Posts Tagged ‘gay rights’

This isn’t personal…just principled.

Mo’Kelly is calling you out Perez Hilton, are you in or are you out?  No pun

Perez Hilton

intended.

Back in 2009, Mo’Kelly received an email from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, mocking two of my commentaries regarding him and the Carrie Prejean/Miss USA Pageant controversy in 2009. At that point, Hilton seemed unaffected by his role in the perception of the Gay Rights movement or the perception of his work more broadly. It was a seeming contradiction given his outspoken stances, to blithely and blindly proceed without conscience to his impact on issues he championed.

Perez Hilton Isn’t Ready for Gay Marriage in America

Perez Hilton Created Ant-Gay Star Carrie Prejean

But we’ll come back to that in a moment.

Remember when the Chris Brown/Rihanna saga dominated the news? Hilton’s stance was clear.

From his website…

___________________________________________

Chris Brown Apologizes – FINALLY!

Too little, too late!

Chris Brown has just released a statement, owning up to his actions in February and apologizing for severely beating then-girlfriend Rihanna.

You know what this smells like???

Like shit!!!!!

After you watch his apology (above), it’ll be clear to anyone with half a brain that he’s just trying to salvage what little he has left of a career.

Lame. Lame. Lame.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-20-chris-brown-apologizes-finally

____________________________________

Then…remember when Michael Jackson passed away unexpectedly and the poorly conceived tweet by Chris Brown’s momma?

________________________________________

Chris Brown’s Mom Apologized For Tweet!

That family has issues!

After Tweeting the phrase “Michael Jackson died so that Chris Brown could live!!!” Chris Brown‘s mother, Joyce Hawkins, got a lot of shiz in response.

And we completely understand why! So, she finally decided to apologize for the crazy ass comment.

Hawkins said:

“I’m so sorry that the tweet I sent yesterday was misunderstood. What I meant to say is that Chris has always been inspired by Michael Jackson’s music and his career. I’m sorry I offended anyone. The statement meant Chris would carry on Michaels [sic] legacy.”

Oh geez! Let’s not get carried away.

http://perezhilton.com/2010-09-10-chris-browns-mom-apologized-for-tweet

_____________________________________

Perez Hilton’s record is clear and unmistakable as it relates to homophobia generally, domestic violence and Twitter foolishness specifically. His history of criticizing any and all things Chris Brown has also been well-documented.

But wait, there’s more.

The bad blood between Brown and Hilton eventually made its way to Twitter back in March of last year.

Then something changed…

Many Hilton supporters would point to his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres Show in October of 2010 where Hilton pledged to be “nicer” in the wake of a spate of teen suicides linked to gay bullying as the turning point. Hilton argued that he was going to both change the tone of his website and work towards becoming the solution.

Over the last week and a half two weeks I’ve been doing everything I can to bring awareness to the issue of teen suicides and gay bullying. And in doing so, a lot of people have called me a hypocrite, and a bully myself and a big one. And that’s not how I want to be perceived and that’s not what I want to put out there to the world. And it was a big wake up call that so many people saw me that way.

So from now on I really want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem and I want to be the change that I want to see in others, so I’m going to do things differently on my website, than I have in the past. I’m not going to call people nasty nicknames, I’m not going to go the mean route. I’m going to force myself to be funnier or smarter or just do things differently. Not doodle inappropriate things and not out people.”

Perez Hilton is definitely a hypocrite and here are the reasons why.

Hilton had absolutely NO commentary (nice or otherwise) to offer on the latest Twitter transgression and apology of Chris Brown. Although Hilton noted the incident on his site, he left it up to his readers to decide as to its importance.

Really Perez? Gay bullying? You can comment on the strength of Brown’s latest CD on your site, but no comment on homophobic rant by the same artist?

http://perezhilton.com/2010-12-29-chris-brown-goes-homophobic-on-his-twitter-page

Really Perez? Gay bullying? Advocacy blogging? Becoming part of the solution?

Mo’Kelly didn’t know that social justice commentary ever went on holiday break like the American public school system.

Given Perez Hilton’s frequent and public stances against all artists and behavior even remotely homophobic in nature, it was beyond odd. His documented history in regards to Chris Brown makes it doubly odd.

Mo’Kelly gets it…Hilton wants to be “NICE,” but a “nice” website and inconsistency in message are two different things. Hilton must be consistent in his message irrespective of methodology, or needs to remove himself from the advocacy blogging business altogether. He can call himself “Perez Hilton, the Diet TMZ” but refrain from any other social justice commentary in the future. If Hilton can not or will not address the larger and obvious issues which set the tone and frame the homophobia debate; then it’s absolute hypocrisy to do so at any later date or presently claim to be a social justice advocate.

And why is the social justice advocate for African-American issues the one having to make this clear for the Gay Rights advocate (SMH)?!

Mo’Kelly is calling you out Perez Hilton, are you in or are you out?

If Hilton is to be part of the “solution” for the GLBT community then abject silence on the obvious displays of homophobic behavior does a disservice to any and all issues related to Gay rights. Straddling the line hurts his supposed cause.

For all the many comparisons between Gay rights and the modern Civil Rights Movement of the 20^th century, silence was never an option in the Civil Rights Movement. And in part, this is why Mo’Kelly doesn’t like the comparisons in the first place. Once again, it’s the luxury of “choice” which most clearly delineates the two. Not the argument that homosexuality supposedly is a “choice” but the choice to either fight or not involve oneself in the fight or live openly as a member of the community.

Hilton would do well to continue to avoid going the “mean” route but it is hypocrisy to then have nothing to say (nicely or otherwise) on the issues and incidents which most frame and affect the debate.

Having nothing to say in a social justice sense on the Chris Brown Tweetfest is absolute hypocrisy.

Hilton has long compared the Gay Rights movement to the Civil Rights moment and quote Dr. King ad nauseam (which irritates Mo’Kelly to NO end). Mo’Kelly is here to tell Hilton, he can’t have it both ways. Advocacy requires speaking out, even when it’s impolitic, unpopular, politically inexpedient and generally unsafe.  If Perez Hilton is a Gay Rights advocate, then he should act accordingly, consistently…nicely or not. Otherwise his voice means nothing, irrespective of how often he eschews vulgar doodling or supposed mean-spirited commentary.

Message still trumps methodology and absence of message renders methodology meaningless.

At the top of this piece, Mo’Kelly explained how Hilton mockingly emailed Mo’Kelly regarding his previous commentaries. Last week when Mo’Kelly emailed him back requesting a formal statement on the Chris Brown incident…

…

…

…

…

…

Silence.

Unacceptable Perez. You built an empire under the pretense of advocacy blogging, wrapped in celebrity reporting. If you’ve walked away from social commentary altogether, that’s fine, but don’t jump back in the water down the road when more convenient. You’re allowed only one epiphany in life, not two. Those are the rules.  Two or more smack of brazen disingenuous behavior.

Perez, you’ve been called out.  This isn’t personal, just on principle.  Either you’re in or you’re out.  Make the choice.

(And Mo’Kelly didn’t even have to use any “nasty nicknames” or “vulgar doodling” to make his point.)

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published at The Huffington Post and www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. For more Mo’Kelly, http://mrmokelly.com. Mr. Mo’Kelly can be reached at mrmokelly@gmail.com.

Free Subscription to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

Follow The Mo’Kelly Report on Facebook Network Blogs HERE.

www.twitter.com/mrmokelly

The ongoing debate over Proposition 8 here in California, against the backdrop of President-elect Obama’s historic election has again ignited the civil rights discussion in comparing the strides of African-Americans and gays and lesbians.

My goal in touching upon this hotly contested and emotionally charged issue is to interject some semblance of intellectual honesty into the discussion. To do so, requires abandoning the emotion, which clouds all of our judgment.

In that sense, emotion is an equal opportunity offender, if you allow me one civil rights metaphor. African-Americans, we often let our emotional feelings about discrimination previously, cloud our judgment and prevent us from entering into reasoned discussion about civil rights presently. I would venture to say the same is true in regards to gays when discussing the issues of gay rights. These issues are intensely personal, entrenched in history and shake the foundation of our society. Why am I mentioning all of this?

It’s estimated that some 70% of African-Americans voted for the proposition.

That said…let’s put the emotion down folks and go from there.

First, this is where opponents of the measure have it wrong…

Proposition 8 ostensibly is to legally define “marriage” as a union between a man and woman. California does presently enjoy the most “liberal” domestic partner law in the country, and Proposition 8 has no ramifications on these laws.

Let’s remove the emotion…these are the facts.

So we know it’s not about “rights” in the sense of privilege or legal access. Please stop calling this a “civil rights” issue.

Respectfully, it is not.

Rights have to do with access and privileges; not titles of unions. There is a distinct difference. Civil rights by definition, is to rid discrimination of people in the eyes of the law. If we can agree that the legal rights of gay people are not negatively impacted here…then this is not a “civil rights” issue.

Let’s not mince words about “respect,” or “freedom” or “being treated differently.” Legally…gay couples would not be disadvantaged by Proposition 8 and that is what should be most important.

Hold on…breathe…opponents…hear me out. There’s more to this story.

Going further, although we are a nation built upon the premise of separation of church and state, the “premise” of marriage is borne out of religious tradition. The main differences between “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships” and “marriages” arguably all come down to this singular yet important distinction…and it’s relevant to the discussion.

Opponents of the measure can’t have it both ways. To use the term “marriage” yet not also acknowledge the religious implications of the word and all of what that entails is a contradiction. One does not need to agree with all of the tenets of religion to acknowledge the fact that marriage is by definition a ceremony based in religious tradition. Like it or loathe it, the religion(s) are unambiguous in this regard in its concept of “marriage.”

As much as gays demand that those opposed to a homosexual lifestyle “respect” their lifestyle and beliefs, that respect must flow both ways.

That’s where opponents of the measure have it wrong.

Now, let’s flip this over and look at it from the other side…unemotionally that is. This is where proponents of the measure have it wrong.

Not to oversimplify the argument, but the measure is excessive and mean-spirited in its conception and argumentation. One does not “need” to legally “define” marriage any more than one “needs” to legally “define” a high school baccalaureate service or a bar mitzvah. They too are steeped in religious tradition. Since proponents of the measure have openly argued that civil rights aren’t being taken away, then the real goal here is what? This measure ostensibly then serves as much purpose as legally defining said baccalaureate or bar mitzvah since the impact on legal rights and access (as PROPONENTS have argued) is none.

Hold on…breathe…proponents…hear me out. There’s more to be said.

There arguably is no “point” then other than “to make a point.” And that then leads even more credibility to the argument that the formulation of the bill is rooted in hatred of homosexuality.

This discussion is less about whether those opposed to gay marriage can push through such a law and more about whether they should in the first place.

The unemotional fact of the matter is that schools don’t “teach” marriage or the values supposedly attached to it. The responsibility for the values of children and their views on homosexuality will always lie with the parents. Never will a teacher outweigh the impact of active parenting.

If the parents are homophobic, then the children will most likely be homophobic, irrespective of what Mr. or Ms. Civics teacher has to say about the subject of marriage. To argue otherwise is specious in nature.

Going further, such fear tactics will always be tantamount to racism and discrimination. You will never hear me argue that those in opposition of the homosexual lifestyle should have to “accept” homosexuality. We all have our beliefs and our contrasting beliefs often times what makes this country great. But you will always hear me question the motivation of any superfluous legislation. There is no necessity for such a measure, not in letter or spirit of the law. It’s antagonistic and fundamentally contradicts the idea of separation of church and state. Its primary argument in support of it is based in religion. That “religion” knife cuts both ways in this discussion.

Where do we go from here?

We (African-Americans) are generally socially conservative yet politically progressive…hence the overwhelming support for the proposition. That isn’t odd to me. But two key points need to be stressed.

Gay rights supporters should not have an issue with African-Americans or those in support of the measure. They are not “traitors” to the civil rights movement. As stated before, this is not a civil rights issue. Also, African-Americans and others who support Gay rights generally must always be mindful and respectful of the reality that in this society; freedom means an ongoing dialogue, a freedom to disagree and a freedom to disapprove.

I’m not sure there’s any clear cut solution to this problem, but I am sure that this proposition only added to the problem, not decreased it. We are all worse off because of it.

And so there is no ambiguity…I voted no.

RELATED: The Right and Wrong of Amaechi/Hardaway

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex and Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.MrMoKelly.com.

Subscribe in a reader or by email

Help Bring Mo’Kelly to National Radio HERE

Visit Mo’Kelly’s GIFT SHOP HERE

Morris W. O’Kelly can be reached at Mo@MrMoKelly.com and he welcomes all commentary.

var AdBrite_Title_Color = ‘E1771E’;
var AdBrite_Text_Color = ’9D1961′;
var AdBrite_Background_Color = ‘FFFFFF’;
var AdBrite_Border_Color = ‘CCCCCC’;
var AdBrite_URL_Color = ’0000FF’;
try{var AdBrite_Iframe=window.top!=window.self?2:1;var AdBrite_Referrer=document.referrer==”?document.location:document.referrer;AdBrite_Referrer=encodeURIComponent(AdBrite_Referrer);}catch(e){var AdBrite_Iframe=”;var AdBrite_Referrer=”;}

document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,83,67,82,73,80,84));document.write(‘ src=”http://ads.adbrite.com/mb/text_group.php?sid=857309&zs=3436385f3630&ifr=’+AdBrite_Iframe+’&ref=’+AdBrite_Referrer+’” type=”text/javascript”>’);document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,47,83,67,82,73,80,84,62));

The ongoing debate over Proposition 8 here in California, against the backdrop of President-elect Obama’s historic election has again ignited the civil rights discussion in comparing the strides of African-Americans and gays and lesbians.

My goal in touching upon this hotly contested and emotionally charged issue is to interject some semblance of intellectual honesty into the discussion. To do so, requires abandoning the emotion, which clouds all of our judgment.

In that sense, emotion is an equal opportunity offender, if you allow me one civil rights metaphor. African-Americans, we often let our emotional feelings about discrimination previously, cloud our judgment and prevent us from entering into reasoned discussion about civil rights presently. I would venture to say the same is true in regards to gays when discussing the issues of gay rights. These issues are intensely personal, entrenched in history and shake the foundation of our society. Why am I mentioning all of this?

It’s estimated that some 70% of African-Americans voted for the proposition.

That said…let’s put the emotion down folks and go from there.

First, this is where opponents of the measure have it wrong…

Proposition 8 ostensibly is to legally define “marriage” as a union between a man and woman. California does presently enjoy the most “liberal” domestic partner law in the country, and Proposition 8 has no ramifications on these laws.

Let’s remove the emotion…these are the facts.

So we know it’s not about “rights” in the sense of privilege or legal access. Please stop calling this a “civil rights” issue.

Respectfully, it is not.

Rights have to do with access and privileges; not titles of unions. There is a distinct difference. Civil rights by definition, is to rid discrimination of people in the eyes of the law. If we can agree that the legal rights of gay people are not negatively impacted here…then this is not a “civil rights” issue.

Let’s not mince words about “respect,” or “freedom” or “being treated differently.” Legally…gay couples would not be disadvantaged by Proposition 8 and that is what should be most important.

Hold on…breathe…opponents…hear me out. There’s more to this story.

Going further, although we are a nation built upon the premise of separation of church and state, the “premise” of marriage is borne out of religious tradition. The main differences between “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships” and “marriages” arguably all come down to this singular yet important distinction…and it’s relevant to the discussion.

Opponents of the measure can’t have it both ways. To use the term “marriage” yet not also acknowledge the religious implications of the word and all of what that entails is a contradiction. One does not need to agree with all of the tenets of religion to acknowledge the fact that marriage is by definition a ceremony based in religious tradition. Like it or loathe it, the religion(s) are unambiguous in this regard in its concept of “marriage.”

As much as gays demand that those opposed to a homosexual lifestyle “respect” their lifestyle and beliefs, that respect must flow both ways.

That’s where opponents of the measure have it wrong.

Now, let’s flip this over and look at it from the other side…unemotionally that is. This is where proponents of the measure have it wrong.

Not to oversimplify the argument, but the measure is excessive and mean-spirited in its conception and argumentation. One does not “need” to legally “define” marriage any more than one “needs” to legally “define” a high school baccalaureate service or a bar mitzvah. They too are steeped in religious tradition. Since proponents of the measure have openly argued that civil rights aren’t being taken away, then the real goal here is what? This measure ostensibly then serves as much purpose as legally defining said baccalaureate or bar mitzvah since the impact on legal rights and access (as PROPONENTS have argued) is none.

Hold on…breathe…proponents…hear me out. There’s more to be said.

There arguably is no “point” then other than “to make a point.” And that then leads even more credibility to the argument that the formulation of the bill is rooted in hatred of homosexuality.

This discussion is less about whether those opposed to gay marriage can push through such a law and more about whether they should in the first place.

The unemotional fact of the matter is that schools don’t “teach” marriage or the values supposedly attached to it. The responsibility for the values of children and their views on homosexuality will always lie with the parents. Never will a teacher outweigh the impact of active parenting.

If the parents are homophobic, then the children will most likely be homophobic, irrespective of what Mr. or Ms. Civics teacher has to say about the subject of marriage. To argue otherwise is specious in nature.

Going further, such fear tactics will always be tantamount to racism and discrimination. You will never hear me argue that those in opposition of the homosexual lifestyle should have to “accept” homosexuality. We all have our beliefs and our contrasting beliefs often times what makes this country great. But you will always hear me question the motivation of any superfluous legislation. There is no necessity for such a measure, not in letter or spirit of the law. It’s antagonistic and fundamentally contradicts the idea of separation of church and state. Its primary argument in support of it is based in religion. That “religion” knife cuts both ways in this discussion.

Where do we go from here?

We (African-Americans) are generally socially conservative yet politically progressive…hence the overwhelming support for the proposition. That isn’t odd to me. But two key points need to be stressed.

Gay rights supporters should not have an issue with African-Americans or those in support of the measure. They are not “traitors” to the civil rights movement. As stated before, this is not a civil rights issue. Also, African-Americans and others who support Gay rights generally must always be mindful and respectful of the reality that in this society; freedom means an ongoing dialogue, a freedom to disagree and a freedom to disapprove.

I’m not sure there’s any clear cut solution to this problem, but I am sure that this proposition only added to the problem, not decreased it. We are all worse off because of it.

And so there is no ambiguity…I voted no.

RELATED: The Right and Wrong of Amaechi/Hardaway

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex and Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.mokellyreport.blogspot.com<
/a>.

Subscribe in a reader or by email

Help Bring Mo’Kelly to National Radio HERE

Visit Mo’Kelly’s GIFT SHOP HERE

Morris W. O’Kelly can be reached at mokellyreport@sbcglobal.net and he welcomes all commentary.

var AdBrite_Title_Color = ‘E1771E’;
var AdBrite_Text_Color = ’9D1961′;
var AdBrite_Background_Color = ‘FFFFFF’;
var AdBrite_Border_Color = ‘CCCCCC’;
var AdBrite_URL_Color = ’0000FF’;
try{var AdBrite_Iframe=window.top!=window.self?2:1;var AdBrite_Referrer=document.referrer==”?document.location:document.referrer;AdBrite_Referrer=encodeURIComponent(AdBrite_Referrer);}catch(e){var AdBrite_Iframe=”;var AdBrite_Referrer=”;}

document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,83,67,82,73,80,84));document.write(‘ src=”http://ads.adbrite.com/mb/text_group.php?sid=857309&zs=3436385f3630&ifr=’+AdBrite_Iframe+’&ref=’+AdBrite_Referrer+’” type=”text/javascript”>’);document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,47,83,67,82,73,80,84,62));