Wanda Sykes speaks about her wife and marriage in America

You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," said Sykes, 44, while speaking at a Las Vegas rally for gay marriage.

“I got pissed off,” she continued. “They pissed me off. I said, 'You know what? Now I gotta get in your face.' And that’s what we all have to do now. They pissed off the wrong group of people. They have galvanized a community...Instead of having gay marriage in California, we’re going to get it across the country.”

Sykes imagined a day when same-sex marriage would be allowed nationwide. “When my wife and I leave California, I want to have my marriage also recognized in Nevada, in Arizona, all the way to New York," she said. "How can you stop people from loving each other?”

She was cheered and applauded throughout her almost five minutes of remarks. “I am proud to be a woman,” she said. “I’m proud to be a black woman and I’m proud to be gay.”

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b69073_old_christines_wanda_sykes_im_proud_be.html

Now, THAT'S a fierce advocate for equality.

...engage in fierce advocacy of a controversial social issue during an economic crisis that is historic in its severity.

while the vast majority of Americans are rather more distracted by economic realities -- too distracted to devote time and energy to pursuit of their bigotry.

...the kinds of people that would oppose this initiative tend to cling to their guns and religion during the bad times. The pushback could very possibly be even worse now than it has been.

Prediction: Obama will get it done as soon as the recovery is well under way.

Since the country was entering a severe postwar economic recession that lasted five quarters.

And the Cold War was beginning with the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And Ghandi was assassinated creating turmoil in India.

And the Soviet Union began to jam Voice of America broadcasts.

And the Arab/Israeli war broke out in the first half of the year.

And the Berlin blockade began.

And Truman's administration had to organize and implement the Marshall Plan.

And Truman himself was up for re election in November.

Damn good thing Truman didn't do something risky and politically stupid in the midst of all of these events in 1948 and issue an Executive Order desegregating the military.

Oh wait.

He did.

...widespread availability of information and opinions afforded by the internet (which can be both a boon and the bane of one's political existence).

And the 1940's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

Oh wait.

He didn't.

;)

where someone cares, oh yeah, to the right. You wait for yourself; Me? I gave up waithing for a bunch of cowards worrying about the "right tome " for my Rights

I realise that the poor guy has a lot on his plate right now but I'll be extremely disappointed if he hasn't integrated the military and made at least an effort toward same-sex marriage (as a stop-gap, I'll settle for civil unions with full legal rights) by the end of his first term.

But, that does not mean I will sllte for "Wait, the time is not right"; THE TIME IS LONG PAST, IT IS NOW. Progress must be visibly achieved. Sestak says they can do DADT by summer. Let's start with "benchmarks" DADT by December, or don't send any more solicitation letters til you do DEMS

OK, there's our first benchmark: DADT gone by the end of the year.

And this "throwing away political capital" meme has gotten stale REALLY fast.

There is an ongoing "how do we spend trillions of taxpayer dollars" argument. Et cetera, et cetera.

To confound the situation by throwing in a social wedge issue argument risks letting the Republicans off the hook and losing ground on all of those other issues. We are closer than we have ever been to winning all three of those previous arguments (health care, energy, economy/spending) -- given that Obama has over 90% of his term still ahead of him, I think it is prudent to dedicate the immediate future to nailing down those wins.

The Republicans would absolutely love to change the subject back to abortion, gays, gun control, and so on. We can win those debates, but there will be a cost.

I hate the "political capital" term as much as anyone. It is overused. However, the concept behind it is very real.

A real illustration of a "Profile in Courage"... ;sarcasm:

I'd like to see the integrity it takes to stand up to those with an interest in continued bigotry, whatever the cost to the politician's career.

As you say - that didn't stop Truman or Johnson, and we are better for their choices.

The opposition is in disarray, scattering like a bunch of insects after seeing the light. They will reconstitute at the first sign of a polarizing issue that allows them to take an opposing position that 40+% can agree with (majority support for gay marriage is a brand new development; there is still a very large contingent that remains against it).

Come on, they are reduced to talking about mustard -- anything to crash the sky-high approval numbers before the real battles start. We just beat them on the budget. They are ready to comprehensively exploit any opening, perceived or otherwise, in order to halt any more forward progress of the Obama agenda. The gay marriage situation is being handled properly for now -- on a state-by-state and grassroots level. Be patient... in a few months to one year, that new supporting majority will be larger and more solidified. The change will finally come and it will be what Americans want.

get in your way of seeing that.

...the country's future well-being is in fact dependent upon the success of his career, so, in a way, you are right on ;)

All the truly great leaders dodged that one in order to protect their (short-term) personal interests.

As long as the LGBT community continues to make its voice heard, the probability remains high that Obama will get it done.

BTW, those "short term personal interests" are health care and energy reform, and the spending of trillions of dollars.

...regarding a whole range of issues. There's no such thing as a vacuum in politics. The method by which one thing is handled can have a cascading effect on a bunch of other things. So, let's be a little patient and properly prime the country for the big move.

those who are to be patient.

Civil rights leaders in the 40s, 50s and 60s heard that advice all the time too. It seems that when it comes to progressive issues the time is never right.

ION

We need people speaking out all the time. Not necessarily everybody, 24/7.

But it's fierce advocacy that makes changes happen--fierce advocacy that helps persuade the fence-sitters.

And after last night, a hero!

:applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo:

And it's not just the American gay community. Even though Wanda's American, and I'm Canadian, and Boy George is English, all of us also live in this big international country called "Gay". As such, we have solidarity with gays throughout the world who are being oppressed and sometimes even executed. Yes, every time a homosexual is hanged in Iran, one of our nationals has been killed. Every time gays are beaten in Latin America, an assault has been waged against one of our countrymen. And even though we have equal marriage in this country, every time one of your states establishes the same, we rejoice just as much up here.

We're all races, creeds and colors, live in all nations. We have that connection nobody else does. We are everywhere.

Imagine if being gay was an ethnicity and the gay community established their own version of Israel. Can you imagine what would happen if every gay person moved to Gayistan (I know, lousy name but go with it)? I mean, we lose a noticeable portion of the workforce but more importantly (to me anyway), art just dies. That's it, there goes a significant portion of muscians, writers, movie-makers, poets, actors, comedians, satirists, artists. Art is just done, man, game over.

I'm bisexual so maybe I could get dual citizenship?

blessed to know who she is and be proud it. Willing and able to speak out like she is now with humor.

:woohoo:

..... because she should be. ;)

(I just really wanna see all the pointy little Republican heads explode during confirmation hearings and I wanna see this spitfire of a woman fry their asses right there 'cause you KNOW she would)

Yea I know. Not a good reason, but I can have my fantasies, can't I? Mwahahahaa!

:evilgrin:

n/t

Your Enthusiasm.

Larry comments on Wanda's ass -- Larry David: Ass man? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S5-Vx4hlr4

She's a great writer and just too funny as a performer...he old Fox sitcom, Wanda At Large was good stuff...but live in a club she's the best. I've been a fan for years and it makes me happy that she is the flavor of the Democratic Day!

nt

and her orientation was not a part of the equation. To me, your sexual preferences are your business and probably shouldn't be worn on your sleeve.

Preferences are quite different from sexual orientation. (And plenty of people can't hide the fact they are gay.) She's quite a talented lady. I've always liked her too.

talking about their spouses, I'm not sure why a lesbian should be required to keep her orientation under wraps.

Comedians create from what they know. Should she choose to, I see no reason she shouldn't be as free to talk about married life as any other comedian.

I think people often say things in that vein "well as long as he or she isn't in my face about it", while we straight people think nothing of mentioning our spouses or what we did over the weekend. That sort of "rule" sets up a very unequal footing for gay people in social discourse.

I've never understood the "not in my face about it" double standard either. I'm totally thrilled she's out and talking about it. The more the better. :D

I'm not very interested in the goings-ons in anyone's bedroom.

But there really is a double standard, whereby regular, day in day out chit chat about ones (hetero) spouse is perfectly normal and socially acceptable, while even mentioning one has a spouse is considered some sort of advertising if you're gay.

I saw that in my church - people weren't so much upset that Gene Robinson was gay. It was more that he had the nerve to be open about it.

My mom used to be like the people in your church. But she's been watching "Ellen" on daytime TV for a few years now and she's quite comfortable with chatting about Ellen's wife now and convinced my dad to vote No on 8. I think we are agreeing with each other here. :) Gay people are everyday folks too, and the more people who see that the better.

:toast:

Since most straight comedians talk about their spouses, are you actually saying gay comedians shouldn't?

Sexual orientation is not just about sex it's about whom you fall in love with and with whom you create a family.

And if the mere mention of a wife is enough to send someone into a tizzy, then they've got the problem.

im simply saying that sex is a personal topic for me. Comedians that talk about their spouses don't bother me but it doesn't usually entertain me. I do acknowledge that discussion of spouses does seem like a natural topic for comedians.

It is a particularly negated gay identity and religion is largely to blame. It has largely been the church in which black Americans, like many other besieged people finding refuge in faith, have found a haven amidst oppression, and this has given it an extra prestige, which has some especially unhappy effects, as according credibility to religious institutions always does.