement of all groups? Certainly, African Americans and women have a long way to go in achieving full equality in our society, but do they honestly think that by impeding the civil rights progression of BGLT folk will give way to the acceleration of their own?
As I reflect on these experiences, I believe that what is at work in these racially mixed areas has very little to do with race. Such an attribution of blame would be too reductionistic. Rather, these legislators represent racially diverse districts that are economically disadvantaged and are very religiously conservative. Perhaps, as Soulforce has maintained since it was founded, that oppression of the BGLT community stems largely from conservative/fundamentalist religion than any other one determinant.
Nevertheless, there are always counter-examples that thwart stereotypes and broad brushstrokes of mischaracterization of any one ‘type’ of social grouping. For instance, among the many reassurances I had of democracy on the Right to Marry Campaign came on our last meeting – Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell, IV. Powell, from a Puerto Rican family who represents a Latino/a community was in full support of marriage equality. He informed me that he feels as if the issue is a matter of conscience; and must support equal rights for BGLT people. I was heartened by the fact that Powell and others in his community can make a distinction between religious views and civil rights in a democracy. In fact, Powell takes such a strong stance on the issue not in spite of religion but because of his Christian faith.
I concluded that while race, religion, socio-economic status, and other known and unknown characteristics may tend to lead a certain demographic to vote for or against marriage equality, America must see that extending rights and privileges to this particular minority group can only strengthen democracy, prosper community, strengthen marriage, and protect children.
To read the article click the following link:
www.gaycitynews.com/site/news
To view the newspaper article click the following link:
http://www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=23356038
The following link will take you to the South Bus’ article in The Journal News:
www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/NEWS01/707240379/1019/NEWS03
Martin Luther King Jr. has communicated to millions in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” that, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” Those who hear “Wait!” are promised that, given sufficient time, justice will be done, wrongs will be corrected, and equality will abound to everyone everywhere just the same. Yet, present dire circumstances are oft-neglected in the process of “Wait!” It may be said that the call to patience in the political sphere is a tool by the ruling majority to pacify the minority who are demoralized by inequality. Though some will call advocates for immediate change rebels or rabble-rousers who see no need for civilized political processes, these “voices that cry in wilderness” are seeking real solutions to real injustices not someday but today. To retard the march of justice, for whatever political advantage, is to halt it in its tracks. However, to throw an issue down the gauntlet without calculation, technique, and well-timed maneuvering may be impractical and ineffective in attaining ultimate ends. Truly, the tension between the immediacy of justice-doing on the one hand and the patience required for optimum political stratagem on the other is perennial.
Given that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” waiting is a ruse by those reluctant to advance equality. Justice cannot too speedily be delivered. Yet, the demands cannot be sloppily presented, and the timing must be finessed. How, then, do we reconcile the need to be skillful in timing and persuasion in order to achieve equality with the immediacy of the need for equality?
On Wednesday we met with a legislator who defended his vote in the negative for Assemblyman O’Donnell’s marriage equality bill citing political inopportunity as his justification. Although he personally supports marriage equality, he did not vote for the legislation because he saw his vote as inconsequential, and he was biding his time to make such a controversial stand, in a district where 80% oppose, when it would have the greatest impact. The members of the Right to Marry Campaign, South Bus, expressed the need for immediate change in NY on the issue, indicating in no uncertain terms that the needs of same-gender families require an instantaneous invitation to the institution of marriage. The American Pediatrics Society has come out publicly in support of marriage equality, asserting that children need the protections and benefits of civil marriage. These families exist, and need these federal and state entitlements immediately; waiting for a politically opportune time to protect them is absurd. The legislator maintained that he supports bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender (BGLT) rights (including marriage rights), yet believes that he is in no position to “come out” with this position at the present time. However, he declared, that at some future time the climate will be ripe for his decision to favor marriage equality, and at that time he will make good on his promise.
How can we, who have waited for so many years to have the equal treatment under the law that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, sit in the office of an ally of marriage equality and accept its deferment? Is this truly an ally of marriage equality, or someone who has invented a creative argument to appease the dissenting and wronged minority into silence? Granted, how the case is made is important, but the timing is never better to extend rights to a suspect classification of people than the present. Therefore, when speaking in terms of redressing the injustice perpetuated on a minority, in this case extending marriage to include all couples who have been so excluded, political strategy can never be used as an excuse for failing to vote according to what is known is right.
When speaking about direct-action campaigns against discrimination, Dr. King asserts that no decision to advance civil rights is “well timed.” How easy it is for those who have all of the joys of marriage to beseech the minority to wait with patience for the prime moment when, usually when it is convenient for the lawmaker and the opportunity costs are at their lowest, to vote for justice to prevail. The BGLT community must rise up together, with eloquence, intelligence, grace, and earnestness and immediately demand nothing less than civil marriage. This is a matter of conscience and morality. The legislative branch of the government did not wait for the majority of Americans to affirm racial equality when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – this decision was an ethical imperative. Likewise, the legislative branch of NY must not balk at their duty to vote in favor of marriage equality. We shall not wait for a “more convenient season.” We consider this assemblyman’s “Lukewarm acceptance… [as] much more bewildering than outright rejection,” (in Dr. King’s words) and ask him to stand with resolute moral posture for marriage equality. Time can never be used as “an ally of the forces of social stagnation,” rather, “…time is always ripe to do right.” May the lawmakers of New York make haste to do right and vote for marriage equality.
Go to:
http://www.rocklandworldradio.com/program/johnshields/
Then click on the link underneath:
07/23/07 ‘Guest Matthew Nelson, discussing civil rights’
The Hudson River glistened in the noonday sun, as we took serpentine roads to Ossining, NY. We, the activist storm troopers, thought that the way to Assemblywoman Galef’s office would be highway to main thoroughfares to the doorstep of the office of representative democracy. Instead, small-town country roads took us past flowerbox-accented houses, and a gilded sign indicating that we had entered the idyllic New York hamlet. With haste, attired in pastel professionalism, we arrived at the district office much later than had been expected; we were late.
With a flurry we entered Assemblywoman Galef’s office where she greeted us individually, and then she ushered us into her conference room. We began asking Galef about her vote in the negative for the marriage equality bill that passed the Assembly with a slim majority. She informed us that she conducted a poll on the issue in her district, and received an unprecedented response. Much to her surprise, most of her constituents favored civil unions for same-gendered couples, but only about 30% endorsed marriage equality. Therefore, given the outpouring of support for the civil union option, Galef voted her constituents and gave her personal veto to the legislation.
We informed Galef that there are 250,000 children living in same-gender parented households according to the 2000 US Census, and enjoined her to advocate for marriage equality which is the only option legally, socially, and symbolically which can deliver well over 1300 benefits and protections to these families. Moreover, in the face of opposition to marriage equality in her district, we reminded Galef that a vote for marriage equality is morally imperative and politically advantageous. The former, because many civil rights decisions were made in the face of public dissent, e.g., the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, when 70% of America’s populace disapproved, to strike down the ban on interracial marriage. The latter, because no candidate in Massachusetts who voted in favor of marriage equality, where marriage equality is now legal, was unseated, and many who opposed marriage equality were unseated by challengers who supported it. In addition to sharing personal stories and explaining the important differences between a civil union and marriage, we snapped a picture and left our first meeting on the Right to Marry Campaign. We concluded that Galef was at the same time well-intentioned concerning the needs of the bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender community (BGLT), but uninformed about the inferiority of the potpourri of parallel, non-marriage legal statuses vis-à-vis civil marriage. However, we were excited about having had such an engagement with the Assemblywoman, that the needs of the BGLT community were made clear to her so that she will be prepared to vote in favor of marriage equality should such legislation be proposed to the Assembly again.
More than anything, we were affirmed in the necessity of our mission, namely, that marriage equality is about the defense of our humanity and the advocacy of our community’s equality in America. In every conversation that we have, whether with a representative or a constituent, we are confident that, by the banks of the Hudson, more people will be informed about this weighty civil rights decision and support marriage equality.
As the co-director for the South Bus for Soulforce’s Right to Marry Campaign, I am excited to see all of our hard work come to fruition for marriage equality in New York. After picking students up from train stations in New York City, we traveled to Albany to begin our training. The leadership of the initiative assembled a host of seminars that would prepare the students for meetings with NY politicians, community leaders, and constituents: “Activism and Nonviolence;” “Marriage: For What Are We Advocating, How and Why?;” “Transgender Awareness;” etc. Over thirty students congregated in a hotel conference room to participate and engage in these presentations.
I presented the seminar on marriage (see sample ppt slides), and desired to challenge the students to think carefully about the meaning and significance of marriage. Once this consciousness was established, I endeavored to explain a taxonomy of approaches for advocating for marriage equality. In so doing, students were challenged to think about how one’s particular approach to this advocacy must be compared with other approaches/arguments that are distinct from one’s own. For instance, if one views as the highest goal of this advocacy the protection and preservation of the marriage institution, this will differ markedly from an approach which esteems the universal equitable distribution of rights and privileges that marriage guarantees. Students were challenged to think critically about these approaches, identify which approach with which they most identify, and attempt to work with and between these approaches so as to be the most effective advocates. Finally, I enjoined students to champion an approach, based upon the teachings Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which incorporates the best of other approaches, but centers advocacy from humanity as an approach which speaks from own’s most poignant experiences and important needs.
Marriage equality is a matter of conscience and humanity; it epitomizes the tolerant, equitable, and fair-minded aspirations that our democratic society celebrates. Even though as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of the universe bends slowly but it always bends toward justice,” we who are a part of the Right to Marry Campaign desire to accelerate the march toward full and complete social justice.