The chairman of the New York St. Patrick’s Day parade used his leadership position this week to compare gay Irish Americans to the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis in a sloppy effort to cast gay Irish Americans as enemies of the Irish community. Even so, the chairman adopted some of the tactics of those extremist groups to affirm discrimination and ostracism against gay Irish Americans.
Despite this well-publicized incident, the Family Research Council today silently excused the chairman’s remarks with a blanket defense of the parade and a repudiation of “the homosexual ‘free-speech’ agenda.”
FRC contrasted gay Irish requests for inclusion with the assertion of one gay activist, NGLTF’s Matt Foreman, about exgays. The NGLTF opposes an upcoming speech by Exodus president Alan Chambers at the neo-Reconstructionist Center for Reclaiming America. Based solely on the views of one small and left-leaning gay rights organization, FRC’s Tony Perkins asserted that all gay Americans are opposed to free speech except when it suits their interests. Perkins also neglected to explain why Foreman might be skeptical of one particular exgay activist’s speech to a Christian Patriot group that has supported the imprisonment of homosexuals under sodomy laws.
Are we to believe that, unlike the leftist NGLTF, Perkins supports free speech for all — including gays, exgays and the former exgays who say they’ve been misled by Alan Chambers and other Exodus board members?
Perkins also fails to acknowledge the difference between saying a psuedo-medical movement should be repudiated by politicians of all political stripes and refusing to even admit there are gay and lesbian Irish people, as the Hibernians seem to want it. For one thing, I don’t see Foreman arguing that legal sanctions should be used to force the stopping of Chambers’ speech, he instead is arguing this conference shouldn’t choose to have him as a speaker.
As it turns out, I fully support the decision in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade case, although as an Irish-American it disgusts me. And their opposition is not just to identifiably gay groups – IIRC, Quinn’s refusal to march came about only after the parade refused her less sweeping request – she did not demand that the groups who were barred be able to march under their own banner, rather she asked that she get to pick who marches with her (a common courtesy to politicians), and those who were gay and lesbian be allowed to identify themselves as such.
Now, I have to also say that I don’t like the implication that the parade chairman compared gays and lesbians to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Really, the gist of what he said was, “would you have the law force the sworn enemies of a group to be part of that group’s parade?” That is offensive and false, but not as inflammatory as it sounds.
His statement does promote the idea that gays are out to “attack” traditional groups. In fact, it was interesting that Perkins of FRC said “the Hibernians are simply saying that their parade celebrates their Irish heritage, not her homosexuality,” which makes her sound like some alien interloper. The point that Mr. Perkins does not get is that Ms. Quinn is Irish and gay, and should not have to silence one to celebrate the other.
Tomorrow, as I attend the Holyoke, Mass St. Patrick’s Day Parade, I will not hide my gayness, and will fully demand to be accepted as another Irishman – and I don’t think my sainted, sadly passed-away, Irish mother would have it any other way. No, I think Mary Margaret would have been on my side on this one.
We allowed the Nazis to parade in Skokie. And every year, the Saint Patrick’s day parade looks more and more like them.
His remarks are indefensible.However, allowing the Hibernians control over their parade (allowing them to exclude glbt people) is absolutely in support of freedom of speech and assembly. Allowing them that right protects gay people. It allows us to exclude homophobes from gay rights parades.
Living in a democracy that protects rights means being offended now and then.
I agree that the Hibernians should be able to control their parade. (And I’ve corrected my reference to chair John Dunleavy’s remarks — thanks for noting his intent.)
So how is it, then, that (as Exodus claims) gay folks in Philadelphia are not supposed to prevent Repent America from disrupting street festivals?
The leaders of the parade should be allowed to limit the parade to those who they want. That also means others can criticize them for it and protest it. Sure, it is a useless debate every year, but it comes up. The rhetoric is ridiculous.
I was watching O’Reilly yesterday, and he said that it was a saint’s day and so since it is religious, gays should be kept out. He asserted that gays are by their very nature sexual, and sexual things should not have anything to do with religion. The funny thing is he then said his is pro-gay and wants gays to have a happy life. Personally, I think these gays should stand down and let the parade go, but then again I am not Irish and do not feel the same about the day. To me, it is nothing more than a novelty.
He asserted that gays are by their very nature sexual, and sexual things should not have anything to do with religion.
Swell. Could he please tell that to all the conservative religious figures who seem so obsessed about sex then? “Hey people…keep all those sexual things out of religion…okay?”
But…no… We just gotta keep dragging those sexual things back into it…
He asserted that gays are by their very nature sexual, and sexual things should not have anything to do with religion.
Oh sure, sex has NOTHING to do with the Irish Catholic experience in America, nothing at all. Because, of course, there would be so many of Irish descent in this country without sex.
I don’t fault the Hibernians for excluding gays, I fault them for their inconsistency.
As a Irish Catholic organization, they certainly should be allowed to exclude organizations that publicly disagree with Catholic beliefs. But if that is their stance, should they not then disallow EVERYONE who disagrees? Why would they want Mayor Bloomberg – neither Irish nor Catholic – participate?
It’s ironic. Bloomberg agrees more often with gay Irish than he does with the Hibernians.
Separately….
While I quite often disagree with Matt Foreman and NGLTF and find them to be leftist and reactionary, it is not quite fair to dismiss Matt as “one gay activist” or NGLTF as “small”.
Matt is representative of a certain segment of the gay community, one that does not appear to believe in equality. He, and those like him, often seem to think that Christians, Republicans, Conservatives, and the like are evil and enemies and need not have the same access to the public square as do good leftist queers. His is the mirror image of Focus on the Family et al. Fortunately, as the gay community matures, this viewpoint – and the influence on NGLTF – is diminishing. But, for now, there is still a sizable percentage of the gay community that thinks the way Foreman does.
It is intellectually dishonest for Perkins to paint the community broadly with the NGLTF brush. But it is also not completely honest for us to suggest that he is singular and not representative or that NGLTF is not a significant voice in the community.
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation reported income in fiscal 2004 of $10.8 million.
Lambda Legal reported income of $9.1 million.
The NGLTF Foundation was farther down the income ranks, reporting $4.2 million for fiscal 2004.
I haven’t worked for gay organizations, but I have worked for medium-sized national nonprofits with staffs of 150 and annual income in the $15-20 million range.
With modest income and a staff of about 50 (many of them low-paid field organizers), I consider NGLTF small compared to other national nonprofit organizations. And its politics are as far left as one can find among national organizations that identify themselves as gay-related.
NGLTF devotes a great deal of attention to nongay progressive issues — drawing periodic criticism from gay moderates and conservatives who send their donations to more moderate groups like HRC or nonpartisan groups like Lambda Legal instead.
I agree that NGLTF represents one sizable voice — but an exclusively progressive one, not a centrist one that reflects a spectrum of gay public opinion.
I see nothing necessarily wrong with having a progressive bias, provided the organization is honest about that bias.
The NGLTF for years has hosted a national religious roundtable of gay-tolerant clergy. I do not consider them anti-Christian at all. They do not consider Christians evil — though they might consider Republicans evil. 😛
The “saint” argument would hold up better if there wasn’t green beer and “F*** Me I’m Irish” T-shirts.
Another example of how these groups think freedom is only for them.
Mike,
I agree with everything you said above about NGLTF.
I just don’t want anyone to be able to accuse us of playing the same game of deception and spin that the ex-gay ministries use as their MO. I don’t think you meant at all to deceive (that’s not how you do things) but ya know how accusations go. In any case, I think we’ve now adequately made mention of Foreman and NGLTF’s level of influence so that claims of spin would be invalid.