May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia and May 22 is Harvey Milk Day. So this week we're going to look at issues in activism in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.
We're going to start out with Harvey Milk as a statewide activist, a role near and dear to us at the Tennessee Equality Project. Take a look at this fascinating interview Milk gave about the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6) that would have banned gays and lesbians from working in California's public schools:
In some ways, the whole movement is summed up in this interview. Milk moves easily from local to state to federal politics. He is fully conversant with the religious arguments and is staking out a constructive position of his own. He takes the divisions within the community in stride and calls everyone to get involved rather than criticize. He's making common cause with labor and racial and ethnic minorities. He presents in ten minutes so much of the blue print we're still trying to follow today. Best of all, he represents American optimism at its best, an optimism that was richly rewarded with the defeat of the Briggs Initiative.
-Chris Sanders
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The real divide in activism is between those who are involved and those who aren't.
The debates about what kind of activism is needed to advance equality are multiplying. Some are calling for direct action in the form of protests, marches, civil disobedience, etc. Others continue to rely on lobbying and a sort of detailed government relations approach. Those are probably the two ends of the spectrum. I've spent most of my time on the government relations approach, but I've protested a few times--certainly when a local hotel fired people for being gay. When Kroger and Harris Teeter dropped Out & About Newspaper from their stands, we organized a successful save-your receipts from their competitors campaign that resulted in enough pressure to reverse the decision. I have no doubt that we'll use similar tactics again.
I worry about two aspects of these debates. The first one relates to data. People take up their approach to activism based on some combination of passion (usually anger), experience, and a hypothesis about what they believe will work. I do, too. What we really need is data on what works and I wish it took into account different situations such as regional differences and the type of policy target--e.g. a non-discrimination ordinance vs. a marriage ballot measure. But there really doesn't seem to be much. So I would describe myself as a bit agnostic when it comes to absolutist statements about activism. I have my hunches about what works, but I can't say that I know for sure that something else wouldn't work.
And it is because of that uncertainty that I think we should continue but contain the debates on our approaches to activism. Hence, my second concern is that I think we're missing the real divide, which is not between the direct action folks and the government relations folks. If we step back, we realize that it's between those who are involved and those who aren't. Our task really ought to be bringing more people into the fight for equal rights. And with a diversity of approaches available now there ought to be roles for everyone. I hope that this is where our energy takes us in the new decade--bringing more people into the movement.
-Chris Sanders
I worry about two aspects of these debates. The first one relates to data. People take up their approach to activism based on some combination of passion (usually anger), experience, and a hypothesis about what they believe will work. I do, too. What we really need is data on what works and I wish it took into account different situations such as regional differences and the type of policy target--e.g. a non-discrimination ordinance vs. a marriage ballot measure. But there really doesn't seem to be much. So I would describe myself as a bit agnostic when it comes to absolutist statements about activism. I have my hunches about what works, but I can't say that I know for sure that something else wouldn't work.
And it is because of that uncertainty that I think we should continue but contain the debates on our approaches to activism. Hence, my second concern is that I think we're missing the real divide, which is not between the direct action folks and the government relations folks. If we step back, we realize that it's between those who are involved and those who aren't. Our task really ought to be bringing more people into the fight for equal rights. And with a diversity of approaches available now there ought to be roles for everyone. I hope that this is where our energy takes us in the new decade--bringing more people into the movement.
-Chris Sanders
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Quote of the Day: Viral Town Meeting
One analyst's view of what's going on at health care town hall meetings around the country, from the New York Times:
“We’re living in the era of the viral town meeting,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University who once worked as a Senate aide. “I remember back in the ’70s getting identically worded telegrams in the thousands. What’s happened now is the technology of protest has metastasized, and it threatens to overwhelm the relationship between members of Congress and their constituents.”
“We’re living in the era of the viral town meeting,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University who once worked as a Senate aide. “I remember back in the ’70s getting identically worded telegrams in the thousands. What’s happened now is the technology of protest has metastasized, and it threatens to overwhelm the relationship between members of Congress and their constituents.”
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Photo of the Day: Outing Equipment at Sewanee
I went to Sewanee for a conference on GLBT equality today. Before the session I was leading began, I passed by this door and laughed. Who knew there was special equipment for outing and that you can keep it in a closet? I just thought you needed a loud mouth and indiscretion. It was a good session. I was particularly glad to learn that Maryville College has a Gay-Straight Alliance that was granted formal status last year. Thanks to the Sewanee Gay-Straight Alliance for inviting me.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Forgetting the South in the GLBT rights movement
The national GLBT rights movement still doesn't know how to deal with the South. Those of us working in the statewide organizations, like the Tennessee Equality Project, of course, live the challenges of that work every day. But we have largely been left behind, to recall the title of a popular Evangelical novel.
Perhaps we're just not cutting edge enough. No Southern state is positioned for marriage equality in the next 10 years, as far as I can tell.
Some helpful conversations have begun that could suggest the way forward. For example, there's lots of talk about engaging religion, but it's mostly the safe kind of engagement with those who are already our allies, not the Southern Baptist Convention or the congregations of the Church of Christ. And now there is a renewed call to deal with racism in the GLBT rights movement. Consider the words of Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:
Have we done enough as a community to deal with our own racism and to make sure that our movement is one that reflects the true diversity of LGBT people? We sure haven't. But the finger pointing and scapegoating was an affront to the many people of color and others who worked on and with the campaign and to our allied organizations. Furthermore, it avoids the complexity of the work we still have to do to win equality.
She's absolutely right. Some white gay activists blamed the African American community for the passage of Prop 8 in California. It was ridiculous. But a lot of the efforts to deal with race in the GLBT community look like what is described here. No doubt these workshops help, but there's a much more obvious issue and it involves a bracketing of region.
You can't deal with the issues of race, religion, and the GLBT rights movement without acknowledging that national organizations ignore the South. How can you address the issue when you ignore so many states with high African-American populations?
Consider these facts helpfully compiled from Census data:
*States with more than 1 million African Americans include New York, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 7 of those states are solidly Southern, while Texas and Florida retain significant Southern heritage.
*African Americans make up at least a quarter of the population in these states: Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama.
*The states with the largest growth in the African American population are Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina.
Out of the states in the lists above, only Florida has received significant national attention recently and that's because of the marriage ballot measure.
I think the problem is that when progressives (including GLBT activists) think of the South, they think of a collection of red states, the recently blue states of Virginia and North Carolina nothwithstanding. They forget that the South is where a large number of Black GLBT people live and an increasing number of Latinos as well. They forget that the South is the home of the religious organizations most opposed to our rights.
It's a lesson that should have been obvious from the results of the November election. The South votes differently. Progress in the South means something different from what it means in California and New York. But guess who's talking about regionalism. Republicans. They are beginning to have conversations about the dangers of becoming a regional party. Will the GLBT movement have a conversation about the dangers of abandoning an entire region of the country?
I'm not holding my breath. Any time there is a hate incident in the South and it gets mentioned on national blogs, you inevitably see something in the comments section like, "We ought to boycott the state of _______." Fill in the blank with any of the thirteen. Never mind that horrible hate crimes occur in states on both coasts and well above the Mason-Dixon Line. The South has been written off.
Perhaps we're just not cutting edge enough. No Southern state is positioned for marriage equality in the next 10 years, as far as I can tell.
Some helpful conversations have begun that could suggest the way forward. For example, there's lots of talk about engaging religion, but it's mostly the safe kind of engagement with those who are already our allies, not the Southern Baptist Convention or the congregations of the Church of Christ. And now there is a renewed call to deal with racism in the GLBT rights movement. Consider the words of Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:
Have we done enough as a community to deal with our own racism and to make sure that our movement is one that reflects the true diversity of LGBT people? We sure haven't. But the finger pointing and scapegoating was an affront to the many people of color and others who worked on and with the campaign and to our allied organizations. Furthermore, it avoids the complexity of the work we still have to do to win equality.
She's absolutely right. Some white gay activists blamed the African American community for the passage of Prop 8 in California. It was ridiculous. But a lot of the efforts to deal with race in the GLBT community look like what is described here. No doubt these workshops help, but there's a much more obvious issue and it involves a bracketing of region.
You can't deal with the issues of race, religion, and the GLBT rights movement without acknowledging that national organizations ignore the South. How can you address the issue when you ignore so many states with high African-American populations?
Consider these facts helpfully compiled from Census data:
*States with more than 1 million African Americans include New York, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 7 of those states are solidly Southern, while Texas and Florida retain significant Southern heritage.
*African Americans make up at least a quarter of the population in these states: Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama.
*The states with the largest growth in the African American population are Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Carolina.
Out of the states in the lists above, only Florida has received significant national attention recently and that's because of the marriage ballot measure.
I think the problem is that when progressives (including GLBT activists) think of the South, they think of a collection of red states, the recently blue states of Virginia and North Carolina nothwithstanding. They forget that the South is where a large number of Black GLBT people live and an increasing number of Latinos as well. They forget that the South is the home of the religious organizations most opposed to our rights.
It's a lesson that should have been obvious from the results of the November election. The South votes differently. Progress in the South means something different from what it means in California and New York. But guess who's talking about regionalism. Republicans. They are beginning to have conversations about the dangers of becoming a regional party. Will the GLBT movement have a conversation about the dangers of abandoning an entire region of the country?
I'm not holding my breath. Any time there is a hate incident in the South and it gets mentioned on national blogs, you inevitably see something in the comments section like, "We ought to boycott the state of _______." Fill in the blank with any of the thirteen. Never mind that horrible hate crimes occur in states on both coasts and well above the Mason-Dixon Line. The South has been written off.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Thoughts on Day Without a Gay
Wednesday, December 10 has been proclaimed Day Without a Gay and comes in the wake of the nationwide Proposition 8 protests. The basic idea is to "call in gay" at work and spend time volunteering to raise the visibility of the GLBT community. The other goal is to demonstrate our community's economic impact by showing what it would be like if we stopped spending money and stopped working for a day. Much of the national GLBT press has been positive about the nationwide action. But reading the comments at this popular blog shows that opinion is far from uniform.
In terms of the local reaction, Out & About has a story that mentions a business that plans to close for the day. But they are also running a commentary piece that calls the whole thing into question, and it is receiving a lot of hits.
The Tennessee Equality Project gave our local committees around the State the option of organizing something for the day, but they decided not to because they didn't think that it supported the political goals of their communities. Advising people to call in gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is a recipe for getting fired in many parts of the State since we lack federal, state, or local protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
I think to be effective boycotts like this have to be focused. Having led a successful business-related action when Kroger and Harris-Teeter pulled Out & About Newspaper from their racks, TEP prefers to advise action that is locally adapted and focused on positive action. By urging volunteering, Day Without a Gay actually has a lot of potential. There ought to be a day of service when GLBT people are visible serving causes in their communities. But connecting it to calling out of work simply isnt effective in some of the redder regions of the country.
But what about the visibility argument? Don't these nationwide actions give us visibility? TEP supported the Prop 8 rallies in Tennessee, but we also recognize that they probably had no impact on the opinion of any elected officials who have the power to influence state and local laws. There was plenty of media coverage, but the coverage provided a momentary glimpse of our community to an intedterminate audience.
In our experience, what works is getting lots of GLBT people and our allies to have focused conversations with lawmakers about specific legislation. It makes them rethink their support of negative legislation and in some cases gains us allies who find the courage to defend the rights of their constituents.
Day Without a Gay can become something powerful, but it needs some revisions. The series of actions planned after the Prop 8 rallies may quickly become a "flavor-of-the-month" approach if they are not locally adapted and focused on persuading federal, state, and local officials who can help us make real progress toward equality.
Update: Here's the Tennessean's piece.
In terms of the local reaction, Out & About has a story that mentions a business that plans to close for the day. But they are also running a commentary piece that calls the whole thing into question, and it is receiving a lot of hits.
The Tennessee Equality Project gave our local committees around the State the option of organizing something for the day, but they decided not to because they didn't think that it supported the political goals of their communities. Advising people to call in gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is a recipe for getting fired in many parts of the State since we lack federal, state, or local protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
I think to be effective boycotts like this have to be focused. Having led a successful business-related action when Kroger and Harris-Teeter pulled Out & About Newspaper from their racks, TEP prefers to advise action that is locally adapted and focused on positive action. By urging volunteering, Day Without a Gay actually has a lot of potential. There ought to be a day of service when GLBT people are visible serving causes in their communities. But connecting it to calling out of work simply isnt effective in some of the redder regions of the country.
But what about the visibility argument? Don't these nationwide actions give us visibility? TEP supported the Prop 8 rallies in Tennessee, but we also recognize that they probably had no impact on the opinion of any elected officials who have the power to influence state and local laws. There was plenty of media coverage, but the coverage provided a momentary glimpse of our community to an intedterminate audience.
In our experience, what works is getting lots of GLBT people and our allies to have focused conversations with lawmakers about specific legislation. It makes them rethink their support of negative legislation and in some cases gains us allies who find the courage to defend the rights of their constituents.
Day Without a Gay can become something powerful, but it needs some revisions. The series of actions planned after the Prop 8 rallies may quickly become a "flavor-of-the-month" approach if they are not locally adapted and focused on persuading federal, state, and local officials who can help us make real progress toward equality.
Update: Here's the Tennessean's piece.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Special screening and discussion of Milk in Knoxville on Dec. 14
The TEP Knox County Committee and Human Rights Group have arranged a special showing and discussion of Milk on Sunday, December 14 at 12:30 p.m. at the Regal Downtown West Cinema 8. Milk, the story of openly gay San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, opens nationwide in December. Starring Sean Penn, the film comes at a time when new activism is emerging in the wake of the passage of California's Proposition 8.
Ticket information here.
Ticket information here.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Paradigm shift in activism?
Some seem to think the Prop 8 protests indicate a big Yes.
Quoting one of them in the piece above:
The leaders of what is being billed as Stonewall 2.0 are not coming from large, established organizations. ... That this huge outpouring of organic outrage is not being channeled through official organizational channels has enormous implications.
Yes, it does. But what are the implications? Let's say that the Prop 8 protests are a factor in the eventual demise of the existing big national GLBT organizations. Won't this new movement eventually shift from charismatic, emotion-driven grassroots leadership to something more formalized with bureaucracy? I think it would have to in order to achieve its goals. Money still drives so much of the political process including the legislative process. If you're going to channel money, you have to do so lawfully. And that means structure that meets the requirements of state and federal law--the tax code and all that.
Furthermore, what began as a spontaneous movement is already developing an agenda focused on visibility and marriage. Since marriage remains a state prerogative, won't strategy beyond visibility be necessary at some point? That would seem to indicate that a national structure and leadership are necessary. After all, someone is determining what the goals, actions, and timing are, oh, and how the money is spent!
What the protests represent are a breakthrough in using the web to get people in every state to do approximately the same thing on the same day in a short amount of time. And that is definitely a significant breakthrough. But if such an effort is to be sustained to the point of having a real effect on law (and not just a way to channel justified rage), then it will take on some of the same structures as existing organizations.
And if marriage equality is on a different time trajectory in each state, will the new, centralized Web activism be patient enough to deal with 50 state legislatures or lengthy federal court battles? Either way you look at it, lawyers and lobbyists should not worry about being out of work. Their employers may change, though.
Quoting one of them in the piece above:
The leaders of what is being billed as Stonewall 2.0 are not coming from large, established organizations. ... That this huge outpouring of organic outrage is not being channeled through official organizational channels has enormous implications.
Yes, it does. But what are the implications? Let's say that the Prop 8 protests are a factor in the eventual demise of the existing big national GLBT organizations. Won't this new movement eventually shift from charismatic, emotion-driven grassroots leadership to something more formalized with bureaucracy? I think it would have to in order to achieve its goals. Money still drives so much of the political process including the legislative process. If you're going to channel money, you have to do so lawfully. And that means structure that meets the requirements of state and federal law--the tax code and all that.
Furthermore, what began as a spontaneous movement is already developing an agenda focused on visibility and marriage. Since marriage remains a state prerogative, won't strategy beyond visibility be necessary at some point? That would seem to indicate that a national structure and leadership are necessary. After all, someone is determining what the goals, actions, and timing are, oh, and how the money is spent!
What the protests represent are a breakthrough in using the web to get people in every state to do approximately the same thing on the same day in a short amount of time. And that is definitely a significant breakthrough. But if such an effort is to be sustained to the point of having a real effect on law (and not just a way to channel justified rage), then it will take on some of the same structures as existing organizations.
And if marriage equality is on a different time trajectory in each state, will the new, centralized Web activism be patient enough to deal with 50 state legislatures or lengthy federal court battles? Either way you look at it, lawyers and lobbyists should not worry about being out of work. Their employers may change, though.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Nashville Prop 8 Rally a Huge Success!
Hundreds of people gathered at the Metro Courthouse in Nashville today to protest California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, and to advocate for equality for Tennessee's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. Pictured above is Nashville Pride president Pam Wheeler with friends marching around the Public Square. More photos from the event can be found here.I would put the number at close to 300. TEP signed up 62 people who weren't already on our list and we couldn't get to everyone, especially after the march started. People were still joining the event when I left at 1:45.
Representatives from the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and the Nashville steering committee of the Human Rights Campaign were also on hand to support the rally. Carissa and her friends did an incredible job of organizing the event.
One of the most impressive aspects of the event was the number of young people who had never been involved in GLBT advocacy before. I would guess 75 percent of the participants were people I had never seen at any events before. I hope that they can turn their energy to efforts in Tennessee.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Straight to the Courthouse
Tomorrow straight allies of the GLBT community will gather at the Metro Courthouse as part of "Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights 2008."
The event is sponsored by the Atticus Circle of Soulforce, a group that address issues of equality and discrimination in religion and politics. The event starts at 5:00 and goes to 7:00. Metro Council meets at 6:30.
The event is sponsored by the Atticus Circle of Soulforce, a group that address issues of equality and discrimination in religion and politics. The event starts at 5:00 and goes to 7:00. Metro Council meets at 6:30.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Patrick Saunders, former Nashville resident and GLBT advocate, dies in accident
From the obituary:
Patrick Coleman Saunders, age 30, of Madison, WI, died in an accident early this week. He was born in Neenah, WI, on March 24, 1978, and grew up in Appleton. He also spent two years in Florence, Italy, as a young man. He graduated from Appleton North High School, where he was active in choir and drama. He also graduated from Macalester College in St. Paul, MN, where he double-majored in computer science and music. Patrick came out in high school, and he continued to act as an advocate for gay and lesbian rights throughout his life.
He later lived in Nashville, TN, and Madison, WI, before earning a Master's Degree in Computer Science at the University of Minnesota.Monday, July 14, 2008
Mixed feelings about boycotts
The American Family Association is boycotting McDonald's because one of the company's executives has joined the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Out & About Today, which is Out & About Newspaper's cable venture with WTVF, has asked me to come on the show and talk about the effectiveness of boycotts and my thoughts on this one.
I have a little experience with this sort of thing. Last year about this time, the Tennessee Equality Project and the Nashville GLBT Chamber of Commerce led a coalition of organizations and businesses in a Save-your-receipts campaign when some grocery chains pulled Out & About Newspaper from their racks. The idea was basically for supporters to save their grocery receipts from any place other than the two stores that had pulled Out & About. We then pooled the receipts and attempted to show one index of the community's buying power. The action was mostly effective in that the two chains started carrying the paper again, although I should point out that one chain only returned it to selected locations.
In 2004, Focus on the Family brought its Love Won Out conference to Nashville. These events are held all over the country and the message is that GLBT people who want to change can do so. The conference organizers also say that they are calling the Church to a more compassionate approach to sexuality than has usually been present. I worked with a group of academics and activists to put on a program the same day to debunk the idea that these change efforts are successful or warranted. Love Won Out got about 1000 attendees. We had 175 at Vanderbilt. But the press coverage was equal and we successfully challenged change therapy in the media. We also threw one of their conference organizers into fits. He emailed the Chancellor demanding equal time. We had the element of surprise on our side because I believe, to that point, no one in the other cities had challenged the conference in this way.
I don't know that either event really constitutes a boycott. In the Save-your-receipts campaign, we never told anyone where he or she could or couldn't shop. We also realized that we wanted to show our buying power to help persuade the grocery chains to change their practices. The conference at Vanderbilt was what I believe is called "counter programming." Again, we never told anyone not to attend Love Won Out. But we wanted to show the other side. We also never told anyone to picket either the conference or the offending grocery chains with signs and whatnot, although a few did.
I think both actions were effective because they were local responses led by local people. We also communicated with the media significantly better than the other side. Both generated significant local coverage and some national coverage. And that brings me to national boycotts. I think it's hard to make them work. People get most excited about events in their own communities. They also like to be given concrete, positive things to do instead of following orders about what not to do.
I think the American Family Association's boycott, in which they are asking McDonald's to "remain neutral in the culture wars," has a huge symbolic problem as well as the other issues that come with national boycotts. Here's what one Southern Baptist leader, while acknowledging that consumer choices are up to the individual, had to say about the boycott and issues of stewardship: "Yet as Christians, we should be consistent in living out our values, rooted in God's Word, even if it means we have to sacrifice." The problem with that is Christ's own example. Jesus' practice of eating with those considered sinners in his day was a potent act emblematic of the Kingdom he was proclaiming. To boycott a restaurant because of its outreach to the GLBT community might run counter to the very narrative of God's Word to which the AFA and others appeal. I hope it's a theological problem they will chew on a bit while they're abstaining from those Big Macs.
I have a little experience with this sort of thing. Last year about this time, the Tennessee Equality Project and the Nashville GLBT Chamber of Commerce led a coalition of organizations and businesses in a Save-your-receipts campaign when some grocery chains pulled Out & About Newspaper from their racks. The idea was basically for supporters to save their grocery receipts from any place other than the two stores that had pulled Out & About. We then pooled the receipts and attempted to show one index of the community's buying power. The action was mostly effective in that the two chains started carrying the paper again, although I should point out that one chain only returned it to selected locations.
In 2004, Focus on the Family brought its Love Won Out conference to Nashville. These events are held all over the country and the message is that GLBT people who want to change can do so. The conference organizers also say that they are calling the Church to a more compassionate approach to sexuality than has usually been present. I worked with a group of academics and activists to put on a program the same day to debunk the idea that these change efforts are successful or warranted. Love Won Out got about 1000 attendees. We had 175 at Vanderbilt. But the press coverage was equal and we successfully challenged change therapy in the media. We also threw one of their conference organizers into fits. He emailed the Chancellor demanding equal time. We had the element of surprise on our side because I believe, to that point, no one in the other cities had challenged the conference in this way.
I don't know that either event really constitutes a boycott. In the Save-your-receipts campaign, we never told anyone where he or she could or couldn't shop. We also realized that we wanted to show our buying power to help persuade the grocery chains to change their practices. The conference at Vanderbilt was what I believe is called "counter programming." Again, we never told anyone not to attend Love Won Out. But we wanted to show the other side. We also never told anyone to picket either the conference or the offending grocery chains with signs and whatnot, although a few did.
I think both actions were effective because they were local responses led by local people. We also communicated with the media significantly better than the other side. Both generated significant local coverage and some national coverage. And that brings me to national boycotts. I think it's hard to make them work. People get most excited about events in their own communities. They also like to be given concrete, positive things to do instead of following orders about what not to do.
I think the American Family Association's boycott, in which they are asking McDonald's to "remain neutral in the culture wars," has a huge symbolic problem as well as the other issues that come with national boycotts. Here's what one Southern Baptist leader, while acknowledging that consumer choices are up to the individual, had to say about the boycott and issues of stewardship: "Yet as Christians, we should be consistent in living out our values, rooted in God's Word, even if it means we have to sacrifice." The problem with that is Christ's own example. Jesus' practice of eating with those considered sinners in his day was a potent act emblematic of the Kingdom he was proclaiming. To boycott a restaurant because of its outreach to the GLBT community might run counter to the very narrative of God's Word to which the AFA and others appeal. I hope it's a theological problem they will chew on a bit while they're abstaining from those Big Macs.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Tennessean profiles student activists
The Tennessean featured two teenagers, Nicholas Allen & Eric Austin, in Gail Kerr's "Eight faces of patriotism" story that ran on the front page on Friday, July 4.
Allen, who is gay, and Austin, a straight ally, both helped organize students to get the Metro School Board to pass a comprehensive anti-bullying policy.
You can read the profile and see their photo here.
The story is an example of how policy can be changed at any level should we actually take interest and get invovled.
At least The Tennessean featured the two students and actually covered a gay topic.
Meanwhile, Neal Anthony continues his fight against all kinds of homophobia in Warren County. A fight The Tennessean continues to ignore, as does Neal's local newspaper, The Southern Standard.
Allen, who is gay, and Austin, a straight ally, both helped organize students to get the Metro School Board to pass a comprehensive anti-bullying policy.
You can read the profile and see their photo here.
The story is an example of how policy can be changed at any level should we actually take interest and get invovled.
At least The Tennessean featured the two students and actually covered a gay topic.
Meanwhile, Neal Anthony continues his fight against all kinds of homophobia in Warren County. A fight The Tennessean continues to ignore, as does Neal's local newspaper, The Southern Standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)