Thanks for the head nod David. Next time I'll just send a draft over for your perusal before I publish my post:)))

Best,
Derrick Mathis aka RENWL

This also brought to mind senior citizen discounts. Wonder is she going after them next...

Um Big Poofer,

You didn\'t read this post. You couldn\'t have. Nowhere does it suggest that gays in general are wealthy. But there are wealthy gay people. That\'s what this study reflects; the habits and characteristics of those who are wealthy.

They do exist you know.

LOL. The royal \"we\" is just a style rule \"we\" choose from our days covering the social scene for the LA Weekly.

I was one of several contributors to the Weekly\'s social column SLUSH. But to write for it you had to use \"use\" as was dictated by SLUSH\'s editor. When I started blogging RENWL I decided to borrow that from the Weekly.

So just ignore the \"we.\" Nothing but a stylistic preference----a very royal one-----but stylistic on nonetheless in meaning:)

@Terry: We\'re trying to understand how is it that you assert \"gay\" is not a construction. Actually it is. And what does it being a construction have to do with homosexuality in Africa? Nowhere in this post does it say that there was no homosexuality in Africa. The post doesn\'t even alude to such a statement.

And as far as black gay men not getting \"out there\" you\'ll have to take that up with black gay men. We can\'t speak for them as we identify as SGL.

It seems you\'re angry about something------maybe angry at black people in general. But we hardly see why an examination of black manhood speaks of being seperate or excluded. As black men we have a right to examine who we are, our thoughts and our experience.

What concerns us deeply about your commentary is that you seem to find that threatening and unnecessary. That\'s scary.

I don\'t think it\'s wrong for white gays to be angry at religion based homophobia in the black community. I do think it\'s wrong to harbor expectations of any American who is not gay. Black people are American. To expect them to show up any other way is racist.

Thanks Kev. I commented on the post. Here's what I said:

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Coretta Scott King

You have to wonder what MLK, and Bayard Rustin, and Coretta would have thought of Obama's refusal to say he believes gay people have the right to marry, and his "state's rights" argument on equality."

This entire chain is bizaar. And it started off with a bizarre premise. What would MLK, Rustin and Coretta think about Obama's actions?

That's such a no-brainer. They'd be so proud of him. White gay people in the main come from a white privilege perspective. They reveal this with the fact that is not an authentic civil rights movement. It's a POLITICAL MOVEMENT. And white gays are quite confused about this which is why they continue to draw comparison to the Black Civil Rights movement.

That WAS in fact a "civil rights" movement. And the reason why the distinction is so critical and important is that you have white gays asking these questions that do not reflect or acknowledge "the process" involved in an authentic civil rights movement.

Gay white America steadfastly insists on convincing itself that "no process" should be involved in any of it aka white privilege aka why am I having to wait a nano-second for what I want?

That has NOTHING to do with the actual organic process of civil rights being obtained in America. But has everything to do with an attitude not of that process. That attitude is born out of the purely political process of LGBT rights in America. But that's not of the civil rights process in America.

That's the issue here. It's not necessary for anyone to provide a list of gays involved in the Black Civil Rights movement. I'm absolutely certain many were right there front row and center. But what they were involved is VERY DIFFERENT than what's happening today with LGBTs and civil rights. LGBTs are not viscerally involved in this matter. And haven't been save a rally or two once or twice a year and a tepid march on Washington.

So in reiterating my answer based on the fact that the LGBT rights movement is political not civil-----Coretta, King and Rustin would be BURSTING with pride over President Obama's actions thus far. That much, I'd lay down my life on.

Oh and no apologies necessary. People jump the gun all the time. We're used to it.

Did you bother to look at our blog? No we don't think you did.
http://www.renwl.org/toms-shoes-apologizes-to-gay...

You know Kev' I almost put that in there about white gay apathy as well. I should've because there's many who could care less. I know some of them personally.

And in terms of attitudes about marriage black gay men vs. hetero black men I think I'm going to agree with you on that as well. Very interesting. That actually sounds like a post onto itself.