Living
A dream fulfilled
MLK memorial, years in the making, resonates with LGBT community
The civil rights movement pioneered by Martin Luther King, Jr., has inspired many leaders of the LGBT movement. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
(UPDATE: The MLK Memorial dedication ceremony has been postponed due to Hurricane Irene. It is expected to be rescheduled for September or October.)
When a tribute to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is dedicated this weekend, it will mark more than the addition of a new monument to Washington, D.C.’s landscape.
It will symbolize the civil rights leader’s success.
The stone likeness rises as the first monument to a man of color on the National Mall, 48 years after King described his then ground-breaking dream, and in a nation where — at least ostensibly — much of that dream has been realized.
The movement was a model for countless others, including the LGBT rights push, which has shared nonviolence tenets and even leaders like gay, black activist Bayard Rustin.
Yet most similarities end there.
While fruits of the civil rights movement are evident in modern America — apparent in a widening black middle class and a black first family in the White House, for instance — the gay rights movement’s successes have been slower coming.
Same-sex marriage rights remain tenuous and limited to a handful of states; despite hate crime legislation, the threat of violence continues to deny many gays and lesbians a basic sense of safety in their hometowns.
As the nation prepares to welcome King to the National Mall, community leaders share their outlook on the LGBT movement with the Washington Blade — from a California group using civil unrest to humanize the struggle; to the partner of late gay and civil rights icon Bayard Rustin working to keep his ideals alive; to former NAACP leader Julian Bond, who uses his status as a key historic civil rights figure to promote the LGBT rights struggle as a modern civil rights fight.
They point to entrenched faith-based bigotry, and even a lack of movement cohesion, as obstacles. But each believes that by using King’s model of continued struggle, the LGBT dream of full equality can be achieved.
Images of change
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. sitting in an Alabama jail cell. Firefighters battering blacks with powerful jets of water. Jeering whites pouring condiments over the heads of stoic lunch counter protesters.
They’re images that moved activist Robin McGehee, as a child growing up in Jackson, Miss.
And today as executive director of GetEqual, she organizes demonstrations to create actions and images she hopes will drive home the plight of gay and lesbian men and women just as powerfully. An absence of such visual tools encouraged McGehee to form the group, with offices in Berkeley, Calif., and Washington, D.C., in January 2010.
“We had that in reference to the AIDS movement in ACT-UP, and fighting for adequate health care. But in reference to a full civil rights fight for equality, I couldn’t think of one iconic action,” she said.
The group has orchestrated more than 40 actions in the last year, including one in which military veterans handcuffed themselves to the White House fence to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The group honed use of such actions at the Highlander Research and Education Center, a New Market, Tenn., center that trained members of the original civil rights movement. McGehee and other LGBT equality activists underwent training at the historic center in January 2010.
“Not until you can give literal imagery to that discrimination do people really resonate or get it,” McGehee said.
Yet despite mirroring the earlier movement’s successful tactics, activists’ success in mainstreaming LGBT rights remains light years behind that of racial equality — something McGehee blames on entrenched religious bigotry.
“We’ve gotten into a moment where people are using the Bible as a weapon,” said McGehee, pointing out that while religious rhetoric once justified slavery and racism, cultural changes eventually erased such thinking. “… I don’t think we’ve jumped that hurdle with regard to gays.”
McGehee is encouraged, however, by more subtle success in incorporating gays and lesbians socially. Just a few years after Ellen DeGeneres thought twice about coming out on TV, realistic portrayals of gays and lesbians are common on TV.
“In time,” she said, “I think we’re gonna get there.”
A life of service
The former partner of Bayard Rustin said the gay civil rights leader would be happy with the arrival of marriage equality, but would have pushed for it in all 50 states. (Washington Blade archive photo by Doug Hinckle)
Walter Naegle had certainly heard of Bayard Rustin, the relentlessly active civil rights agitator who gained as much notoriety for his efforts to win black equality as for his open homosexuality.
But on the day he ran into the civil rights legend on a New York City corner in April 1977, he didn’t recognize him: Rustin wasn’t carrying his trademark walking stick.
“When he gave me his name, I knew,” said Naegle, whose chance meeting with Rustin lead to a 10-year relationship that ended only when the activist died in 1987.
More than two decades later, Naegle keeps Rustin’s ideals alive, working with filmmakers to promote “Brother Outsider,” a portrayal of Rustin’s story, executing his estate and generally overseeing the use of his image.
He believes Rustin’s courage, openness and tireless work — he was in his 70s and still agitating when he died — have helped make him resonate as an icon of the human rights movement.
By the time Naegle met Rustin, the activist had long been a legend. Rustin had worked with A. Philip Randolph to strengthen relationships between blacks and labor unions, but was perhaps best known for his role organizing the 1963 March on Washington.
He’d also become a gay rights icon before it was fashionable: Rustin was essentially outed in 1953 when he was arrested on a “morals charge,” yet he refused to deny the charges or his sexual orientation.
“He didn’t have to hide anything,” he said. “He was just going to be who he was and let the chips fall where they may.”
Rustin would pay the price for that openness.
“Whenever he would rise to a certain level, particularly in the African-American civil rights movement but also in other movements, something would happen and someone would try to chop him down,” Naegle said.
Nonetheless, “He was not defeated. He didn’t turn around and stop his activism — he just worked on the sidelines.”
Rustin remained active with several organizations, including the A. Philip Randolph Institute and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, at the time of his death.
Years later, his story still has the power to inspire. Naegle said a book of his letters is slated for publication in March, in time for what would have been Rustin’s 100th birthday.
Naegle believes his partner would have been “heartened” to see marriage equality happen in even one state. But he wouldn’t have been satisfied with limited success.
“It’s fine to have these victories in urban areas,” Naegle said. “But people all over the country should be entitled to the same thing.”
“Gay and lesbian rights are not ‘special’ rights”
Julian Bond’s new fight
Former NAACP Chair Julian Bond likens the modern LGBT movement to the push for black civil rights in the ‘60s. (photo courtesy of wikimedia.org)
Where others may see conflict between the black and gay rights agendas, Julian Bond sees similarities.
Both groups struggle against bigotry based on personal characteristics. Both are entitled to basic rights by the same Constitution. And both benefit from each others’ successes.
Indeed, he argues, “People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others — that it has been so widely imitated,” Bond, who works as an adjunct professor at American University, told the Blade.
The man who has worn many hats as a Georgia lawmaker and leader with both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP, has more recently directed his outspoken energies to the conflict between civil rights and gay rights advocates.
It’s a particularly touchy dispute. Old school civil rights leaders and even some black gays bristle at LGBT activists’ use of King’s rhetoric to promote their agenda as a modern civil rights movement. Some site racial divisions within the LGBT movement, and argue that discrimination faced by gays isn’t as harsh as that faced by blacks.
Yet for Bond, there isn’t much of a dispute: The two groups must lock arms.
“Many gays and lesbians worked side by side with me in the ’60s civil rights movement. Am I now to tell them thanks for risking life and limb helping me win my rights, but they are excluded because of a condition of their birth?” he said. “That they cannot share now in the victories they helped to win?”
Bond has lent his outspoken rhetoric and organizational skills to many causes over the years.
While a student at Morehouse College, in Atlanta, in the ’60s, he helped organize the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, he was the first president of the SPLC and was board chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People from 1998 to 2010.
He’s become one of the most vocal mainstream voices in the movement to promote equal treatment for gays and lesbians, going as far as to boycott the funeral of King widow Coretta Scott King in 2006 after the services were arranged at an anti-gay church.
In July, Bond spoke at an NAACP forum discussing gay and lesbian issues in the black community, featuring openly gay black comedian Wanda Sykes and CNN anchor Don Lemon.
“People of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination,” Bond said. “Sadly so do many others. They deserve the law’s protections and civil rights too.”
Bond’s comments stand in contrast to the black community’s historically conservative stance on gay issues.
Yet he said one need only look at the personal examples set by the lauded civil rights leaders to see whether such thinking is in line with King’s dream.
“We cannot know what Dr. King would have thought about today’s GLBT movements,” Bond said. “But if we consider the prominent role his widow, Coretta Scott King, occupied in speaking out on GLBT rights, it is hard to believe that he would not have done the same.”
Michael,
I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship.
I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.
I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me.
It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.
I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point. I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.
When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.
But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”
I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.
My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?
Michael replies:
You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.
But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:
Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.
Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.
Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.
Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.
Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply. There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time?
If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.
I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.
Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.
(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)
Autos
Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers
Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons
As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today.
But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster.
Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.
VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY
$54,000
MPG: 23 city/31 highway
0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds
Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.
CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.
The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it.
Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt.
And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.”
But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.
MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON
$95,000
MPG: 21 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds
Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.
CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.
If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.
This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.
Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.
Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.
Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.
PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO
$121,000
Range: 265 miles
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.
CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.
The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.
Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.
Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.
Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.
Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters.
Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.
Advice
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do
Dear Michael,
I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.
I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.
They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.
They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.
Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.
But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.
My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?
I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.
Michael replies:
Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.
That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.
Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?
From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them.
Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.
Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.
Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider:
First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.
Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance.
Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.
The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.
And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
New Hungarian prime minister takes office
Comings & Goings
Learn more about queer love
Calendar: May 8-14
Va. Supreme Court invalidates Democrat-backed redistricting plan
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
-
Arts & Entertainment4 days agoA reign defined by commitment and human impact
-
Ukraine4 days ago
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
-
Federal Government4 days ago
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
-
Florida4 days ago
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
