Much brouhaha over Michelle Obama being heckled by a lesbian activist urging her to press the president to fulfill his forgotten campaign promise to issue an executive order requiring federal government contractors to have nondiscrimination policies toward LGBT people. NPR reports that many in the African-American community are cheering Michelle for bluntly putting down the protestor:
News of the confrontation blazed through social media, especially among black posters. Jason Johnson, a professor of political science at Ohio’s Hiram College, says there’s a reason for that.
JASON JOHNSON: Well, there’s a belief and a very reasonable belief on the part of many supporters of Barack Obama, especially in the African-American community, that the president and Michelle have been subjected to an unprecedented level of rudeness and disrespect and incivility. …
[NPR’s KAREN GRIGSBY BATES]: Whatever it was, the prevailing response among black users of social media was mostly words like finally and yes, both followed by lots of exclamation points.
Lost in much of the non-lesbigay blogosphere is the fact that loud “in your face” protests were once a tactic by civil rights activists to push the government to end its anti-black discrimination.
More. Jared comments it’s not that the pro-Michelle reaction of many African-Americans was anti-gay per se, but rather that their rejection of “equivalency” between the black and gay fight for equal employment protection allowed them to cheer Michelle for putting the lesbian protestor/heckler in her place. It’s a subtle but revealing distinction.
Furthermore. Ellen Sturtz tells “Why I Confronted the First Lady“:
Some have said that the first lady wasn’t a proper target because she is not an elected official. However, time and again, the first lady has come to our community and asked us to “max out” on our contributions to the DNC. In fact, she had just made the same request of several hundred LGBT attendees, days after Senate Democrats had refused to include same-sex binational couples in their immigration reform bill. Despite the Democratic Party happily cashing LGBT checks, I have not seen the Obama administration “max out” on the myriad ways that the government could protect the LGBT community.
Indeed.
37 Comments for “Uppity Lesbian Activist Put in Place?”
posted by Houndentenor on
If you’re going to ambush someone while they are speaking to make a political point, then you have to be prepared for the backlash from people who think you were rude, no matter what you have to say. I think she had a right to speak her mind, but with that right comes the inevitable backlash against her tactics. If she’s surprised that she’s being criticized, then she’s bafflingly naive.
posted by Gus on
Both sides won. Mrs. Obama proved once again she is no wallflower and the lack of an executive order was in the news.
posted by Walker on
Man, Houndentenor must be lonely on the days Stephen doesn’t blog. It never takes him more than 15 minutes to start criticizing. Isn’t he ever in a car or in the shower?
posted by Doug on
Why do I suspect that if this had been Laura Bush who was heckled Stephen would have been apoplectic with rage.
posted by Doug on
Why do I suspect that if this had been Laura Bush who was heckled Stephen would have been apoplectic with rage.
posted by Jorge on
Ehhhh, no harm, no foul. It’s not throwing pies or whipped cream at people, it’s not glitter-bombing people, it’s not desecrating a church service by spitting out the body of Christ (something that makes me particularly distrustful of other gay rights rally attendees). No, every story about GetEQUAL has them practicing, yes, civil disobedience, and in a way that is respectful while also holding President Obama accountable and getting people’s attention. I would support them based on their methods alone. And actually this is a case in point; I don’t remember this being one of Obama’s campaign pledges.
I was attending a panel where Hillary Clinton was silently protested, then hecked by one guy, over her support of the Iraq War. My social work professor said the heckling was the mark of amateurs. Had the protest remained silent, the tension would have been very effective. Maybe. But in this case I think GetEQUAL is speaking for issues that would be ignored otherwise.
To Mrs. Obama I would give a blank check. First of all she’s not the President, she’s the First Lady, so she needs to be treated with a little more statesmanship than the President. But also it was very gracious of her to say she doesn’t do this well. And the account actually makes her come across as very respectful. To give the crowd the option of telling her to leave? To make herself so vulnerable as that? I mean wow! Power to the people! I say let’s defeat the Obama administration. Let’s defy the President. Let’s go down in defeat, limiting the reach of oppression by forcing the power to act. You know the thing about how President Obama responds to these heckling incidents is that I think he needs to understand that he is accountable to the people.
posted by Doug on
Why do I suspect that if this had been Laura Bush who was heckled Stephen would have been apoplectic with rage.
posted by Doug on
Don’t know how this got posted twice but here is my second thought.
Just a few short weeks ago Stephen penned a column calling for more, and lamenting the lack thereof, civility in politics and I agree. Heckling the First Lady is not civil.
posted by Houndentenor on
The incident when someone spat out the communion wafer was done by ONE protestor ONE time. I don’t approve of that. Lots of gay people don’t, but I’m sick of hearing it treated as if it were planned (it wasn’t ), pre-approved by ACT-UP (it wasn’t) or common (I can’t think of a single other time when that happened.) Sorry but making that sound typical of all gay rights protestors is like assuming that every church is going to picket the funerals of soldiers (which granted has happened more than once but by just one “church”). It’s unfair and I’m sick of it being used to beat up on people who had nothing to do with that and would never do such a thing.
posted by Jorge on
Sorry but making that sound typical of all gay rights protestors is like
Making the Catholic sex abuse scandal sound typical of all Catholic leaders.
You are being such a hypocrite. I will not be lectured by you about anything Catholic-related.
but I’m sick of hearing it treated as if it were planned (it wasn’t ), pre-approved by ACT-UP (it wasn’t)
You are going to have to deal with the consequences of the fact that guilt by association is not always a logical fallacy. For I associate the action not only with the ACT-UP of years ago, but with of an ongoing trend of religious disdain if not outright religious hatred that I see at nearly every gay rights event. Now there’s an identifiable reason for it, but the fact of the matter is that there are (not were) people (not one person) in the gay rights movement who have values and methods that would give aid and comfort to the unacceptable. Of course me saying that is a two-way street.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are going to have to deal with the consequences of the fact that guilt by association is not always a logical fallacy.
True. But more often than not guilt by association is a logical fallacy, as is hasty generalization. It seems to me that you are falling into both traps, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
Then I will return to my original assumption that there is a valid reason to identify, compare, and contrast the eucharist-spitting incident, the whipped cream pie incidents, and the glitter bombing incidents (which while less assaultive than the former are not exactly risk-free) among the history of protests by people who are progressive and by people who are protesting for the gay community. Especially considering that this is the website of a blog on gay political news. Only one incident was so shocking that it never got repeated. I think we would have done well to treat the whipped cream pie incidents the same way, then there would have only been one of those as well.
If you do not agree with me that there are commonalities and trends in what I have pointed out, then I would be interested to know what you think the difference is between one generation of extremism and another. I’m not going to sympathetic to any suggestion that there are not extremists among progressives in this generation.
posted by Houndentenor on
The glitter-bombing incidents are relevant as they are recent. The pie in the face incident happened in the 1970s and the communion wafer incident happened in the 1980s. Those happened before half the people who read this were even born. I wouldn’t have participated in any of the above and if anyone had asked me I’d have told them to find another way to protest. I resent having those incidents thrown in my face because I do not belong to the organizations that did those things. I have never donated to those organizations. And I had no ability to influence their actions. That is not the same thing as expecting a bishop to (at the very least) remove a pedophile priest from access to children. Those bishops are accountable except that they hid behind the church to avoid the criminal prosecution they deserved and that they would have faced had they taken the same actions (or failed to take actions) as part of a non-religious organizations. That so many Catholics are so glib about something so heinous can only lessen the respect that non-Catholics have for the RCC.
posted by Houndentenor on
Apples and oranges. You are comparing ONE incident by ONE activist to thousands of cases of child rape over decades that the RCC not only didn’t stop but abetted by shuttling the priests around the country and covering up for them. NO ONE claims that all priests are abusers. The vast majority of them were not. But the ORGANIZATION allowed this to go on for a very long time and instead of stopping it, they allowed it to continue. The only possible result was that more children were raped, and then more, and then more. And at no point did they make any attempt to do anything about that until they started getting sued. I can hardly think of anything more immoral and corrupt than that.
As for anti-religious attitudes that other people have, it’s a free country and people are allowed to have whatever attitudes they want. If I have to defend the rights of those horrible Westboro nutbags to speak then I’m not about to shut down gay people for criticizing religious organizations. Is it “hatred”? No more so than is directed from religion to gay people. Perhaps you missed the incident in Georgia where Orthodox priests actually led the protest in which rocks were thrown at people trying to have a gay pride event. Let me know when gay groups are committing violence against religious people and I will most certainly condemn that. But no one is above criticism. For too long people have gotten a free pass to say hateful things and commit heinous acts while hiding behind their religious beliefs. I hear the screaming (mostly from Evangelicals but also from Catholics) as if being criticized for their words and actions is a violation of their rights. It’s not. People have as much right to criticize what you say and do as you had a right to say and do it.
posted by Jorge on
I’m glad you conceded that no one is above criticsm and that people have a right to criticize what other people say and do. I intend to hold you to your word.
posted by Carl on
Wasn’t there all sorts of talk for years here about how if we stop being demanding and start being kinder to Republicans, then we will get what we want?
Is that not true for Democrats as well?
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t think anyone ever won civil rights by being nice. Women had to take to the streets and march to get the right to vote. African Americans had to do the same. Yes, you have to elect people friendly to your cause, but that’s not enough. You then have to pester them until they pass the legislation (or constitutional amendment) that they promised. It has always been so, with every president of both parties (for whatever interest group). Perhaps that’s not how it ought to work, but it’s how it does work. I don’t think this little incident accomplished anything. Personally, someone doing this to my significant other would make me less likely to give the group what they wanted.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
” Brouhahah” is the right word. Or maybe “tempest in a teapot”. Or perhaps “mountain out of a molehill”. Certainly “much ado about nothing”.
The First Lady doesn’t handle situations like this well, and she knows it: “One of the things I don’t do well is this.” It isn’t the first time in her private or public life that she’s done this kind of thing, and it won’t be the last. She is what she is.
It isn’t worth the ink that’s been wasted on it.
Stephen picked up on it because it gave him a chance to expound on one of his favorite memes — the supposed rift between African-Americans and gays/lesbians in the Democratic Party. He recently commented on it (“… a significant anti-gay faction in the Democratic party …“) in the post on Illinois, and he’s done it over and over, and over again.
The potential of exploiting equality as an internal wedge in the Democratic Party is a common dream among Republicans who hope that the “wedge” will drive one group or the other to ignore Republican policies and come over, but it is a wet dream.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I didn’t hear an expression of inability (“I don’t do well is this”) – but an impatience with the ‘protester’. Much like I would say to my 7-year old.
But Obama was at a political fundraiser, representing her husband, the party, etc… It was not out of place for someone to stand up and speak out. At least, not in my mind.
And the issue itself is getting muddled in all the brouhaha over the tactic itself. (The muddling happening in the lgbt blogsphere more than anywhere else, interestingly enough.)
Obama – and the Dems – have mucked the lgbt community around re: ENDA for years now.
Our current president refrained from supporting ENDA when the Dems had control of Congress – stating that the WH should not get involved in legislative matters.
Since the Reps took the House, and there have been more and more calls for the Executive Order to be signed, Obama refuses to do so. Why? Because the WH now says it wants to get involved with Congress to pass ENDA. Huh???
The WH attitude and response to both ENDA and the EO are insulting and offensive to the lgbt community. Again – standing up at a fundraiser and saying so is not out of place.
And, yes, Tom – I agree with you re: Stephen and the wedge issue.
What Stephen didn’t note is that a large number of lgbt sites are also supporting the FLOTUS. Funny that he didn’t mention that fact while detailing some responses from the African-American community.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“I didn’t hear an expression of inability but an impatience with the ‘protester’. Much like I would say to my 7-year old.”
I didn’t hear inability, either, just an acknowledgement that she doesn’t deal well with situations like this.
Mrs. Obama was the General Counsel for the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics before the President was elected, and I know a number of doctors and staff who know her well from those days, including a couple of relatives.
She was a first-rate lawyer, but wasn’t the most patient person in the world, and she went off once in a while when she felt like she’d been blindsided. It is just the way she is. A lot like me, to be truthful.
I think that the whole thing is overblown, but First Ladies have to get used to the dogs barking, and she does pretty well with it, mostly, but I’ll bet she’ll be glad when she can return to private life.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And, yes, Tom – I agree with you re: Stephen and the wedge issue.
Well, he’s been at it for years, and it is kind of silly.
Polls over the last year or two show that African-American support for marriage equality runs about 60%. I’ll grant you that 60% is lower than support among Democrats generally, but the difference is hardly enough for Republicans to drive a wedge within the Democratic Party on the issue.
To my way of thinking, the supposed wedge is just part of the Republican fantasy world, akin to the notion that if Republicans don’t talk about their anti-equality positions, nobody will notice.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@ Tom,
I’d read about the Young Republicans and their ‘concerns’ re: diversity in the Republican Party, lgbt issues, etc…
But in a way that seems to be typical for the Reps at this point, these same Young Republicans, who have just advocated for… something re: lgbt issues, then turn around and do… what?
“But it turns out the College Republican National Committee is sponsoring the “Road to the Majority Conference,” hosted by Ralph Reed’s far-right Faith & Freedom Coalition, along with other anti-gay groups like Concerned Women for America, the Manhattan Declaration, the American Civil Rights Union and televangelist Pat Robertson’s Regent University.
In fact, some of the GOP’s most stringently anti-gay leaders like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are scheduled to address the conference, and Robertson will receive Lifetime Achievement Award.”
Nothing works like walking the walk. Or following your own advice, yes?
Maybe Stephen should look at why even the Young Republicans are not willing to give up the anti-gay…
posted by Don on
I think Stephen’s most salient point was the one where black activists were cheering Michelle for shooting down a gay protestor. And how it was how African-Americans got their plight heard when they were ignored and shunned. What I do give Obama enormous credit for is his flat-out rejection of Christian blacks denouncing gay rights. He waffled at first, but he’s “their guy” and has repeatedly emphasized that equal is equal; fair is fair. There are not many examples of politicians taking on their core interest group and telling them unequivocally they are wrong. I wish he had a steel spine more often. But I am glad that he is on this at least.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think Stephen’s most salient point was the one where black activists were cheering Michelle for shooting down a gay protestor.
That’s not what the NPR article Stephen cited suggests:
and, further down in the article:
I spend 30 years in Chicago, involved in politics on the South Side, including volunteering my time to President Obama’s early campaigns for the Illinois State Senate. I’ve had a lot of experience with “black woman certaintude”. Callie Crowley nailed it. I don’t think that Mrs. Obama’s response had anything to do with the fact that the protester was gay. It could have been any protester, attacking the President about anything.
And the motivation behind the “social media” responses was probably just as Laura Washington described it. African-Americans identify with the President, and more than a few seem to be getting tired of the incessant attacks on him.
posted by Don on
I can say the same regarding experience except mine was in Atlanta in the 90s. No, many if not most African-American activists are not happy about gay rights at all. And if one makes the slightest inference that there is any parallels whatsoever (Bible justified your oppression, too) they became furious. Those against gay rights just raged over and over “it’s not the same at all” and refused to say there was even a hint of overlap. I remember one powerful black political operative adamantly refusing to admit both were legal forms of discrimination, not just cultural. i.e. both have laws saying you cannot ___. At the time, we still had sodomy laws.
My comment wasn’t to how Michelle handled it at all. I think she’s in Barack’s camp in that I’m proud of her taking the key stand over and over against the know-nothings in black activist circles. They are stuck in pedophiles/bible says no/it’s a white man’s disease. And those that are still left will probably have to die rather than change their minds.
Reminds me of that part of the Bible that warns against judging others too harshly or you will become what you judge. But to their defense, that’s a passage too many people are unfamiliar with.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t understand where you and Stephen are getting the idea that “black activists were cheering Michelle for shooting down a gay protestor” from.
The NPR article Stephen cited doesn’t support either the idea.
First, the article doesn’t suggest that Mrs. Obama’s reaction was a reaction to the subject matter or sexual orientation of the protestor. Instead, the article suggests that Mrs. Obama’s reaction was to the protest itself — a “First Mom” response, as one of the commentators in the article put it. So where does the idea come from that Mrs. Obama was “putting down a gay protestor”, presumably because the protestor was gay? It seems to me that you and Stephen are reading more into the incident than exists.
Second, the article doesn’t suggests that the reaction came from “black activists”. The article talks about “social media” and seems to be about the reactions of ordinary African-Americans.
Third, the article doesn’t support the idea that African-Americans were “cheering” because Mrs. Obama put down a gay protestor. The article suggests, instead, that the reaction from African-Americans had more to do with the fact that African-Americans have had it up to their eyeballs with the constant put-downs of the President and Mrs. Obama: “[She] was finally stepping up in a very unapologetic way and defending herself and her husband.”
I have to admit that I haven’t followed the story at all — as I said, I think that the whole brouhahah is a waste of ink — so maybe “black activists” have been doing what you and Stephen seem to think has been happening, but the NPR article cited by Stephen doesn’t support that conclusion.
In any event, a higher percentage of African-Americans support marriage equality than Caucasian Americans (60% to about 53-55%), and, among both races, conservative Christians seem to be responsible for the opposition.
I think both of you are reading a lot more into the situation than the facts merit.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In any event, a higher percentage of African-Americans support marriage equality than Caucasian Americans (60% to about 53-55%), and, among both races, conservative Christians seem to be responsible for the opposition.
A corrective note: I inadvertently got the Caucasian percentage wrong.
The most recent polls (see most recent CBS/NYT poll for an example) show African-American support at about 60%, Caucasian support at about 50%, and overall support hovering above 50% but below 55%.
The polling figures regarding the racial differences have been reasonably consistent for the last year.
It was not always this way. The racial differences with respect to the level of support for marriage equality have flipped in recent years. Polls taken a few years ago showed the reverse — that a higher percentage of Caucasians supported marriage equality than African-Americans.
Over the last few years, support for marriage equality seems to have grown among all segments of the US population, but African-Americans have made a dramatic shift. I’m glad for it. Republicans seem less happy with the result.
posted by Houndentenor on
There is a concerted effort on the right to create a wedge between African Americans and gay people. It’s even more disturbing to see this tactic used by gay people (homocons usually). It’s easy to quote mine and find something to add fuel to that fire, but the polling numbers tell a different tale (see Tom’s response).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s easy to quote mine and find something to add fuel to that fire …
It works both ways. You can bet that the anti-gay “black activists” that Don is talking about (not to mention NOM, the FRC and the rest of the crowd) are quote-mining angry statements from gays to build resentment within the African-American community, as well. The flames of racial resentment are easy to fan, and both sides should stop it.
posted by Jorge on
In any event, a higher percentage of African-Americans support marriage equality than Caucasian Americans (60% to about 53-55%), and, among both races, conservative Christians seem to be responsible for the opposition.
Well, this is new information to me. A lot has been changing even in the past five years (and then I remember who’s been president for the past five years), but I can wait for it to become obvious.
posted by jared on
Tom is being disingenuous, again. The NPR article clearly indicates that black bloggers where pleased to hear Michelle put the protestor in her place:
“News of the confrontation blazed through social media, especially among black posters. Jason Johnson, a professor of political science at Ohio’s Hiram College, says there’s a reason for that.
“JASON JOHNSON: Well, there’s a belief and a very reasonable belief on the part of many supporters of Barack Obama, especially in the African-American community, that the president and Michelle have been subjected to an unprecedented level of rudeness and disrespect and incivility.”
and
“BATES: Whatever it was, the prevailing response among black users of social media was mostly words like finally and yes, both followed by lots of exclamation points.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Disingenuous? You’ve just proved my point. Read what you quoted. The response of African-Americans to Mrs. Obama’s reaction to the protestor was, as you put it: “Well, there’s a belief and a very reasonable belief on the part of many supporters of Barack Obama, especially in the African-American community, that the president and Michelle have been subjected to an unprecedented level of rudeness and disrespect and incivility.”
Spinning this as an example of African-American hostility to gays and lesbians is disingenuous. Spinning this as a response from “black activists” is disingenuous. Trying to use the incident to drive a wedge between African-American and LGBT Democrats is crass exploitation, without basis in fact.
posted by jared on
Spinning this as an example of African-American hostility to gays and lesbians is disingenuous.
But Stephen did not do that. You have misconstrued his argument. His point is that the lesbian protestor was using tactics that black civil rights activists had used to press the government for their right to equal treatment, but that many black bloggers refuse to see this (as they reject “equivalency” between blacks and gays) and thus cheered putting the lesbian heckler in her place.
posted by Don on
I don’t think its fair to harp on any gay activists for not taking the high road with religious leaders. When their approach to gays rather closely mirrors the Klan’s approach to blacks, it’s hard to be that tolerant. No, they don’t lynch. But they do increase rhetoric to the point so as to incite violence against gays. See Paris, NYC, Africa. You don’t get to say a small minority is destroying our society and we will all be dragged to hell unless they are stopped without inciting violence. The other message is that gays are gaining political power so they can molest our children. You can quibble with quotes from this or that religious leader to try to prove me wrong. But this is the gist of the consistent message they send.
I find it admirable that we don’t have a gay black panthers planning bombings of religious institutions given the level of violence against us they incite.
Still, the quiet majority of catholics disagree with their hierarchy. I get that. Same with many other denominations. Problem is the hierarchy has made it a sin to speak against them. Shut up or suffer eternal hellfire is a strong motivator. So no, I don’t cut them the slack. Martin Luther was a heretic and he was right. It’s time for the silent catholics to speak out clearly and distinctly.
posted by Jorge on
For what cause do Catholics have to speak out against the sins of other religions? Not happening.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Um, quite a bit of gay-rights policy has been advanced during the Obama administration.
Yes, it was not ONLY the work of Democrats or Republicans. However, the Obama administration is probably the most supportive president of gay rights in our nation’s history.
Yes, more work needs to be done — policy wise — but my initial thought about the protestor is that she might want to see what has been done and express a bit of tact and patience.
Most of the focus — in terms of gay rights policy — has been on the military policy, and growing levels of equity for same-sex couples.
Yes, civilian equal opportunity legislation is important, but — initially — that was not the focus. Partly, because other gay rights issues have been at the forefront and, partly, because a version of the bill came very close to being passed in 1996.
So, I suspect that a decision was made to tackle some of the harder battles first and then address the ENDA. Basically, the hurdle for ENDA is gender identity. The education and comfort level is not quite their for including gender identity.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well said.
Moreover, the event was hosted by an out lesbian couple, and thus the “heckler” knew that she was in a relatively sympathetic environment. But she also knew that the attendees were loyal Democrats, and that throwing glitter or a cream pie at Mrs. Obama would therefore not win her any friends (in addition to getting her tackled by the Secret Service). Thus, the so-called “heckling” was, in fact, rather tepid.
There is a faint whiff of “stage-managed trial balloon” about the whole incident, IMHO. Or, at least, it might as well have been stage managed, even if the activist was genuinely speaking on her own behalf, and even if Mrs. Obama was genuinely caught off guard.