She should give a fig


Jasmyne Cannick and I have had our differences of opinion on several issues but seldom have I found her views to be as troubling as her perspective on the importance of marriage for lesbian and gay couples.






In a recent opinion piece "Jasmyne Cannick Doesn't Give a Fig about Marriage" published by The Advocate, Cannick suggests that she has changed her views on the significance of Black LGBT engagement in the fight for marriage equality.

"What did change for me was my willingness to actively engage myself in a struggle that's been from the beginning, and continues to be, elitist."

Can anyone tell me how efforts to end discrimination in marriage are elitist?

The people that are involved in the struggle for gay marriage are rich, poor and in between. They are men and woman, black and white, Hispanic, and Asian. They support marriage equality regardless of social or economic status.

Cannick seems to have taken a full 180-degree turn on this issue. Cannick is a founding member of the National Black Justice Coalition (National Black Justice Coalition). When NBJC was established in 2004, its primary focus was on efforts to build support for marriage equality in African American communities. This is the largest Black Gay national organization in the country, with that said does it make any sense at all for Cannick to come out so boldly on the other side of this issue. She has since left to pursue other endeavors.

Now Cannick says that, "Plainly put, the gay marriage struggle is the perfect example of white gay America's "superiority complex" in action"

 
 
 
In an attempted preemptive strike on her critics, she says, "And before you scream that I'm a racist, I'd encourage you to step outside of your whiteness for a moment and take a look at the marriage movement through someone else's eyes".

Whoa Ms. Cannick can you spell defensive?

Marriage is not a black or white issue. You cannot simply tell someone to step out of his or her "whiteness" whatever that might mean and think your position immune from serious intellectual critique.

Cannick suggest that the efforts for marriage equality have "From the outset", been about "obtaining marriage for the white gay men and lesbian women who were also willing to fund it", with everyone else was along for the ride.

What?

Black gay and lesbian people can get married. How dare Cannick say that this is about obtaining marriage for just white gays and lesbians, marriage equality is for all gays and lesbians whether they be Black, White Hispanic or Asian. This sounds so wrong on all types of levels. There are Black and Hispanic people fighting for same sex marriage across the United States. This is about having protections for your partner under the law whether they are black or white.

 
 
 
 
Girlfriend please!

Cannick should us in the land of reality and not make believe. She needs to take a hard look at many of the very people that she says should step out of their "whiteness".

According to Cannick, people like Elbridge James the CEO of the Maryland Black Family Alliance, who is a heterosexual black man, should step out of his own "whiteness". James' organization has made it a point to become a gay ally and supporter of marriage for gays and lesbians. I personally cannot name any black straight and gay men and women that support your so called "white gay agenda".

Another gay ally is GA. Congressmen, John Lewis who is straight and supports marriage equality. Is he a member of your elitist group? He should not be since he is one of our black straight allies that speak openly about his support of our community, our LGBT community.

Cannick also states, "Not thinking about how Blacks would take that message, they forged ahead on the backs of the Black civil rights movement without ever instituting any of its core principles. So when Black ministers popped up on those same national television shows and in those same articles condemning the gay rights movement, Blacks were immediately labeled homophobic."

The black community has always had a problem with homophobia, which existed long before our current marriage debate. Many black churches, likewise struggle with homophobia. The case of the Mt. Calvary church in Washington D.C. and its bigoted Preacher Jessie Owens proves this fact. Gay marriage is not his sermon when he preaches hate from his pulpit.

 
 
 
 
Cannick goes on to write "...to which they (black gays) connect to a group of white people who used the 1960s civil rights movement as a blueprint to spearhead their own".

Cannick's class based argument against the efforts to achieve marriage for gay and lesbian people suggest that she does not have a clear vision the civil rights blueprint.

Does Cannick not realize that people from all statuses collaborated in the Civil Rights movement?

For example, we often forget that during the bus boycott in the 1960's only middle class people could even afford to ride the bus. Poor folk often walked miles, not able to afford the bus fare. It did not matter what color they were if they road the bus they were considered to be a part of the middle class. It was this middle class that was made up of all colors that spearheaded this blueprint.

Middle class citizens like the late great freedom rider Gwendolyn Britt who was a Maryland State Senator, spent 40 days in jail in Jackson, Mississippi in the 1960's for her civil disobedience in the struggle for civil rights. Before Britt's passing, she herself spearheaded the sponsorship of a Maryland same-sex marriage bill. For Britt there was little or no political benefit in sponsoring such a bill. In fact, she risked a lot politically in supporting the bill and being so outspoken on the issue. She was a tremendous straight black ally in the marriage fight.

 
 
 
 
These black men and women straight and gay have fought and are fighting presently for gay marriage. Think about all the people mentioned above. I, Justin B Smith ask you the readers this: Do they fit into Cannick's definition of elitist? Are they where they are because of their "whiteness" or are they mentioned because they were/are pioneers in the civil rights movement past and present for blacks and gays?

Marriage benefits all of us. Many gay and lesbian African Americans are misinformed or not informed at all when it comes to the benefits of marriage. We need to give our black LGBT brothers and sisters access to materials to give them a better understanding of what rights and responsibilities they are given when saying I do, such as:
  • Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships
  • Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers
  • Mutual responsibility for debts
  • The ability to sponsor a foreign-born partner for a green card
  • Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs
  • Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial support to children
  • Right to inherit a spouse's pension
  • Entitlement to inherit social security and disability benefits upon the death of a spouse
  • Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties
  • Right to file joint income taxes
  • Ability to put a spouse on the deed to a home without incurring tax penalties
  • Access to "family memberships"
  • Domestic violence protections
  • Immunity from testifying against a spouse
  • Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse

Cannick is now pursuing other civil rights endeavors, for example the immigration movement. She has made that her cause and that is well and good. However, in the first paragraph of her article she writes,

"…both the Black agenda for civil rights and the fight for immigrant rights speak more to what's important to me as a lesbian than fighting for gay marriage."

With all that said I can recall an article that Cannick wrote about immigration called, "Gay's first then illegals" where Cannick states,

"It's a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether to give people who are in this country illegally additional rights when we haven't even given the people who are here legally all of their rights."

 
 
 
 
Why has Cannick suddenly decided to flip flop on the issue of Immigrant rights vs. Gay Marriage? The article mentioned above was published in April 2006 only 2 years ago. She claims she identifies more with Immigration issues than Gay issues, even though she is an out lesbian, who was born here in the United States. Does this make any sense?

Again, I ask you the reader to think about what Cannick is saying in this article and asked yourself is this a gay issue or a black and white issue? The choice at least in my eyes should be obvious

Cannick's comments all through out this odious article are exactly her style of writing, brazen and illogical.

I do respect her for her work for the LGBT community at large, which she now seems to be less identified with, but I do not have to like her style or agree with all he opinions. I can understand her feeling of identifying with being black first and gay second. When I walked down the street that is what people see first, that I am a black man and not a gay man. I feel that Cannick's comments on this certain subject may in fact be separating the gay community more than ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) does.

 
 
 
The campaign for marriage equality has used the black civil rights movement as a model, because it has worked. Julian Bond understands sees the black civil rights movement as an example to help gays and lesbians receive equally benefits under the law.

Civil disobedience, peaceful protest, lobbying, raising money etc. are paramount because we need be at the same level as our married heterosexual brothers and sisters. The civil rights movement did not end with just black people it progressed into the LGBT community. It found a new base, new people and a new home with gays and lesbian, black and white because our rights are still being denied.