What We Now Know About Sex Discrimination

In a landmark decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination, prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Judge Diane Wood (my former civil procedure professor) wrote the lead opinion -- and it looks very shrewd.

I've long been convinced that sexual orientation discrimination simply is sex stereotyping -- namely, the stereotype that men should date women and women should date men. This opinion lays that argument out in meticulous detail and, importantly, situates it within Supreme Court precedents which have clearly demonstrated the importance of sex stereotyping to the statutory sex discrimination inquiry and how it can be applied to same-sex interactions.

One further thing I'd add is this: It is almost certainly true that the drafters of the Civil Rights Act did not have discrimination against gay and lesbian persons in mind when they drafted the law. Judge Posner's concurrence -- wholly unnecessary and unhelpful, in my view -- takes from this that what judges are doing when they interpret the law to encompass sexual orientation is "updating" the law for the modern era.

But -- whether or not that's a legitimate judicial practice -- such a view is wholly unnecessary in this case. We pass anti-discrimination laws because there is significant discrimination in society, and discriminatory impulses exist -- in greater and lesser degrees -- across the whole of society. So it shouldn't surprise us that even the drafters of the prohibition against sex discrimination might not recognize certain ways that they behaved in a sexist manner or supported sexist discrimination. Indeed, it might not even surprise the authors themselves. When one commits to saying "I oppose sex discrimination" or "I oppose race discrimination," one need not be implicitly saying "and nothing I do or believe right now qualifies as such discrimination." To the contrary, we might pass these laws precisely because we suspect that we as much as anyone else sometimes behave in such a manner, and are fully willing to submit to legal correction when we do so.

Pryor Restraint

Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit is perhaps most well-known in these parts for casting the critical 6th vote which upheld Florida's ban on gay adoption. That was a low point for the federal judiciary. But he's been showing some signs of independence these past few weeks -- first joining an opinion that held transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and now upholding a judgment that a student who refused to follow professional guidelines when they conflicted with her personal views on homosexuality could be expelled from a state university's counseling degree program (Pryor wrote an interesting concurrence to the latter which I encourage you to read).

What's changed? Well, one of my close law school friends is currently serving as Pryor's clerk. So I'll just credit her with all the good coming out of Birmingham

College is a Tough Time To Be Straight

The Texas state house has passed a bill requiring all state universities with "alternative" sexuality centers to provide equal funding to "traditional values" sexuality centers.

I find this ... more than a little strange, and I think the problem is a series of bad analogies. This is a somewhat a theme in the field, as we found out when Robert George forgot there was a difference between holding gay rights positions and actually being gay.*

Here, I just don't know what parallel these het-friendly centers would serve. One college conservative who had pushed for the legislation (after admitting that his real hope was eliminating these centers altogether) complained that while folks can freely strut about campus saying homosexuality is okay, if he wears a t-shirt accusing it of being immoral, suddenly there is a whole big controversy. Double-standard! Except ... not -- if I walked around asserting that heterosexuality was immoral, would there not be quite a bit of outcry? If public reactions to brutally caricatured claims by radical feminists is any indication, the answer is a pretty emphatic yes. It's all in where you put the baseline -- and the ability to assume heterosexuality is so entrenched as to not even contemplate the possibility of a "to-the-bottom" critique of it is the linchpin of heterosexual privilege that proves the asymmetry between the two orientation's social standings.

More generally, the purpose these centers serve is to function as a secure place for a community which often experiences severe alienation and hostility on college campuses. Is there any sort of analogue for heterosexual students? The Texas Observer deservedly mocks the whole concept:

Imagine the plight of the heterosexual student stepping on to a college campus for the first time. How will he fit in? Should he tell his new roommate about his alternative hetero lifestyle? Will he be bullied, just like he was in high school, where he was mercilessly teased for being a sexual deviant? Where does a straight person turn?

There's no parallel straight sexuality centers because there is no analogous experience that they face. There is a political inequality, to be sure -- the position that LGBT individuals are equal human beings is getting official representation, and opponents of that view are not. But that doesn't track onto cognizable parallel between the life experiences of being gay versus straight.

There is one area where I think it does make sense to talk about a "straight sexuality" center, but I doubt it is what the Texas House has in mind. The broader moral commitment behind any center focusing on human sexuality is to encourage healthy, respectful sexual expression, and affirm the choices people make within those confines. That's something that's useful to people of all sexual proclivities, gay or straight, "traditional" or not. but I doubt the Texas House wants heterosexual students to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality in diverse ways either.

Now let's be clear: If someone wants to stay abstinent, they should feel perfectly comfortable doing so -- and if they don't feel comfortable, then they should be given the support they need to feel comfortable about it. But that's not separate from the commitment to supporting sexually active students; it's concurrent with it. They flow from the same principles. And I think any sexuality center worth its salt knows that.

* Side note: I picked out a Robert George article, The Concept of Public Morality, 45 Am. J. Jur. 17 (2000), to see whether, frankly, he was any good. After all, he has a pretty decent reputation as a jurisprudence guy, and while "What is Marriage" was utter tripe (the answer, apparently, is 90% naturalistic fallacy and 10% bad empirical claims), I thought that might not be his best work.

The article I read was decent, albeit not mind-blowing. In terms of philosophical approach we are radically separate, but I could appreciate his skill as an advocate on some of the more abstract questions (such as the trouble with the public/private distinction). In terms of specific applications, though, I think he's got very little going for him, and I was particularly distressed by what struck me as a marked authoritarian streak (I'm not the only one -- he quoted another writer making the same claim about him, one he said he hoped was at least partially tongue-in-cheek).

Gay Men Get all the Breaks

What could be more entertaining that primer by a conservative Christian website on how to find out if your husband's gay? Nothing, that's what! Seriously -- this is hilarious. It's like someone took a catalog of gay stereotypes and added bullet points. Although, some of them are pretty tragic. Only gay men are sarcastic? Only gay men are interested in "strange sexual demands" (like, oh, say, lubricant? No, really)? Only gay men can travel alone to big cities? Only gay men groom?

Really, is this a warning for wives or an advertising pitch for men? You know what "they" say: "Once you try man, you're always a fan."

UPDATE: Doh! Got taken in by a satirical website. Egg on my face.

It Gets Better

Tim Gunn's video:

Voyeur RNC

I'd want to hear a little more about allegations that the RNC spent money on, among other things, trips to "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex." But as it stands, it seems like homosexuality is good enough to titillate Republican leaders, but not good enough to actually secure equal American rights. Hurray, exploitation!

Via.

Being Gay is Just Too Natural

David Klinghoffer eagerly reprints an argument by Israeli biblical scholar Joshua Berman claiming that the main victims of allowing gay marriage are ... women! Even lesbian women, I wonder?* In any event, the thrust of the argument is of a form I've heard before -- albeit rarely because it clashes so severely with the dominant "homosexuality is unnatural" paradigm -- namely, that if we sanction gay relationships, men will suddenly flock to gayness, leaving women in a lurch. We know this to be true

Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!
[...]
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union.
[...]
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Basically, it is the orientation equivalent of "once you go black, you never go back." (Once you try man, you're always a fan?).

These arguments always amuse me, because they seem of the sort that would only be persuasive to folks hard at work suppressing their own queer tendencies. Speaking as someone who would probably suffer few immediate social consequences to coming out as gay or bi, much less engaging in a little "experimentation", I can honestly say I've never really felt the urge to hook up with a fellow possessor of the Y chromosome. Go figure.

Klinghoffer says that "if you want to disagree with this analysis, you'll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn't apply." Okay, sure. If we're accepting that homoeroticism is socially constructed, then we have to accept the same thing to be true of heteroeroticism. It should not surprise us that in misogynist societies where a) women are constantly devalued as inferior and subordinate beings and b) same-sex relationships were a viable alternative, that male/male pairings would be seen as superior and normatively preferable. In other words, I Blame The Patriarchy. The way to keep gay marriage from being a threat to women, unsurprisingly, is by breaking down the mentalities that say women are inferior creatures (the same tactic, conveniently enough, for dispatching many other threats to female equality. Fancy that!). Where women are seen as equal, then I have full faith in their ability to compete in the market of relationships.

* Berman says that lesbianism did not increase, and writes "I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman." Well then I say, thank God for technology! And, you know, non-penetrative sex.

Oh, THERE They Are!

Earlier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out against those protesting suspected election fraud in Iran:

"The nation's huge river would not leave any opportunity for the expression of dirt and dust," said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a rather elliptical reference to the surging protests on the streets of Tehran.

For good measure he followed up with some more earthy language comparing claims of massive election fraud in last week's poll to the passions of supporters of a beaten football team after a match.

He then went on to accuse his opponents of "officially recognising thieves, homosexuals and scumbags" in exchange for their votes.

Homosexuals? But I thought there were none in Iran? As Peter Tatchell put it, looks like the cat is out of the bag now.

"Compulsion": By Ken Blackwell

RNC candidate Ken Blackwell, answering a question by a GLBT rights activist:

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is coming under fire Monday for making remarks this summer that gays and lesbians suffer from a "compulsion" that can be "restrained."

"You can choose to restrain that compulsion," Blackwell told radio host Michelangelo Signorile, a gay and lesbian advocate, this summer during the Republican National Convention. "And so I think in fact you don't have to give in to the compulsion to be homosexual."

"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell added, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge."

Oh, Kenny. Any foot soldier of the gay agenda can tell you, the trick is seeing whether you could compel yourself to be gay. You've never had the urge to be anything but heterosexual? Fabulous. Many gay folks have never felt the urge (social and familial pressure, yes, internal urge, no) to be straight. If they can get over their hang up, so can you.

Try being gay for a week, Ken, and get back to us.

The Death March to Sex Equality Continues

A few months back I talked a bit about viewing men as sexual objects and why it's okay, given that it isn't going to "objectify" us in the sense of reducing us -- socially speaking -- solely to the level of bodies whose worth is predicated only on the sexual pleasure we give to others.

In, I think, a similar vein, Belle Waring asks the following:

How much would straight men's homophobia have to die down to get to the point where hot guys would make out at parties and bars in an effort to attract chicks? Not before I am a dirty old woman, right? I mean, I have known guys to do this, but more because they were wasted and feeling experimental. I brought this up to John and he questioned whether women would think it was hot. My response was a deadpan, "I figure there's got to be room in there for me somewhere." More seriously, yes, women think gay guys getting together is hot.

Now, I always assumed women did not find gay guys getting together to be hot, evinced by the famous confusion women express over why guys find lesbian hook-ups hot. But I admit that I could be wrong, and the commenter who notes the appeal of yaoi fan-fic certainly has a point.

So then to answer Belle's question, I think we seem to be moving in that direction, at least if debate parties are any indicator. Faux-gay hookups, when I've observed them, seem to be less about signaling the surrounding women "look how hot I am", and more about "look how spontaneous, tolerant, and fun-loving I am" -- it's kind of part of the half-step being taking amongst today's youth wherein being gay isn't necessarily cool, but being tolerant of gay people is. You make out with another guy, you show you're not a homophobe. People who like non-homophobes are pleased.

Would be even better if we moved beyond that to straight guys hooking-up with gay men as a sexually arousing performance to pick up girls? Eh. The equality aspect appeals to me, but it feels a little low-brow. Then again, I guess I don't object when I'm the beneficiary. So, if it gets you off, I guess I have no objection.

Let God Worry 'Bout The Things They Do

This GQ Profile of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire and Barack Obama's answer to Rick Warren, is quite good (Via Ezra Klein). It starts off very over-written, but really catches itself nicely as it proceeds down the life of Robinson, who comes off as a truly remarkable man.

As many people know, the elevation of Robinson -- the first openly gay bishop in a major Christian denomination -- to his position caused some serious problems in the worldwide Anglican communion. Extremist dioceses in South America and particularly Africa have taken to calling Robinson "the devil" and are threatening to breakaway entirely unless Robinson is stripped of his position. Some more conservative American churches are affiliating themselves with these foreign dioceses, despite the fact that they take positions on homosexuality that can only be described as inhuman. Thus far, the leadership of the Anglican Communion has taken an accommodating stance towards the conservatives -- disapproving of Robinson's elevation and not inviting him to the international conference of Bishops, while refusing to outright strip him of his title or remove him from the communion.

Robinson says that the originating point for anti-gay oppression in America comes from the church -- a fact which makes it different from, say racism or sexism (which the church certainly had its role in, but did not in an important sense "create"). Consequently, the battle for gay liberation is going to require church men and women if it is to get anywhere.

One thing I've observed, coming from a relatively liberal Jewish denomination (Conservative Judaism -- all Jewish denominations outside of the Orthodox are actually pretty theologically liberal, and even within Orthodox Judaism there is a lot of theological, well, heterodoxy) is that we tend to have a bit of an inferiority complex about ourselves. We don't think we can make religious demands of our more traditionally-minded brethren. This was a sentiment I tried to step away from when I called the ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers in the West Bank and (formerly) Gaza "apostates". The point being, if being a Conservative or Reconstructionist or Reform Jew is to mean anything aside from "I'm too lazy to do more than this", then it has to believe that it is not just socially but religiously superior to its alternatives. When I advocate for my conceptions of Jewish duty and obligation, I'm not saying "my political commitments mean I can't take my Judaism as far as you do". I'm saying "my Judaism requires me to believe in certain things, among them that gay people are equal and deserve equal rights, and to the extent you disagree I think I have a qualitatively superior conception of Judaism compared to yours." I don't mean to say we should shut off dialogue, but I do think we should be secure in our positions as theological, not just political stances.

If we're going to make gay people equal in America, then equality minded Jews need to start saying that our position is not just the liberal one but the Jewish one, and that opponents are wrong as Jews. Ditto with Christians -- they need to start fighting fire with fire with regards to the hyper-conservative dioceses here and abroad, and say that the position they are taking is flat out unchristian. It's a theological failing as well as a moral one.

Who Knew?

One of the more appalling anti-gay memes put out by "pro-family" (gag) groups is the idea that homosexuality causes mental health problems. Of course, many of these groups refuse to accept that being gay isn't itself a mental illness. And they try and buttress this point by noting that gay teenagers have a significantly higher risk of, among other things, drug addiction and suicide.

Now, those of us with pulses could guess that an alternative hypothesis might explain this correlation: teenagers whom society says it is okay to hate are probably more likely to be depressed or suicidal. You treat people like second-class citizens, subject them to daily harassment, make their very name a synonym for something stupid or worthy of scorn, and, yeah, that's going to play tricks with a kid's head.

And lo and behold if a new study in the journal Pediatrics found that suicidal tendencies in gay, lesbian, and bisexual teenagers and young adults are strongly correlated to high levels of rejection by family members. Tolerance, it shockingly appears, is the best antidote to the mental health problems associated with being young and gay:

"A little bit of change in rejecting behavior, being a little bit more accepting," says lead researcher Caitlin Ryan, "can make a significant difference in the child's health and mental health."

Of course, the obvious corollary appears as well. The message groups like the FRC put out daily is a message that kills young men and women. I merely emphasize that to explain the searing antipathy I feel towards groups like this. They wield "morality" as a weapon, and they don't seem to care how many bodies they leave behind. It's sickening.

Via AAB

The Vatican Deserves an Apology

Earlier, I noted that the Vatican -- alone amongst European nations -- had come out in opposition to a non-binding UN resolution urging the decriminalization of homosexuality. I described this choice as "an unconscionable decision and a formal decision to cooperate with intrinsic evil."

Unfortunately, they now have company in the Western world. The United States -- differing with every other major Western nation -- also withheld its signature, citing nebulous "legal concerns" with the mostly symbolic gesture.

UPDATE: It's worse than I thought: according to Human Rights Watch, the Vatican actually reversed itself, leaving the United States entirely alone.

UPDATE #2: The same source indicates that Israel signed. So all you defenders of "Judeo-Christian morality" can go Cheney yourselves.

Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo's Steamy Love Affair!

Not really. But Austria appears to have its equivalent going down:

The successor of the Austrian far-right leader Jörg Haider was dismissed yesterday after he revealed a “special” relationship “far beyond” friendship with his former mentor.

In emotional interviews with the national broadcaster and a tabloid newspaper Stefan Petzner spoke openly about his affair with Haider, who died at the age of 58 in a high-speed car crash after heavy drinking session at a gay club this month. Haider’s party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria, captured 11 per cent of the vote in national elections last month .

“He was the man of my life. Our relationship went far beyond friendship,” Mr Petzner, 27, said after only a week in the job, adding that Haider’s wife, Claudia, 52, “did not object” to their relationship.

Via LGM

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/15/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The family of a gay California teenager who was slain by a classmate is suing the school, saying that it endangered their son by allowing him to wear feminine clothing and makeup.

Solid move by Tim Kaine: He issued a pardon to a local woman who had lived in the US since she was 7, who was facing deportation for a minor crime she committed 12 years ago. The move is giving her at least a one year reprieve from her deportation order, allowing her more time for appeals.

The Post cautions Americans that an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration will not work forever.

Also from the Post editorial page, a reminder to not forget about New Orleans.

An elementary school principal in Texas is under investigation after allegedly asking that her grandchild be placed in a classroom with "nice white neighborhood boys."

A former state legislator known for his "tough on crime" positions has stirred ire in his local community because he is sheltering former sex offenders who, thanks to ever tightening laws, cannot find places to live.

Rhode Island has lost over half the membership of its Commission on Hispanic Affairs after 11 resigned in protest over increased crackdowns on illegal immigration.

The Florida branch of the United States Civil Rights Commission has come out in favor of automatic restoration of the civil rights of released felons.

Ward Connerly is dodging Nebraska's campaign finance laws requiring donor disclosure by creating a shell organization to funnel the money through.

Black student test scores in San Francisco are lagging way behind their White peers.

Could a Major League Soccer squad do anything more foolish than harass its Latino fans? That's like a hockey team trying to drive out Canadians.

Jurors have convicted to prison guards on civil rights charges after they allegedly allowed inmates to rape a teenager in prison overnight for traffic violations.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/13/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Gay and lesbian Latina/os are finding it more difficult to claim asylum due to improving tolerance in their home nations.

A Virginia court has given the state's first "writ of innocence" after new evidence cleared a man incarcerated on a gun charge. Virginia has until recently been perhaps the most aggressive state at seeking to suppress the admission of exculpatory evidence after conviction.

The NAACP is frustrated with the pace over an investigation about an inmate's death in a PG County jail.

Peter Beinart thinks that Obama can and should neutralize the race issue by calling for a replacement of race-based affirmative action with class-based systems.

The WaPo wants to enhance privacy protections for laptops crossing the border.

The Houston Chronicle reports on immigrants who prepare for immigration raids like the rest of us might prepare for a natural disaster. Ironically enough, ICE supports these preparations.

The Orthodox Jewish community has rightfully come under fire for its tepid response to the massive abuses of worker's rights reported at the Postville Kosher meatpacking plant.

One of the Jena Six defendants will not be returning there for school, instead attending a Connecticut boarding school.

Yet another study dispells the link between abortion and mental illness. I wonder how many copies Justice Kennedy has received in the mail?

The US government is working to reduce the time it takes for citizenship applications to be processed.

Riots are brewing in Malyasia over a proposal to curb advantages for the majority (but poorer) Malay ethnic group.

Real Clear Politics interviews a large swath of America's experts on race and asks them how they think the Obama campaign will affect their field of study. It's a really great article.

I've got a better deal for Ramesh Ponnuru: Americans stop being racist, and the Republican Party might legitimately be able to appeal to more than just White folks.

Prop. 209 may have banned efforts by California universities to reach out to minority students. But it can't stop student volunteers from taking matters into their own hands.

Gay tourism is on the rise in Israel, which does not thrill some of its more conservative, religious elements.

Denver voters have passed a law which would target suspected illegal immigrant drivers.

The Seattle Times asks: Are White Voters Telling the Truth when they say they'll vote for a Black candidate?

Quote of the Day

From David Benkof, an Orthodox Jewish man who has ceased having same-sex relations due to religious reasons:

Many outspoken Jewish supporters of the "ex-gay" movement are non-observant Jews. One Jewish woman who wanted to encourage me to become "ex-gay" sent me an e-mail - on Shabbat - to suggest some reparative therapy Web sites. I wrote her back to let her know that (and I confirmed this with an Orthodox rabbi) if she had to violate one commandment, it would have been better for her to engage in lesbian sex than for her to e-mail me on Shabbat. She became very hostile. No serious practicing Jew would let such people supervise their kosher meat, so why should we trust them with Jews struggling with same-sex attractions?

Benkof is very hostile towards what Jewish movements there are affiliated with the so-called "ex-gay" movement (a label Benkof firmly rejects). Indeed, he basically views them as either front groups for Christian evangelism or irreligious projects of clueless secular Jews.

I, of course, would rather see Judaism evolve so that people do not see a conflict between being Jewish and being gay. But Benkof's more "traditional" outlook is still worth reading.

Cause for Anger

Andrew Sullivan:

Sometimes I wonder if some white Republicans actually believe that black people in this country have no reason to feel any anger or alienation at times. I'm not talking about letting it consume you - just feeling it, dealing with it, managing it.

He then follows up with a moving account of how his own experience as a gay man makes it easier for him to understand Black anger and alienation -- along with the admission that, had he not been gay, he might have blindly adopted the same position as his Republican peers.

They Have No Gay People

ABC News reports:

Mehdi Kazemi, a gay Iranian teenager fighting to stay in Europe after his boyfriend was reportedly executed in Iran, has lost a plea for asylum in the Netherlands and will be sent back to Britain, where he could face deportation to Iran....
[...]
Kazemi, 19, came to Britain to study in 2005. He has said he intended to return to his country until he learned that his boyfriend in Tehran, whom he had been dating secretly since he was 15 years old, had been arrested for sodomy and hanged, according to Kazemi's lawyer.

Kazemi appealed for asylum in Britain, writing in a letter accompanying his request, "I wish to inform secretary of state that I did not come to the U.K. to claim asylum. But in the past few months my situation back home has changed. The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me."

He continued, "I cannot stop my attraction to men … If I return to Iran I will be arrested and executed like [my boyfriend]. Since this incident … I have been so scared."

A British court denied Kazemi's request in 2006 on the grounds that Iran does not systematically persecute homosexuals.

I have no idea who in their right mind thinks Iran's persecution of homosexuals is not "systematic", but the upshot is this kid probably will hang.

Of course, some of the commenters to this post probably think he was a criminal for trying to escape in the first place.

Obama's Best Speech of the Season?

On the eve of Martin Luther King day, Barack Obama spoke on King's old pulpit at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. His speech was bold, progressive, and necessary:

“For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

“And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

“We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

As Steve Benen put it, if anybody still thought after the Donnie McClurkin incident that Obama was going to throw gay Americans under the bus, they can lay those fears to bed.

Pam Spaulding describes Obama's words as "so necessary", but adds:

This topic has always been a perceived as a third rail topic for the other leading Dem candidates, Clinton or Edwards -- they are, like many whites, particularly if they see themselves as allies, dread being seen as pointing out the evils and hypocrisy of such bigotry in the black faith community, even as wrong and tragic as it is on its face.
[...]
That we cannot discuss the matter of homophobia or anti-Semitism in the black community bluntly is everyone's problem. This burden and legacy of fomenting bigotry out of fear and ignorance is borne by all of us. If no one takes responsibility, we all fail. And we're failing -- look at how easily gender bias and racial overtones have surfaced over and over in the campaign so far. It's almost reflexive to "go there," the toxicity and effectiveness of stirring those sentiments has been part of the political process by both parties for so long that they are addicted to it.

The "third rail" analysis is, I think, solid (although it's easy to under-state the degree of political courage it takes for a Black man to deliver this speech on MLK day. Whites aren't the only people at risk from the rail). It's a difficult issue. Specks and logs and all that. But open, honest dialogue is the only way forward. And Obama deserves massive amount of credit for opening the doors and demanding that everybody take stock of their own participation in injustice.

***

A brief perusal of blogger reaction seems to buttress my instinct that this speech hit a sweet spot:

The Vig: "If you don’t think the man who spoke those words is worthy of being the next president, I can’t help you."

Daniel Hernandez: "Barack Obama crystallized his message so powerfully yesterday, a political rhetoric of true reconciliation, the type I don't believe we have seen in generations."

Buffalo Pundit: "After 12 years of Reagan and/or Bush, after 8 years of Clinton, and after another 7 years of another Bush, this speech speaks to me, and rings true."

And finally, one of the ways you know my quoted section is good is that in this unbelievably hackish dissection of it ("Obama says he wants unity, but he's upset by greed-motivated lending policies causing people to lose their homes. Guess he doesn't want to unify mortgage brokers!") by "The editors of the American Federalist Journal", the above excerpt doesn't even make an appearance. When even the snipers can't snipe, you know you've nailed it.