Response to Jerome Robinson's Letter to the LA TIMES

In the Los Angeles Times a few days ago I came across this letter to the editor which was published:

Lessons on gays' contributions 

Re "A fight over gays in textbooks," April 2 

I am a black male Democrat. I believe homosexuals are born as such because of factors beyond their control. So I don't view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different. 

That said, I disagree with gay rights activists supporting legislation to require teaching on the contributions of homosexuals in our society, extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities. The experiences of homosexuals simply aren't extensions of those of racial minorities. There's no comparison between race and sexuality. 

I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda. It's insulting to me, and I suspect the vast majority of racial minorities feel the same.
Jerome RobinsonLos Angeles

Where to begin with a response? First, I, too am a "black male Democrat." So the first point to note is that clearly all Black male Democrats do not share the same views. Just as the views expressed in the published letter merely reflect one Black male Democrat, so do my published views here.

I'm glad that Mr. Robinson doesn't "view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different" so at least we know he's not  some ignorant, raving homophobe. That said, he clearly is lacking in information when he says that requiring teaching the contributions of homosexuals to society is "extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities." The presumption here is that requiring teaching of certain groups has been restricted to racial minorities, which is clearly false. The contributions of women and other previously neglected groups has been a basic tenet of curricular reform for decades. Including LGBT people is just the next step.

But it is these next two sentences that set my hair on fire: "There's no comparison between race and sexuality." and "I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda."

There's no comparison between race and "sexuality"? (I presume he means sexual orientation.) What about the fact that until 1967 there were laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the race of the participants? And there are currently laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the SEX and SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the participants.

Race is a theoretical aspect of identity which has been reified by society, i.e. it is a social construction. Is there any doubt that sexual orientation is also a social construct? What does it even MEAN to be gay? One could define it using sexual attraction, sexual activity, self-identification. But the difficulty in defining either race or sexual orientation does not make their impact on the actual lives of individuals any less real. It is absolute nonsense to say "there's no comparison between race and sexuality."

"I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda." This is such an old canard I don't know where to begin. My usual response is to quote Dan Savage and say that all LGBT activists acknowledge The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to end racial segregation, but that the movement for full LGBT equality is also a civil rights movement. See the difference? My friend Craig Konnoth, has written an award-winning article entitled "Created in its image: the race analogy, gay identity, and gay litigation in the 1950s-1970s" which eloquently and brilliantly illuminates how much all other civil rights movements (for women's rights, gay rights, etc) that were contemporaneous with the Black Civil Rights Movement were influenced and impacted by the historical precedents set by racial minorities. This should not be a surprise! This is not about hijacking another groups struggles in order to advance another agenda, and by choosing an oppositional frame between racial minorities and other groups one assumes that there is no overlap, which is FALSE.

I'm still trying to decide whether I should formally write a response to Mr. Robinson's letter to the editor and send it to the Times. What do you think, dear readers?