Last week, on Martin Luther King Day, Amy and I watched the film, Milk, about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California (back in 1978). When we got to the Egyptian Theatre, Amy asked for two tickets to see "M-I-L-K", spelling out Milk's name. We laughed about this presumed priming effect (from it being MLK day), but it also primed my synchronicity radar as we headed in to see the movie.
Among the most powerful scenes in the movie was Milk's "Give Them Hope" speech:
Somewhere in Des Moines or San Antonio there's a young gay person who all of a sudden realizes that she or he is gay, knows that if the parents find out they'dl be tossed out of the house, the classmates would taunt the child, and the Anita Bryant's and John Briggs' are doing their bit on TV. And that child has several options: staying in the closet, suicide. And then one day that child might open up a paper that says "Homosexual elected in San Francisco" and there are two new options: the option is to go to California, or stay in San Antonio and fight. Two days after I was elected I got a phone call and the voice was quite young. It was from Altoona, Pennsylvania. And the person said "Thanks". And you've got to elect gay people, so that that young child and the thousands and thousands like that child know that there is hope for a better world, there is hope for a better tomorrow. Without hope, not only gays, but those blacks, and the Asians, the disabled, the seniors, the us's … without hope the us's give up. I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. And you, and you, and you have got to give them hope.
I really find this reference to us's positively inspiring, reflecting wisdom I've gleaned from other sources, perhaps most notably Oriah Mountain Dreamer, who suggests that we can either try to identify and empathize with others, or seek to
differentiate others from ourselves; essentially choosing to view
others as "us" or "them".
Turning from us's to hope, another civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., talked about this theme in his "I Have a Dream" speech:
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With
this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of
hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our
nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be
able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail
together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one
day.
While Milk makes explicit references to the civil rights of blacks in his speech, as far as I can tell, MLK never made any explicit references to the civil rights of gays (much less lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders/transsexuals). Of course, they were from different eras – Milk was able to figuratively stand on MLK's shoulders in his crusade to win full equality for LGBT people.
Black people do not have the option of hiding their race in the closet, while LGBT people do, but the perpetration of shame or the withholding of rights based on sexual preference is no more justifiable than that based on race. And if "we're only as sick as our secrets", discrimination based on sexual preference may be even more insidious. Milk urged LGBT people to come out of their closet(s):
We will not win our rights by staying quietly in our closets … We are
coming out to fight the lies, the myths, the distortions. We are coming
out to tell the truths about gays, for I am tired of the conspiracy of
silence, so I'm going to talk about it. And I want you to talk about
it. You must come out. Come out to your parents, your relatives
The 2000 U.S. Census estimates that 12.9% of the population in this country is black; there is no official census for LGBT, but unofficial estimates range from 4% to 10%. While LGBT people have gained some civil rights in some places (nationally and internationally), for reasons I have never been able to understand, allowing people of the same sex to legally marry is opposed by a majority of people in this country – 55% according to a recent poll.
The newly inaugurated president, Barack Obama, is the offspring of an interracial marriage – an institution or practice that was illegal in some states at the time of MLK's speech. The right of states to ban interracial marriages was in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against such laws in the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. And yet, despite his interracial marriage ancestry, Obama claims he is opposed to legalizing same-sex marriages (although, according to a recent San Francisco Chronicle article on "Gays, lesbians hopeful despite inaugural pastor", he supports the extension of full rights to same-sex civil unions, and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages).
Unlike some critics, I was inspired by Obama's inauguration speech – from its inclusive opening of "My fellow citizens" (not restricting his remarks to his fellow Americans), through his highlighting of the crises we face, and the "new era of responsibility" we must embark on in order to address these challenges and remake America. However, having just seen Milk the preceding day, I cringed when he got to this paragraph:
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has
come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our
enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that
precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to
generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and
all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
How can he promote this "God-given" promise that "all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness" and yet oppose the legalization of same-sex marriages? Does this opposition not deny LGBT people their "full measure of happiness"? I don't know if opposition to same-sex marriage under the guise of "defending" marriage is childish, but I do believe that as we, as a nation, mature in our perceptions and judgments about homosexuality (and marriage), we will come around to supporting this civil right that has been denied to a persecuted group in our society.
I was – and am – excited and hopeful about the election of Barack Obama. And yet, that same day, voters in California voted to approve Proposition 8, adding an article to the state Constitution stating
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California
and thereby striking down any municipal laws legalizing same-sex marriages.
Rick Warren, the tremendously influential and socially conservative pastor and best-selling author who delivered the inaugural prayer on Tuesday, supported Proposition 8. As with the aforementioned section of Obama's inaugural speech, I cringed when I heard Rev. Warren say the following:
Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race,
or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for
all.
Freedom and justice for all … except, of course, for homosexuals who want to marry.
If Harvey Milk were alive today, and were to give his Give Them Hope speech today, I suspect he would amend it to include Rick Warren along with Anita Bryant and John Briggs – who had actively campaigned in support of Proposition 6 in 1978, the so-called Briggs Initiative, that would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California's public schools. Fortunately, that measure failed, and while Milk is no longer with us – assassinated by a fellow (or formerly fellow) city supervisor – anti-gay forces are alive and well, in California and elsewhere.
Although there were many other striking and/or synchronistic aspects to the movie, I'll finish off noting that the person who came to a podium at San Francisco City Hall to announce the assassination of Harvey Milk – and then-mayor George Moscone – was then-city supervisor Dianne Feinstein … who was also at a podium during Tuesday's inauguration, as the master of ceremonies. I'd earlier written about ignorance, incendiaries, ironies and inspiration in the 2008 presidential campaign, and my concern that the incendiary invectives uttered by McCain supporters might increase the risk of assassination for Obama. I was relieved that there was no replay of the last time I'd seen Feinstein on the big screen (having seen Milk the day before the inauguration).
I have a difficult time believing that a leader who could compose and deliver an inspiring message of moving toward a more perfect union could really
oppose same-sex marriage. However, given the range of risks and challenges faced by Obama (and the rest of us's), it may be a while – perhaps another generation – before any
public leader at that level can come out publicly in full support of full civil
rights for all people.
[Update: Another augur of hope was unveiled this week: [Washington State] Lawmakers announce 'everything but marriage' bill: "Expanding the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners" (Senate Bill 5688 and House Bill 1727). Equal Rights Washington has posted a page through which citizens can support domestic partnership expansion.]
Comments
4 responses to “Augurs of hope, past & present: MLK, Milk, Obama & all of us’s”
Obama is a revolution which we want especially at the tough times like this. With his revolutionary economic policies he looks optimistic than before. What economic policie speech would you give if you were Obama? This is an inspiring adaptation from David Korten’s speech, taken from his new book.
I’d argue that “citizens” and “Americans” are equivalent in this context. It’s clear to me that he’s addressing citizens of the United States, not citizens of the world. References to others in the speech were explicit.
If anything, you could argue that “Americans” is a broader term than “citizens.”
Kia ora Joe,
While Obama represents change and enlightenment to the world, we must also remember he is also part of the system which rules America, has come from within it, and at times I fear our expectations of what he will do, and what he REALLY represents will make for a very difficult time. In terms of a truly idealistic and humanistic world view president we had one in Jimmy Carter, and he was virtually laughed at all the way back to Georgia – a great shame in my view, but also indicative of how difficult it is, and will be, for any president, man or woman, black, white, Hispanic, or Asian, straight, gay, bi or transgender, to escape the basically narrow minded shackles of those whom hold real power, and allow it to be held. I still hold hope for Obama, but then my expectations of him are not as Christ like as so many seem to hold. Witness the bombing of suspected “terrorist” bases in Pakistan already, or these issues you discuss in your post. The times may be a changin’, but that song was written a long time ago now, and if they are changin” they are changin” slowly.
Rangimarie,
Robb
Fernando: Thanks for the note and link. I initially thought that your reference to economic policies was only marginally related to the topics in my original post, but after following your link to “A Declaration of Independence from Wall Street”, adapted from David Korten’s book Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, I see that it presents “a program of hope for our economic, social and environmental future”, which is more clearly related. Synchronistically, this morning I was listening to an interview with David Korten on Democracy Now, and had [mentally] added his book to my “to-read” list (the paperback version is due out February 3).
Eric: Thanks for helping me further consider the relative breadth of “Americans” and “citizens”, in this context and more generally. I suppose that there are a number of people in the U.S. who are not citizens, but I’m not sure how many of them consider themselves Americans … or how many of them Obama considers Americans (I’m not sure what his policy on immigration is or will be). I’m also not sure whether Obama intended to suggest he was addressing “citizens” of the world in his opening, but that expansive sense of citizenship is how I interpreted his salutation. Perhaps it was a lingering priming effect from Milk’s speech on “us’s”.
Robb: Thanks, as always, for your international perspective on our political system. I hope that we will see real change, vs. small change, but I will try to temper that audacious hope with more realistic expectations. In the interview this morning, David Korten claimed that Obama’s choice of Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, current head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, does not represent real change, and I’ve had similar reservations about the progressiveness of some of his other nominees. I suppose it’s easier to push for change when you’re on the outside than when you’re inside, so now that he’s on the inside, we’ll see what kind – and pace – of change is enacted by him … and us’s.