This was a speech given August 15 1970 by Huey Newton co-founder of the Black Panther Party..here he addresses the issue of Gay Rights… Its serious food for thought coming in the aftermath of President Obama endorsing Same-sex Message…

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some

uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about

homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals

and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed

groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.

I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know,

sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the

mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in

the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we

want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she

might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start

with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and

feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude

that the White racists use against our people because they are Black

and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist

because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover

something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to

him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed

people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of

behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established

norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are

only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever

constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say

offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should

make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind

of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say

that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much

about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual

movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and

through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not

given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the

most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t

understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of

capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But

whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that

exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a

person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he

wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as

revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot

also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my

prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.”

Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most

revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations,

there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and

the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more

revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to

say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because

they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group

or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge,

somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion

and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they

are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are

unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action.

If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in

practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the

revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of

the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not

criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same

is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is

dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just

making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The

enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a

mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and

gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies,

and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have

about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that

they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this

fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity

in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in

us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other

hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a

phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male

homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our

friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our

vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally

designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as

Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and

women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the

most appropriate manner.