March 26, 2009

Why Does the Cincinnati NAACP Hate Gays? (P.S. Black LGBTs, You Don’t Exist… As Usual)

There are so many things wrong with this story… Off the top, I’ll say that CityBeat should have used my headline, instead of the practically innocuous-sounding “Smitherman and Finney in Bed“:

In a move that’s raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, the president of the NAACP’s Cincinnati chapter has given a board appointment to an arch-conservative legal activist who has a history of working on anti-gay rights causes.

The appointment involves Hyde Park attorney Chris Finney, perhaps best known as the person who wrote Article 12, a charter amendment passed by voters in 1993 that prohibited city officials from passing any laws that included sexual orientation as a protected class.

Among his past comments in defending Article 12, Finney once said that landlords shouldn’t be legally required to rent to gay or lesbian tenants if they didn’t want to do so, a remark that some critics compared to people who refused public accommodations or services to African Americans before the 1960s.

Strangely, Finney’s appointment as the Cincinnati NAACP’s “chair of legal redress” occurred at almost exactly the same time the NAACP’s national office asked California lawmakers to support efforts to repeal Proposition 8, which it deemed a civil rights violation. Prop 8 overturned court rulings that allowed the marriage of same-sex couples in that state.

Christopher Smitherman, the Cincinnati NAACP’s president, appointed Finney and defends his action. No one should be judged on one issue alone, Smitherman says…

“Chris Finney has done a fabulous job for the NAACP over the last two years,” Smitherman says, referring to successful ballot issues that blocked a sales tax increase to build a new jail and repealed City Council’s decision to install red-light cameras at intersections. “He has earned our confidence in him with our legal work. I cannot be concerned with the interests of any other constituency group. I must look out for the interests of our membership.”

Gee, that must mean there are no gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender members of the NAACP.

Before voters repealed it in 2004, Article 12 prohibited Cincinnati City Council or any other city entity from enacting or enforcing measures to give “minority or preferential status” to homosexuals, in effect preventing gays from seeking protection against discrimination or hate crimes. …

After the amendment created a public relations nightmare for the city nationwide and caused $45 million in lost convention business—

Smitherman must have an awfully short memory. Discimination against minorities leads to boycotts, and boycotts — even against entire cities — do work. Ask anyone who remembers Montgomery.

—a coalition of city officials, business CEOs and Cincinnati’s Catholic archbishop led a successful repeal campaign.

Now, if Smitherman’s idiotic, and appallingly insulting, remarks aren’t enough to knock you right on your butt, here comes the F.U. of the century (OK, the last century) from the NAACP’s brand-new lawyer himself:

Article 12 was CCV’s response to the city’s human rights ordinance after an earlier court challenge failed. During testimony in a 1994 court hearing, Finney was asked why sexual behavior should affect who can eat in a restaurant or be employed by a company.

Finney replied, “Because there may be some who don’t want their family dining next to a homosexual couple whose actions they find offensive.”

Take a moment to pick your jaw up off your chest; I’ll wait.

Better? OK…

Many people believe that view is inconsistent with the sentiment expressed by Julian Bond, the national NAACP’s chairman…

“Many people believe”…? That’s not a matter of opinion; it’s fact: Julian Bond has been a tireless champion of equal rights — for everyone — and he’s not been afraid to stand up for the LGBT community, most recently against Prop 8. In fact, I’m looking forward to Mr. Bond’s reaction to all this — and I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t issue a statement.

(I’m also hoping — but not counting on — a statement from the national Green Party. Believe it or not, Smitherman declared himself a Greenie in 2007, when he was weighing another city council run. Don’t you have to, oh, I don’t know, actually agree with a party’s platform before you can represent it? See, there’s this little matter of the Greens’ Ten Key Values, and it sure looks like somebody isn’t too concerned about either Value #2 or Value #8…)

CityBeat e-mailed Finney to ask him several questions, including whether he believes issues of civil rights should be decided by individual state legislatures or by the federal government and — noting conservatives’ typical dislike of “identity politics” — how he felt about working for a group geared toward representing a minority population.

Smitherman prevented Finney from responding, later stating, “You’re not going to see Chris Finney making statements about the work he does for the NAACP. I am the NAACP’s public representative.”

Doesn’t matter to us who does the talking, Mr. Smitherman; as two-faced, hypocritical, smallminded, homophobic bigotry goes, you and Mr. Finney appear completely interchangeable.

… Finney is helping the NAACP’s efforts to place amendments on the November ballot: one that would require a public vote before City Council spends money on streetcars, the other creating a process to recall the mayor. He’s also helping the group’s push to have more city contracts awarded to minority businesses.

But…! But…! But “there may be some who don’t want their family shopping next to an African-American-owned business whose actions they find offensive.”

Sounds pretty horrible when it cuts the other way, eh, gentlemen?

… Smitherman has a gay brother and has championed gay rights in the past. Still, after he was defeated in his City Council re-election bid in 2005, he told CityBeat that he blamed the white gay community for not supporting him.

There are so many responses I could make to that little bit of nastiness… but I think I’ll go with: “Which means that every black, Latino, Asian, and other non-white gay voter in Cincinnati voted for you, right, Mr. Smitherman?”

Out of curiosity, I looked up the racial demographics of Cincinnati, and guess what? The 2000 census shows 142,176, or 42.9%, identify as “Black or African American.” Whites make up an even 53% (and that includes some overlap with those who identify as Hispanic or Latino and white), and pretty much everybody else is Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander.

Now, let’s say every white queer in Cincinnati — say, 5% of 53% (minus non-white Latinos) — voted against Smitherman. Would roughly 2.7% be enough to scuttle Smitherman’s chances? And do you think every white queer in Cincinnati voted against Smitherman, because — according to Smitherman — all gays are white, and all gays are… well, he never said all gays were racists, but what else do you think he’s saying?

But never mind Smitherman’s attempt to stoke the Gays-Versus-Blacks inferno (and propagate the Black-Gays-Do-Not-Exist idiocy — or perhaps the equally offensive All-Blacks-Vote-As-A-Monolith idiocy); the truth is, he lost African-American votes across the board — and in a year when it appears there was a higher-than-usual African-American turnout at the polls.

What do you think that says? Gee, could it be that the majority of voters — all voters, black, white, straight, gay, and otherwise — just didn’t think Smitherman was the right person for the job?

Yes, I’m sure that would be a very bitter pill for Mr. Smitherman to swallow, but the facts of his 2005 loss indicate that’s exactly what happened — and it wasn’t Teh Gays’ fault.

Cincinnati.com has the neighborhood breakdown, including the most interesting tidbits that 1) Smitherman’s “own neighborhood… also turned on him,” and 2) he actually lost support in “the East Side Republican precincts that helped elect him in 2003,” which “wouldn’t have been quite so devastating if he had a corresponding increase in African-American support.”

But he didn’t have a corresponding increase in African-American support.

Which went to Laketa Cole.

Who is also African-American.

And a woman.

And Smitherman is blaming Cincinnati’s “white gay community” for his loss? He may as well blame all the women in Cincinnati (he could cite misandry as the cause), because it certainly doesn’t look as if he’s going to take responsibility for his own failure.

That said, let’s get back to today’s story:

Asked if that sentiment influenced Finney’s selection, he says, “I continue to be very concerned that the gay community continues to approach the African-American community only when they want something from us.”

Mr. Smitherman, why is it so impossible to get it through your skull that there are gay African-Americans in this world? You’ve got a gay brother, fercrimenysakes, and I think it’s pretty safe to assume he’s black.

Equality Cincinnati, which endorsed Smitherman in his two council campaigns, hasn’t yet addressed the issue.

“Christopher Smitherman has always been and, in my mind, continues to be a friend of the LGBT community,” says George Ellis, Equality’s president. “I haven’t had the chance to talk to him about it, and I wouldn’t want to express any opinion until I have.”

Uh, George? The LGBT community needs “friends” like Christopher Smitherman the way a kid with croup needs somebody blowing cigar smoke into his oxygen tent.

There’s plenty more stubborn blindness and maddening, inexcusable divisiveness at the link, including Smitherman’s claim: “This is a myth that the African American is liberal.”

Wow, so you speak for all African-Americans, Mr. Smitherman? No, sir: You speak only for those who want to believe that all African-Americans are conservative, straight bigots — like you.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |