ex-gays and their crowns

The Ex-Gay Obama story is striking a chord with me. Obama is campaigning through South Carolina with an ex-gay singer with an ex-gay homophobic agenda. Some are of the belief that Obama needs the support of the homophobic black church community. Which leads me to ask...
Who's more homophobic, the white church or the black church?
If homosexuality is a white thing, then it's the black church, right? How much more of a taboo is it to be gay in a black community? As someone who has very little exposure to church, and even less exposure to being black I can only respond to these questions based on the stereotypes the media and entertainment industry has built up. While I realize the following examples are not the basis of an argument, I feel that they help to elucidate a few of the misconceptions that white society may have about the black church community and it's view(s) on homosexuality.
Two reasons the black church may not be as homophobic as the white church:
1. I saw the show CROWNS when I was in my formative teenage years. Combining this magical experience of a loving, supportive accepting black church with everything like it seen on TV and in the movies, it was not difficult to get the impression that black people where some of the most accepting and tolerant people around.
2. Black. Male. AIDS. I can't count how many times I've seen this combination of traits, and they weren't all drug related.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is not that black churches should not be/are not homophobic, rather that from a CAMS perspective, there might be some credence to portrayals of black community being not very reliable (gasp, TV/movies are lying!)

The Trujillo article about lesbians in chicano communities brought to my attention for the first time the idea of Homosexuality as a white thing, and therefore is rejected even more violently from non-white communities, such as the Chicano community. It seems that this is a prevalent enough phenomena that it would apply to most non-white cultures and therefore answer the question with: Yes, black churches are more homophobic. Does that still mean Obama needs to cater to them to get the support he needs from the black community, well we'll see how well he holds up on the tour.

Footings

Before going into Joan Nestle's "The Fem Question" I want to respond to the L word comment in the course blog.

There seems to be this inability to escape from dominant parent culture. At what point do you stop struggling and make a home for yourself in what you have. I am not advocating we submit to patriarchy, merely that we not dismiss our parent cultures entirely, afterall we did stem from them.

Aureliano credits shows like "The L Word" to the radicals of the 70s because they were able to "break the essentialist model of womanhood." So we break the model, the radical lesbian emerges, unhindered from societies restrictions (for the most part). What makes them different from one another? To answer this I found a video clip which attempts to summarize the variety of characters on Showtime's "The L Word."



Going a little deeper into a few of the characters. Criticism of lesbians, especially those falling into the Butch/Fem identification accuses them of recreating the patriarichal relationships they "worked so hard to break out of." With women's sexual liberation came the gradual acceptance of women's sexual promiscuity. When is a woman exerting her sexual freedom and when is she making a power play. It seems that there is this notion of promiscuity in lesbian encounters as being purely derived, whereas a heterosexual woman exerting her sexual options is interpreted as raising issue with her male lover in an unnatural shift of power. This following scene exemplifies modern day butch/femm as well as the writers combining aspects of both heterosexual and lesbian relationships regarding monogamy.



The heterosexual aspect is the femm "flipping her shit" and doing something crazy in response to infidelity. The lesbain aspect is the honesty and cool the butch takes in dealing with her deeds.

So where does Nestle's Fem discussion fit in here.
First I'd like to note that Nestle seems to take her femness quite seriously as part of her identity, not just when writing to define the feminist fem, but also as in her introductory line on her website.
Pathologically the fem was "stripped of all power, made into a foolish woman who can easily be beckoned over into the right camp," in their aptness to bisexuality. Bisexuals sometimes feel left out in queer communities because they don't feel gay enough. I feel like the same mechanism is at work with Fems in the lesbian community. A Lesbian looks like this, and if you don't look like this, maybe you're as confused as a bisexual. It's interesting to note the turnover. From lesbians being not even recognized as a minority to having a solid enough niche in society carved out that they can start criticizing and marginalizing their own. It's human nature. As soon as we have a footing we have to make sure someone else has less of one.

For the raw castings of Joan Nestle's thoughts, her blog.

Bully, Coward, Victim.

Explosion of gay sex in the 1970s, it was how they fought back, it was what they had.
AIDS surfaces in the mid 1980s forcing people to talk about sex in ways they never wanted to before.

As a society, there was no way of knowing at the time that we were endangering ourselves and our futures by having so much sex. There is nowhere for the blame to lie. Crimp and Shilts and Kramer can quarrel until the cows come home, and being the least extreme Crimp is probably closer to the truth, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was no way of knowing. Now we can blame homophobia, or lack of support for safe sex education.

Anonymity less of an option.

We briefly touched on in class media that has captured, and in some people’s views, glorified AIDS in the 1980s. After some writers block, that really amounted more to an inability to feel like I had the whole picture, I decided I should watch Angels in America before writing this post. By reputation I knew it was not a movie to watch unless I was prepared to cry for the rest of the night, but mid-term break seemed like as good a time as ever.
One of Roy Conn’s catchphrases is “only in America,” generally referring to some outrageous social phenomenon, that is in fact, not at all outrageous, because we are in America. Well Roy, only in America could a medical disease become so ingrained in our culture and history. The words under his name in the AIDS quilt are "Bully, Coward, Victim." And you can bet Al Pacino knew that when playing the role in the movie.

Douglas Crimp mentions that the reason AIDS was noticed was because of gay middle-class men. If it had only infected the people our society tries to ignore it would not have been noticed as quickly. As it is, the fact that gay men, despite being a minority, had maneuvered their way into middle class jobs where they appeared no different, that AIDS became visible. I am also very impressed with the development of AIDSpeak, that a cooping mechanism developed in an attempt to bridge this understanding/communication gap between the gay community and dominant society. According to Shilts AIDSpeak is a "new syntax that allows gay political leaders to address and largely determine and largely determine public health policy." Of all the things the gay community did during the 80s to deal with the AIDS epidemic and gain footing, AIDSpeak, while not necessarily steming from the people, certainly seems to have done wonders to help them.

The shit that hits the fan with AIDS is anonymity. Those who got by by leading two lives had a much harder time when pegged with defining and incriminating markings.

If it weren’t for AIDS, could heterodomanant society have succeded in simultaneously ignoring and shunning homosexual practices for the rest of eternity? Perhaps. Roy Conn’s scene at the end of Chapter 1 in Angels in America speaks to this issue in many ways.

Blank-centric

As we discussed extensively in class, the period surrounding Stonewall heralded the movement from a heterocentric to a homocentric way of thinking, at least among the gay community. I would like to examine this time period using slightly different definitions of homocentric and heterocentric, those based in physics. Heterocentric is the having of different centers, said of rays that do not meet at a common focus. Homocentric is the having of the same center, denoting rays that meet at a common focus.

Not only was movement for gay reform disjointed and unfortunately based in a heterosexual society, but by its very nature it was heterocentric—individuals and groups did not meet at a common focus. The most glaring example of this being Mattachine and the revolutionary scism that Craig was involved in. If the mother of all gay organizations can’t agree on a message, what hope does that give for the rest of the community? This analogy carries over into the post-Stonewall era where we characterized the GAA as being more reformist than the GLF. The GAA worked within the heterocentric system with a few connected immediate goals. While these goals all fought for gay rights, there was no defining single focus of the group. The work encompassed many individual focused projects but lacked the vision of a complete picture.

The Stonewall riots showed solidarity among those involved, and even for those unaware on Pine Island, it was a catalyst for forming gays and lesbians as a minority group. For the first time there was a single focus; a greater vision for a future with less persecution and a system that accepted and respected them. The GLF was revolutionary, they refused to believe that homophobia could be removed from the current system, and therefore the system had to change. While this revolution may have never come, the creation of this ideal, and the actions made in its name gave gays and lesbians a common focus. A focus I believe is still alive today.