Yolanda,
We are both recovering from the stunning joy of watching Obama paint American blue on Tuesday night. But that joy is tempered for me because of the vicious passage of Proposition 8 in California, the ban on same sex adoption in Arkansas, and other anti-gay rights movement victories across the nation on Tuesday.
I am most sickened because black people were so critically important to legislating this bigotry. Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban on gay marriage.
Back in September I wrote about this at The Kitchen Table. At the time I felt optimistic that black people would not be part of this shameful moment in American history. I was wrong. I am re-posting that piece here.
Melissa
Sunday's New York Times reported that the anti-gay rights movement in California is counting on black voters to help them pass Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot that would ban same sex marriage with an amendment to the state constitution. African Americans are expected to turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack Obama. Excited both by Obama's promise of domestic and international policy reform and by the historic nature of his candidacy, black voters are double checking that they are registered and lining up their ride to the polls on November 4. This is the election that black folks will not miss.
While African Americans tend to be liberal on a variety of social spending and political measures, they are notoriously conservative on religious social issues. So the bigot brigade hopes to mobilize black voters to defeat equality and fairness. Since they will be in the voting booth anyway, it seems like a good chance for them to take a moment and vote to amend the constitution to restrict the rights of gay men and lesbians. One vote for Obama to be the first African American president of the United States and another vote to keep keep gay men and lesbians subjugated to second class citizenship.
Is this going to be our legacy as a people? Will African Americans prove to be little more than a selfish, regressive, identity group who snatch a symbolic victory for themselves while simultaneously denying full democratic equality to others? If so, then we are no better that the HRC supporters who now wave Sarah Palin banners because they are determined to have a uterus in the White House.
I respect the right of religious communities to restrict marriage in their own faith traditions. Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish communities for example have a variety of restrictions about the kinds of wedding ceremonies they will perform. This is entirely appropriate and consistent with our tradition of freedom of religious practice. No religious body should be forced by the state to perform rituals of any kind in their houses of worship. Allowing gay men and lesbians to marry , does *not* mean that preachers will be forced to perform ceremonies if they have theological disagreements. It is equally true that no religious community should enforce upon the state its definitions of marriage.
Are black people going to be the electoral force that allows us to celebrate the shotgun marriages of pregnant teenagers whose parents are seeking political office while denigrating the loving bonds of consenting and committed adults? I hope not.
It was just over 40 years ago in 1967 that the Supreme Court decided Loving. v. Virginia. This case declared that the state of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional and recognized the right of black people to marry whomever they wished. The victory did not open the floodgates to interracial marriage. African Americans, like all other racial groups, are still vastly more likely to marry one another than to marry someone of another race. The victory was about democratic equality before the law.
The anti-miscegenation laws, which banned blacks from marrying whites, codified our second class citizenship. These laws defined blackness as a kind of cancer or infection that had to be contained by state action. The ban on interracial marriage treated black people like a public health problem rather than as full and equal Americans. After the 1964 Civil Rights Act granted black people access to public accommodations and the 1965 Voting Right Act protected the right to vote, we still needed the 1967 Loving decision to fully declare African American equality before the law. The language that opponents of gay marriage now use to "defend marriage" is nearly identical to the arguments used by racists who opposed the Loving decision.
I am disgusted by the idea that we will mark the anniversary of our own equality with a bigoted vote in California.
African American gay men and lesbians have been critical and crucial actors in the fight for black equality in the United States. For example, Bayard Rustin (whose picture appears at the top of this post) was the architect of the March on Washington and was the intellectual and strategic force behind Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent strategy in the South. As the brilliant book and film, Brother Outsider, chronicles, Rustin was repudiated by Dr. King, mocked by Stokley Carmichael, and largely forgotten by black history because he was unashamedly a gay man. When Barack Obama stood in Denver marking the 40th anniversary of the Dream speech, he was standing on the shoulders of Bayard Rustin. We cannot elect him while trampling on Rustin's legacy.
Gay and black are not two different communities. They overlap and intersect. To deny rights, freedoms, and equality to gay men and women is to deny it to our own brothers, sisters, aunties, uncles, choir directors, track stars, politicians, and preachers. Blackness need not have rigid and bigoted boundaries. Proposition 8 is an opportunity for black Americans to be a truly progressive force in American political history and a truly prophetic voice of Christianity in the world.
I completely reject the idea that God calls us to be bigots. I completely reject the notion that a ban on gay marriage is an act of Christian faith. I believe it is a betrayal of the fundamental requirements of Christian love. The book of Micah tells God's people what is expected of them. Angry at their disobedience, the Lord reminds the people that God "ransomed you from the house of slavery" (Micah 6:4) and asks why the people have forgotten this mighty act. The prophet then tells the people that if they want to serve God they must do what is required and what is good. That requirement is clear.
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
I know that black people understand justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with our God. Let's prove it by soundly rejecting Proposition 8 and electing Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency.
Melissa
Posts
64 comments:
Democracy at work.
I am so mad about this. As a lesbian black woman from California, this definitely put a damper on my Obama joy. Have the oppressed become the oppressors now? Like Rachel Maddow said "this is a kick to the stomach."
Some of us are ready to kick back, and I don't mean relax.
I have a question. How do you feel that Joe Biden and Barack Obama have both said they are not for gay marriage? But rather, for non-discrimination when it comes to legal property, etc. I'm just wondering because I was shocked to hear their view during the election. Joe Biden spoke about this during his VP debate and Barack Obama spoke about this in an MTV interview.
It saddens me that there is still so much work to do within our communities of color.
It goes the other way as well.
As a latino FTM (transgender female to male), I see a lot of unchecked racism in LGBT communities. Many white LGBT people think that they are at the bottom rung of the oppression ladder and that they do not need to actively fight racism.
There's much work to be done. I'm trying to learn how to do it with an open heart and a ruthless intent.
Right on, Melissa! As I shout and rejoice at Obama's presidential victory and the impending presence of an African-American family in the White House, I shudder fiercely at the very notion of voters (and Black voters at that) using the democratic process to strip American citizens (Black gay men and lesbian women included) of any of their rights.
From a Very Straight Black Woman Voter
I was disappointed to see how many black people voted in favor of Prop 8. What's worse is I have no idea what to do when it comes to changing the minds of people in my own community.
I think of myself as a recovering homophobe. There was a time that I did not support gay marriage, but over the years, my interactions with gay people have allowed me to see that my previous views were bigoted.
I am so glad that I am now a supporter of gay rights, but I do not know what to do to get other straight black people to join me as allies to our GLBT brothers & sisters.
This article was helpful for me.
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/09/black_voters_not_to_blame_if_proposition.php
While minority voters were more likely to vote for prop 8, church attendance was much more closely correlated with approval of this proposition than race. CNN has a breakdown from exit polls. White people put this forward, white people funded it extensively. It isn't reasonable to place the blame for the passage of this proposition on the African American or Hispanic community when the majority of voters in the state are white--this bill could not have passed without significant support in the white community.
I agree. As an HR professional of many years, I think a continuing build up of diversity in employment is going to be the thin end of this wedge. A lot would be accomplished if the feds would just come out and include sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII as many states do.
I have seen so many people come to grips with and change fundamentally held misconceptions about people of other races, orientations, religions, etc., because they are employed in a diverse workplace and have to obey certain workplace rules. Little by little familiarity with diverse cultures leads to acceptance.
I may be stating the obvious here but diversity in employment really is key to so much in our lives.
It is hard to hate someone you know really well, when you know their kids' names, and have met spouses at company events -- and with whom you work shoulder to shoulder. Once the feds get orientation integrated into Title VII employment law, we might see enough change in the workplace for people to universally understand the marriage issue.
Sorry--this proposition could not have passed without significant support in the white community.
thank you, thank you, thank you. we need to hear this. you help restore my faith in humanity, in Christians. you have a way of communicating that is so strong and direct, yet compassionate.
there is so much work to be done and while right now, while we're hurting, it's easy to want to give up, we can't.
i have faith in Obama, that he is already mostly on our side and can be moved.
Please check out some of the posts by POC bloggers in California who discuss this in depth. Organizers of No on 8 pretty much refused to do any outreach to POC communities until the last minute, months after the opposition had been firmly entrenched in POC media, churches, and community outlets.
Prop 8, the ban in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida...all of these made me cry amidst my joy for our collective Obama victory.
Yet, I believe we, too, can overcome these measures. That we can claim to be an enlightened nation, while marginalizing others whose lifestyles with whom we may disagree, only demonstrates that we still have much to learn as we pursue actualizing the ideals upon which our nation was founded.
May we arrive at this destination in less time than it took us to achieve representation in the White House.
Grammercie,
Of course it would not have passed without white and Latino voters voting against it too. We are talking about Black people because we are Black. At least that is what I thought. But maybe this does need to be made clear for nitwits. I am not talking about you.
delux, would you mind posting some links?
The assault against gay marriage is not something we masterminded. Our churches are not that industrious in invoking policy initiatives like that on politics. One, that’s just not our M.O. I will admit however that we, the self-professed Children of God, can be that maniacal in wanting to be clandestine to suppress residual social developments that we cannot control. We just don’t know how to go about structuring campaigns to promote these platforms. So considering to jack-knife homosexuality through legislation banning something of willful manifestation in marriage is something our people would think would be religiously enterprising as a Big Picture Idea to save Black families from social destruction. But it doesn’t have our DNA in the framework of construction of this initiative.
But hey, that’s how we are. We tag along and follow. The conception of movements that are proactive or reactive is not our forte. We don’t have the systems in place to create traction. This Prop however had teeth and it would if successfully passed increase the relevance certain agencies wanted in relevance. But I think it is not so much about political expediency here. I think this was recourse to remediate in a drastic attempt to salvage Black gays in some crazy fantasy schema thinking restricting their ability to marry would restrict their formulations in loving each other. I think that is how the church thinks and constructs concepts. The thing is: it is the Black Church that destroyed the Black family by legitimatizing being apathetic and obsolete in multiple social forms to only treat divinity as ceremony ritual and not a religious occupation for the social health of the entire country.
Most churches however don’t have policy advisors. This political scheme is a piggyback attempt to ride on politics to legislate interpretations of Biblical laws which would ultimately translate to mankind’s flex in human capital --- with anticipations of a viral effect. Those that supported this are just riding along for the ride and the benefits. Not to try to expunge our people from responsibility, I just don’t see our church communities coming clean on where the angst is really rooted and coming from. I see some motivations but the church sticks to their scripted reason that they are fighting for God in that it is God’s law to punish those that sin. (I’m chuckling) All of us hetero people that sin conveniently all the time can do more malicious harm in hetero relationships and marriage and the church will not prosecute our culpability in crimes against God’s law. Bias and displacement.
That is our modern Black Church, though, nonetheless they want to impose ideas of public health policing on fundamental liberties. That is what the Bible exalts in interpretation to grant righteous peer authority to dictate what is right and wrong. Many in our community who feel desperate to halt social evolutions of (their opinions of) deviant culture, want to connect the institution of marriage between homosexuals as all systematic contributors or results of homosexuality that which they consider deviancy. It’s such a desperate prescription to try to halt a bigger social problem that gay marriage did not contribute to. To hope to turn time back to a closeted era when homosexuality existed only to hide in shame and be scarlet-lettered, retreating to suppression tactics will not eradicate the real problem: primitive mindsets in our churches and archaic, socialized familial frameworks within our communities.
We, the People of California (and the United States) talk a good game... but we are no better than the Slave Owners, Segregationists and Fear Mongers we so despise. It is that simple.
Dr. Harris-Lacewell,
Thank you for posting this. As you say, the state has no business telling churches what marriage is, and churches have no business telling the state what marriage is. My husband was raised in the Catholic church and I was not. His church would not recognize our marriage, but the state does. Gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same right.
It's so important when we talk about civil rights to look to our own actions. To ask what injustices are we helping to perpetuate - not just what injustices are we suffering. My tears of joy at the election of Barack Obama were tempered this week with tears of sadness at the ignorance and bigotry directed at the GLBT community.
Dr. Harris-Lacewell, thank you for your post. I appreciate all the comments that have been left here -- they help me feel a little less lonely, and a little less sad about the successful anti-gay Prop 8 movement in Californa.
I believe -- I hope -- that Obama will lead the way to recognizing the full citizenship rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals AND transgender people (shamefully, transwomen, transmen, and transgender people are excluded from mainstream rights discourse).
Radical change on a national level isn't the product of consensus -- radical change, in part, requires a leader -- a brave, insightful, compassionate leader, who possesses a broad sense of and deep commitment to social justice.
The continuing inequality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is wrong. I don't believe that queer people can rely on other oppressed groups to recognize their complicity in heterosexism -- I believe it will take a courageous and powerful few who hears the voices of queer activists and responds to what they hear by enacting change on a legislative level.
As a queer black woman, I am deeply saddened, and at times, enraged by some African Americans resistance to conducting themselves as allies to lgbtq people. I also understand that Christianity -- which is (just) one major source of African Americans heterosexism & homophobia -- sustained African Americans through a range, breadth and intensity of oppression that is difficult to convey in words -- slavery, mass lynchings, organized rape campaigns, Jim Crow, post-Civil Rights era "legal lynchings" (police murders), a racist prison system hungry for the bodies of black women and men, etc.,. For many African Americans, becoming/acting as real allies to lgbtq people would require them (in their minds) to violate their deepest moral principles -- to turn away from God. I get that.
A movement against heterosexism in the black church has to happen INSIDE black churches. Lgbtq people are present in black congregations and in the pulpit! But what will it take to bring about change in black churches on an institutional level?
I think change just might start with a president who signs legislation guarenteeing full protection and full equality under the law for same-sex unions (Let straight folks keep marriage! Let the issue of gay marriage be battled out inside churches. Equal rights and legally protected same-sex civil unions are just fine with me).
1000s of lgbtq people put their faith in President-elect Barack Obama... we'll see what he does with all those hopes, all those dreams, all that faith... we'll see.
I blogged about this earlier today because I am so mad. I don't understand why so many people in this country don't understand the concept of mutual recognition in a pluralistic society. It is sad. :(
http://www.acouplethings.com/blog/2008/11/im-still-mad-about-prop-8/
Direct democracy is far too susceptible to the tyranny of the majority, as we saw in California on election day. Allowing a bare majority of voters to change the Constitution based on a single day's vote is lunacy. True, the fault does lie mostly with the ignorance and bigotry of those who voted "yes"- but it is also a flaw in the governmental system, which is supposed to be an impartial protector of minority rights. The framers of the national constitution avoided giving the people too much direct power precisely because they knew that intolerance is a fact of human nature. Given the chance, people will inevitably attempt to marginalize those who differ from the perceived norm. Why does the political structure of California fail to guard against this?
I am furious at Black people for being the largest supporters of a bigoted prop 8! Talk about a hypocritical block of people!
THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE!
Hi all,
I would like to throw my support behind the fundamental's of deluxe's message: that POC didn't turn out in opposition of Prop 8 because they were ignored by the campaign. However, I would like to say that it is more complicated than the above reality.
First, saying that POC have to be solicited in order to cast a just vote alleviates them of responsibility and has the potential to condescend abilities of the non-white portion of the California electorate self-educate.
Second, the campaign was generally a terrible one. First, two months ago, Prop 8 looked destined for failure, and all trends since then have been bad. This happens to coincide with the influx of registrations from POC in preparation for the general election. It is my understanding that this campaign was focused not on the white population of California, but the traditional electorate of California (which happened to be overwhelmingly white). Organizers of the campaign, among other failures, failed to recognize the HUGE change in their demographic until it was too late--that is two weeks before election day. By that time they were so far behind the religious right that had been advertising and campaigning statewide (because their budget, unlike the left's, was almost open-ended from the get go) since the primaries.
On another note, there are two tragic consequences of this vote. 1) It REMOVED rights from a population, not denied them, REMOVED them. 2) As the U.S. began to gain favor in the eyes of the world, as some international friends of indicated with astonishment, the citizenry of the United States has the power to deny rights to people. I.e., the international (mostly European, although it has emerged in other parts of the world) opinion of this result is not one of disappointment or approval, but of astonishment that in this, the self-appointed great democracy in the world, people can vote to deny rights of others.
Perhaps our new president will change his view of gay marriage, and transform his quiet opposition to Prop 8 (yes the same population that supported president-elect Obama in such overwhelming numbers voted to support a proposition he opposed) into making sexuality, by federal mandate, a protected class.
The No on 8 campaign waited until the last minute to advertise in Black, Asian and Latino neighborhoods long solicited by Yes on 8. In LA County, folks on the ground say the No on 8 campaign didn't canvass in Black neighborhoods; they put Black voters in a "tier 3" status on phone banks, and tier 3 meant that people, and there weren't advertisements run in Black papers.
So, while I agree with many of the other points Becky made, I have to respectfully disagree and say that soliciting and on the ground work matters very much, particularly when Yes on 8 were using targeted ads to influence communities of color, including, for example, ads of a blatant lie about Obama supporting Prop 8, which he didn't. The No on 8 campaign didn't have the relationships needed to counter the negative advertising, campaigning and tactics used by Yes on 8, especially the lies. Let alone that the majority of the advertising that came from the campaign was white people.
Bigotry is bigotry and that this proposition removed rights for gay and lesbian people is wrong -- 100%.
But, I'm not down with the way the media is placing blame, particularly on Black people. You don't win campaigns by not engaging and talking with constituents, particularly those who will be turning out in large numbers to vote on election day. That's just not smart strategy, and the campaign recognizes that now -- albeit too late. The ground game didn't meet the match -- at least not this time. But what's happening now is the blame game, and that needs to end. People need to learn from this, and move forward, and do the work to build the alliances needed to win.
I agree. I believe children should be allowed to marry their parents, since they often love each other. And people who are already married should be allowed to marry, if they are in love- sometimes they love both their spouse and someone else.
In reality, this desire is a self-regulatory measure of the overpopulated (aka “civilized”) western world, that is now in decline: note how prop 8 was decided by black and latin vote- peoples that are here to replace you, aging white civilization.
Fantastic article, Melissa. I voted for Barack Obama and am ecstatic that America has elected its first African-American president, but I was also terribly disappointed to hear that although Obama opposed Prop 8, he also opposed same-sex marriage.
TO ALL WHO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE:
Most of you approve of separate domestic partnerships for gay people, but please listen to why that doesn't work.
The federal and state governments give married people about 1400 rights which are NOT easily codified in a single enforceable legal document. Domestic partnerships permit some of the 400 state rights and NONE of the 1000 federal ones. This leaves us to seek inclusion in the one word that currently encompasses all 1400: "marriage". That's all we're asking.
We can say that the state cannot define marriage for the church and the church cannot define marriage for the state. But marriage is the one church act we perform that also has legal implications. On this subject, the church and state remain significantly intertwined, and unless and until we separate the government provided privileges of marriage from the spiritual blessing of marriages by churches, church and state will continue to tell each other what marriage means.
Proposition 8 was decided in our churches--regular church attenders were the most likely to support it (83%) and even people who "occasionally" attend church supported it strongly (41%). LGBT folks and queer allies of all colors need to get back into our churches. It's a lot harder to condemn someone to their face, and a lot of us have walked away from our churches in fear, shame, and outrage. This has created a space where pastors and church leaders can speak out against homosexuality without challenge.
So while gay marriage may be a civil matter, as long as churches are preaching against it, funding propositions, and effectively denying people civil rights with their ecclesial power, it also remains a religious matter.
Thank you, Ms. Harris-Lacewell. My mom used to tell me all the time, "I don't care what the white kids do. Just don't YOU do it." I'm so sick of hearing, "Well, so-and-so voted against it, too! It's not just us!" No, it's not. But it IS us in record numbers. This is embarrassing. Maybe that's why my joy over Obama is so muted.
Ms. Lacewell while I usually agree and apllaud your earlier comments I think you are WAYYYYYYY off about this. First off if people want to talk 'hypocrites' how about the gay community itself?!! Those people give the bogots of the conservative community a run for their money and have for a LONG time but now they want to bitch cause things didn't go their way?!! Don't think so and not only is Dan Savage a racist and a-hole HE'S a hypocrite I've heard for years from black folks who are gay that they gay community is full of racist creeps yet the likes of Savage NEVER address this gee wonder why. He is just another privileged white snot who wants to play victim so he doesn't have to face his OWN prejudices well I'm not for oppression olympics especially from white males. Gay or not and if it really is so the 'same' then I want a 'don't ask,don't tell' policy oh that's RIGHT I don't get one!!
This issue works both ways. When white gays get over their cognitive dissonance of being an oppressed minority and having white privilege, maybe they will be able to address the black community as equals and actually fight for the black vote.
sorry i went back and read that one sentence was chopped (not sure what happened) but it should have read that "tier 3 meant that people weren't called" -- thanks
Anonymous, you wrote: "First off if people want to talk 'hypocrites' how about the gay community itself?!! Those people give the bogots of the conservative community a run for their money and have for a LONG time but now they want to bitch cause things didn't go their way?!!"
The "gay community" itself is hypocritical?
Why? The whole community is "hypocritical" because some people happen to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or queer AND therefore happen to share communal spaces with racist white lgbtq people and conservative lgbtq people of all races?
You yourself note that the gay community is comprised of gay (and lesbian and bisexual and transgender and queer) people of color - we (lgbtq people of color) are certainly not hypocritical when we ask that our racial equality/rights AND sexual and gender equality/rights be legally recognized by state governments and the federal government. It would be nice if heterosexual people recognized our humanity and equal rights too -- but if lgbtq equality is recognized on the level of law -- then straight folks, like mid-20th century white segregationists, will have to live with the fact that our equality has been recognized on a legislative level.
If you want to critique the racism of many lgbtq white people -- then do that but please don't blast the entire community for asking for what we deserve: the legal acknowledgment of our HUMAN rights and to live in a society where we are not targeted for sexual and physical violence in the form of intimidation, harassment, rape and murder because we are NOT heterosexual and gender-conforming. The right not to lose our job, home, visit our sick and dying partners in the hospital, maintain parental rights over adopted children of deceased partners, and property rights in the even that our partners die -- that would be great too.
I am disappointed in, sometimes infuriated by and always critical of U.S. American white lgbtq people that refuse to challenge racist ideas and practices ESPECIALLY when they actively support/pursue "gay" rights. I am very critical of white lgbtq people who are pro-gay rights AND express racist ideas and engage in racist practices -- and I very clearly understand that their whiteness -- their racial privilege makes them involuntary and deliberately complicit in the racist oppression of people of color.
However, white lgbtq folks' racism may make them hypocrites but it DOES NOT make their demands for equality illegitimate or invalid.
The fact that many white lgbtq people are racist (and bigoted in other ways) and that all white lgbtq access white privilege (to varying degrees based on class status, ability, gender expression etc) DOES NOT make them any less entitled than any other human being or group of human beings to equal rights.
Again, white lgbtq folks racism makes them racist, deluded and wrong -- but it doesn't make them undeserving of equal rights.
And like them, please don't forget lgbtq people of color -- as a group -- we do not have the same power and privilege in the community as white lgbtq people (as our community's institutions and voices are dominated by white middle and upper class gay men).
When heterosexual people of color fail to acknowledge that the sexual and gender inequality of lgbtq people of color is just plain unjust (and immoral, as far as I am concerned) -- those heterosexual people of color prove themselves to be hypocrites who are openly committed to maintaining the oppression of lgbtq people of color -- which is by the way very similar to racist white lgbtq people who want "gay" rights but fail to support anti-racist ideas, principles, practices and policies.
Dr. Harris-Lacewell's post proves that many African Americans -- African American Christians in specific -- identify and resist their own racial oppression WHILE uncritically supporting the oppression of -- while actively participating in the oppression of lgbtq people of ALL races.
It is entirely accurate to identify this trend among black Christians as hypocritical.
What we need -- what queer people of color like me need -- is for black people like Dr. Harris-Lacewell to vocally oppose bigotry of all forms in our own communities -- including anti-gay discrimination. Lgbtq people need people of color like Dr. Harris-Lacewell to call folks out on their naked, unabashed, unapologetic hypocrisy and urge folks to be different.
African Americans and people of color, in general, who ask/want white people to take a good long hard realistic look at themselves and their racism and their participation in racism (or at least criticize white folks for NOT doing so) should also be willing to look at THEMSELVES with regard to sexism/gender oppression, heterosexism/homophobia, xenophobia, classism, abelism etc.,.
But that is not the tendency of people who belong to oppressed groups. Our tendency is to (at the very least) identify our own unjust oppression while also participating in the oppression in others.
Clearly, the virus of hypocrisy doesn't just infect white lgbtq people of color.
Will you join lgbtq people of color and their straight allies in opposing heterosexist oppression? Or will you offer arguments that implicitly justify people of colors' heterosexism, and white heterosexism as well?
Paula: Thank you for enlightening me -- I didn't know that civil union legislation would not translate into full equality for lesbigay people sans the "marriage" title.
Can you provide links? or suggest book/article titles?
Thanks.
I am truly disappointed with the results of Prop 8. I am not a resident of California; however, this would have set a precedent that would have given other states a platform to follow.
What confounds me is the number of black gays that supported Prop 8. Most of them are the same black gays that are ashamed of their sexuality as they hide behind the bible in justifying their demise. The same shame suppresses important information and education that can help curb the increase of HIV/AIDS in the black community. I really don't understand this mentality.
Is it not hypocritical to celebrate the milestone of having an African-American President, while also celebrating denying civil liberties to a group of people who are mistreated and discriminated against?
I am sitting here in tears again. This time they are tears of relief at finding this commentary. On Tuesday, they were tears of joy, followed by tears of disappointment. I live in California, and married my partner of 7 years on September 20th. I am a latina and my partner (wife?) is white. We had a big wedding, mostly because of my family, which showed up in droves. It made me very proud of my family, and my heritage. To find out later that as a community, latinos approved prop 8 is a blow to me, a very personal one. Yet I can't abide the finger pointing from my white friends, either. I saw in the Advocate today that 27% of gay voters voted for McCain. It went on to say that it was the most support a Republican candidate has ever received. So this cuts both ways for me.
"I am most sickened because black people were so critically important to legislating this bigotry."
I call bullsh*t on that one point: the black population of California is less than 10%. So while most of us voted wrong, we are *NOT* solely or even mostly responsible for the passage of Prop 8. There are more than a few people of other colors who voted for the ban -- as evidenced by the number of votes cast.
I think it's a very convenient device for existing power structures to categorize the LGBTQ and black communities as distinct and non-overlapping groups and then to pitch us against each other.
Most of my queer and black friends (and black queer friends) are much more open to working toward justice and a more harmonious world than my straight white friends. If black folk and queer folk were to come together (as we already do in some bodies), what might the struggle for justice look like, and how do we make it happen?
What if the kitchen table folks tracked down news articles from the last week and responded with letters to the editor offering a more nuanced and accurate perspective? It's not much, but it would be a start. Otherwise the churches who funded and backed this thing (largely white) are going to get away with scapegoating the black community. I'm off to send some letters...
Keep it Peaceful Today!
Because of everyone's support in organizing this event, the word is out and we are expecting thousands of people to show up to march down Market St. tonight.
Let's continue to get the word out! Please pick up some flyers at Club Card Printing on Market between 16th and Noe.
We are in the process of trying to organize an event in Dolores Park once the march is over as well. If you have any type resources to contribute to that please contact me at: alphabetagaga87@gmail.com
Please keep it peaceful tonight! We will be most effective if we have a big peaceful protest. A big riot will only hurt our cause.
We all need to work together to bring down proposition 8. Let's not blame any church or any race. As a person of color, I take it personally when people talk about how racial minorities were responsible for passing proposition 8. We're marching against hate, not to create more hate!
We are protesting tonight in San Francisco because it was in San Francisco that the California Supreme Court gave equality to all Californians, and many people who helped us get to that point are based in San Francisco. We're not going to do nothing, we're going to start with a march tonight but we're not going to stop until we have equality again!
I was stunned when I realized that the black vote was being counted upon - and came through apparently - for Prop 8. After all of my life bitching people out for being racist etc., I felt betrayed, frustrated and in a panic. With the momentum gained for the support of Prop 8, I wondered will there ever be a realization by other oppressed groups that they should be careful not to do the same thing my community and people?
Of course, I know that not every black person feels this way. My best friend is a black woman who was there for me without hesitation when I decided to come out about 10 years ago. It just sickens me that once again religion is the excuse for further oppression.
Funny, I remember "The Bible" is supposed to say a few things that other groups may find offensive etc. And, I further recall that "The Bible" was edited by man (and not as divinely inspired as one would think).
Regardless of all that, I don't want to denounce a religious belief system of anyone but instead throw out a bit of caution -- exclusion and oppression don't strike me as the characteristics of a Divine Creator...rather, it smacks of manipulation of a small minded human being.
BTW - I caught Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Rachel Maddow's show and I loved it. I will be bookmarking the web site. I look forward to more thought provoking discussions and ideas.
It was not a surprise that black folks overwhelmingly supported the ban on lesbian and gay marriage through Proposition 8. Black people are mistakenly thought to be liberal, but are really only a civil rights that is about their own advancement. They are just as clueless about civil rights for other groups as whites are about civil rights for blacks.
Incidently, I found someone's reference to Sarah Palin as a "uterus" so insulting to women in politics as the "penis's" that have occupied the White House since the day they built it.
Now how many women were at Obama's big meeting with 17 leaders of the economic world today? How many black women were there?
Hi folks, I just want to clarify that my post about the march last night was my words. it actually came from this blog: http://protest8.blogspot.com/2008/11/keep-it-peaceful-tonight.html
The march was amazing by the way! :)
As a black heterosexual woman, married with children it breaks my heart that gay and lesbian couples are not "allowed" to marry.
I grew up not in the church but in the Islamic faith. As I grew older and formed my own opinions, I believed that people can't control who they love. It's a sad day when black people achieve a milestone like Obama's election and then are in part responsible for gays rights being taken away. How does gay marriage hurt my marriage? It doesn't.
A great book: I Do I Don't: Queers on Marriage, edited by Greg Wharton and Jan Philips. 130 or so short essays by queer folk on the subject of marriage--some for it, some against it. Some of it is funny, sad, offensive and beautiful, but all of the essays are thoughtful and taken together give an idea of the breadth of the LGBTQ community.
Thanks to Dr. H-L and (most) commenters for a sane discussion. Came here from Racialicious, first visit to this blog.
I too have joy at President-Elect (just had to type that) Obama's success, and disappointment at the passage of Prop 8 and the Florida prop despite majorities for Obama. Admittedly, the propositions don't affect me directly (I live in one of the 30 states with anti-marriage amendments), and so I paid most attention to the federal races.
Yes, in the white LGBT and allies world, there will be a lot of "because blacks know discrimination, they should ally with gays" arguments.
Well, there's that old saying, "to have a friend, BE a friend". We white LGBTs often don't know much about black national and local issues of most concern, black national and local history and political history, experiences in general - and without knowing a minimum about some group's or someone's concerns, it's pretty hard to be a useful ally. And if the public face of the LGBT movement is white, it reinforces the commonly held belief by many groups that only people in OTHER groups engage in unpopular behavior X. (During the 16th century and forward, syphilis was called the "French disease" by the English, the "English disease" by the French, and so on...). So I can understand that most church-going blacks would prefer to think that all out gays are white, and Not Their Problem.
I would like people to view this as an indicator of work to be done and not as a blamefest. Both white LGBTs and black straights need to know a little bit about each others' concerns. I think that it is up to the white LGBTA community to start being useful allies in black political and community projects - help stuff envelopes, enter data, do food runs for volunteers - volunteer on Habitat for Humanity builds, have a fundraiser for one of the community-run 9th ward Katrina survivor health clinics, show up at a local rally against police brutality, whatever. Be civic minded, and combat the stereotype that LGBTs are all about partying, snobs, in showbiz, etc.
The hard part goes to the black LGBTs/SGLs - showing the general black communities that they are sons, daughters, neighbors, classmates, etc. - enduring their home church's pastor's lectures and pointed sermons, and if called and able, challenging the usual Scriptural interpretation by providing other interpretations - and other humiliation and maybe danger in the home community. This "heart education" can't be done by strangers. All that white LGBTs can do to help is to provide a safe haven instead of ignoring or de facto excluding black LGBTs from activities and venues.
Prop 8 voting is over. Time to acknowledge that no one group voted 100% no, that we all have work to do within our communities. Time to work on education and alliances. Time also to recognize that the national priority at this moment is the economy, that Obama's political capital will be engaged in the economy (and war), and that LGBT concerns (aside from obtaining a White House liason) will and should be shelved for the moment, to be brought up in the late spring or early summer (inclusive ENDA should be the first item).
Just my 2 electrons...
NancyP
I know this is a blog by some PS folks, so I come here as someone who knows how to count.
1) This is one poll of 224 black voters. We know exit polls are biased and misleading because they are not random or even quasi-random samples.
2) There are numerous polls that showed that black support for Prop 8 was below 50%.
3) Given (1) and (2), why are we swallowing whole this 70/30 number? It is mot likely wrong. The reason: it conforms to what we believe about black people. It allows others (and some of us) to demonize black people. We beieve it because we want to.
4) We need to talk about homophobia in the black community, but not because of some faulty statistic. Let's get our facts straight and then have a discusion.
Please get it right anonymous who suggested that there are no Black women among Obama's closest advisers. Prominent Black Chicagoan Valerie Jarrett is a senior Obama adviser and is co-chairwoman of his transition committee.
Also, Black people are members of the LGBTQ community and always have been. As much as I am disappointed that some (not all) Black people supported this measure, be clear that the African-American community, despite the existence of homophobia in the community, has nurtured many of its gay and lesbian family members. Black voters in Texas voted the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan into office when it was widely known that she was a lesbian. Black Americans have not thrown away their geniuses such as Lorraine Hansberry or James Baldwin because they were gay. Again, I am not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the African-American community. Just remember that historically Black sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual) has been render illegible in many cases and distorted in others because of the legacy of white supremacy and the racist sexual stereotypes of Blacks that continue to pervade American popular culture and influence social and public policy. So, I would argue that people pay attention to the nuances that exist in African-American resistance strategies to the historical and public hypersexualization of their bodies and ask oneself how such understanding could complicate this entire discussion.
I ask how much time did the leadership of the white LGBTQ community spend canvasing in the Black community prior to Election Day? Was it done in sincerity and with respect to the various African-American communities located throughout the state?
Please don't act like white supremacy, misogyny, and discrimination against transgender people are not present among the formal leadership of the LGBTQ community, i.e. largely white, elite, gay men. Be honest. I believe that if the movement had truly acknowledged the importance of African-American political support in the campaign against Proposition 8 and spent several months building support within California's Black community (still only 6% of the population) instead of waiting until the last minute as they did, a good portion of the African Americans who supported Prop. 8 would not have.
Please get it right anonymous who suggested that there are no Black women among Obama's closest advisers. Prominent Black Chicagoan Valerie Jarrett is a senior Obama adviser and is co-chairwoman of his transition committee.
Also, Black people are members of the LGBTQ community and always have been. As much as I am disappointed that some (not all) Black people supported this measure, be clear that the African-American community, despite the existence of homophobia in the community, has nurtured many of its gay and lesbian family members. Black voters in Texas voted the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan into office when it was widely known that she was a lesbian. Black Americans have not thrown away their geniuses such as Lorraine Hansberry or James Baldwin because they were gay. Again, I am not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the African-American community. Just remember that historically Black sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual) has been render illegible in many cases and distorted in others because of the legacy of white supremacy and the racist sexual stereotypes of Blacks that continue to pervade American popular culture and influence social and public policy. So, I would argue that people pay attention to the nuances that exist in African-American resistance strategies to the historical and public hypersexualization of their bodies and ask oneself how such understanding could complicate this entire discussion.
I ask how much time did the leadership of the white LGBTQ community spend canvasing in the Black community prior to Election Day? Was it done in sincerity and with respect to the various African-American communities located throughout the state?
Please don't act like white supremacy, misogyny, and discrimination against transgender people are not present among the formal leadership of the LGBTQ community, i.e. largely white, elite, gay men. Be honest. I believe that if the movement had truly acknowledged the importance of African-American political support in the campaign against Proposition 8 and spent several months building support within California's Black community (still only 6% of the population) instead of waiting until the last minute as they did, a good portion of the African Americans who supported Prop. 8 would not have.
As the parent of a gay son, I am disturbed that we would continue to deny his rights. However, this has been a tremendous opportunity to educate my son and daughter on the topic of injustice.
As a result of his education and having an activist mother, my son has created campus campaigns @ UPenn and mentoring programs @ Cardozo Law to support other LGBT students.
Both of my California children are now activists because of Prop 8. In the end, we will all be free. There's just some more work to do and we are more than willing and capable to triumph over injustice.
And as SGI-USA Buddhists, we embrace diversity and celebrate "marriage" between all couples.
Hi. Thanks for starting this thread. First -- the black vote was very bad. It simply demonstrates the homphobia that black gays and lesbians endure in their families and communities. Second, this is basically a battle between white gay racism and black homophobia. The two communities could align on many issues, but they do not because of class, race, etc. Unless they work through these issues, you will continue to see this. Finally, Obama voicing opposition to same-sex marriage (and Democrats remaining silent did not help). I blogged on this issue several times.
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-californians-and-proposition-8-is.html
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/same-sex-marriage-and-racial-justice.html
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/split-ticket-what-californias-battle.html
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/strong-support-for-california-anti-gay.html
I think the black community is being scapegoated and it saddens me to read some of these comments that seem to solely blame blacks for Prop 8 passing. As stated earlier, blacks comprise less than 10% of the population of California, yet over 50% of voters supported it. The measure was funded and supported in large measure by white voters abd white money in California, yet they seem to escape the blame while members of the lesbian and gay community go on websites and to rallies and call blacks niggers. I understand being disappointed but I don't understand the unabashed racism that is in response to what some perceive as homophobia in the black community. There has been no discussion about 50% of voters in San Francisco who didn't vote. There has been no mention of the fact that the gay community supported McCain in greater numbers than they did Bush in 2004. I wonder why? Poor organization and a tendency to stick their heads in the sand rather than getting out and doing outreach led to the passage of Prop 8 not malice and prejudice by a 6% minority. It is beyond sad to see whites blame blacks but it is even sadder to see black people buying into this nonsense and lending it credence. And can we please stop equating being black with being gay? I understand that we are both minorities but there the similarity ends. Dan Savage has an outlet to spew his racist nonsense and no one points out the hypocrisy of his words; yet post after post blames blacks and labels them as hypocrites who should be grateful for all they (gays)have done for us. Gays and lesbians who are on the streets of California calling their black brothers and sisters, niggers, surely know that the two groups (blacks and gays) are not the same and should not be equated. Just like the second wave feminists showed their a** when it was Obama and Clinton and let loose with a wave of racist rhetoric the gay community has done the same thing. I wish Prop 8 would not have passed but as my mother said, I thank the gay community for showing me who they are and I know that they are not genuinely interested in forming coalitions and getting things done because as soon as an issue pops up they will resort back to the race baiting that has been perfected over the years by their straight brethren. There are reasons for a whole host of people to be ashamed by what has transpired and it's not only those that voted in favor of Prop 8.
In response to Melissa's interview on MSNBC, using language from the Civil Rights Movement in the fight for gay rights almost always fails. Whenever a tie is attempted to be established between what blacks experienced back in the days and what gays are experiencing today, an uproar is elicited from the African American community because people do not believe the two issues are fundamentally equivalent. How else can the gay community reach out to blacks in America, I wonder.
I think the black community is being scapegoated and it saddens me to read some of these comments that seem to solely blame blacks for Prop 8 passing. As stated earlier, blacks comprise less than 10% of the population of California, yet over 50% of voters supported it.
I am a former financial analyst who really dug deep into the numbers. The math is complicated, so rather than post a zillion words here I'll give you a link to my post at Pam's House Blend. In short: We can't say for certain yet, but there's a pretty good chance that the black vote put Prop. 8 over the top.
The measure was funded and supported in large measure by white voters and white money in California, yet they seem to escape the blame while members of the lesbian and gay community go on websites and to rallies and call blacks niggers.
There are a few things to say about this. First off, I'm not letting anyone off the hook. Second, from what I have read, there was one person at one rally who used the word, "nigger!" It was offensive, hateful, and stupid. Many, many more people have denounced it. Now, it's really up to you as to whether you're going to focus on some idiot's hatred and allow it to set the tone of your thinking.
I don't think hatred should be ignored, but I don't think it should be cherished and fetishized and flung back around, either. Hatred is the dullest knife in the drawer, but for some damn reason it's what everyone wants to wave around. Are there racists in the gay community. Yes, there are. But they are vastly outnumbered.
I understand being disappointed but I don't understand the unabashed racism that is in response to what some perceive as homophobia in the black community.
Look, what you're hearing is the cries of people who are deeply wounded by the reality of homophobia in the black community. Not the perception, but the reality. It's a fact, and it's something we need to deal with as gay people.
I believe that if the movement had truly acknowledged the importance of African-American political support in the campaign against Proposition 8 and spent several months building support within California's Black community (still only 6% of the population) instead of waiting until the last minute as they did, a good portion of the African Americans who supported Prop. 8 would not have.
I've read that criticism elsewhere. As someone who doesn't live in California but who wanted Prop 8 to fail because of California's trend-setting role, I am disappointed but not surprised.
The leaders of gay political organizations can be shockingly myopic. Does anyone remember when the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy was being debated in 1993? The gay organizations were approached by veterans who begged them to have gay veterans testify in congressional hearings. It never happened, because the leaders of these organizations wanted to sit in those committee rooms and hear themselves talk instead. What you think is racism might be simple incompetence.
Something to point out: In 2004, blacks were 6.7% of California's population but 7.56% of the voting-age population and 8.08% of the actual voters. This is because only citizens can vote, and because among citizens, the black turnout rate is far higher than turnout among Asian citizens or Latino citizens.
In 2008, I think it's likely that blacks were between 9% and 10% of the vote on Prop 8. I explain why in this posting on Pam's House Blend.
What a bunch of racist heterophobes.
tbanks for posting this...
Wow. I think this posting has gotten more comments than any other at The Kitchen Table. It is a reposting of an piece I wrote long before the Prop 8 vote actually took place, so it is not an attempt to place blame. My interest is specifically in thinking about how to create a new conversation that addresses the intersection of black folks and gay folks (who are often the same folks as I pointed out in this article.)
I am a heterosexual woman who find the passage of Prop 8 disgusting. As someone deeply committed to movements of racial justice, I truly hoped that the if Prop 8 passed, it would only have passed with tremendous resistance on the part of black and brown communities. I am sad that we had any part at all in its passage.
I am also deeply hurt by the flood of hate mail, email, and even hateful faxes from members of the queer community who felt I was blaming them during my MSNBC appearance. I am an ally in this struggle, perhaps and imperfect one, but an ally nonetheless.
I hope that the hateful language I have endured the past few days helps me to find a greater solidarity with those who have had their civil rights stripped by members of their own community. I can tell it must be terribly painful. I truly pray that we are moving toward a healing, a reconciliation, and an equality that we have not yet known as a country.
MHL
While everyone is running off their mouths,
Did anyone stop to think that many black voters did not vote on the proposition?
I know that I skipped New York's proposition whatever that was.
Is this the first time that the LGBT community realized that there existed a highly conservative church going portion of the black community?
Until these questions, I am not bothering with this situation because it has gotten hurtful and ugly. Whatever, coalition that could have been formed between the black community and the LGBT community has been destroyed.
Nate Silver, the guy at fivethirtyeight.com who did an incredible job with statistics and polls on the elections, dug into the prop 8 statistics a little bit. Here's his brief article:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
I definitely agree. I think that the community should recognize the effect of this. While I am not Homosexual, I still feel that they should have the same rights as everyone else.
Check out my Blog about the next step http://savvywords.blogspot.com/
Savvy Inc. said... "I still feel that they should have the same rights as everyone else."
Well, they already have exactly the same rights - they have the right to marry the person of their choice of the opposite sex. Similarly, they are being denied the same "right" as everyone else - they can't marry someone of the same sex.
How can anyone see any discrimination in these two facts?
I am deeply upset by the passage of Prop 8, and I regard this as a deeply religious issue. I am an African American woman and a Unitarian Universalist minister. My congregation includes several gay and lesbian couples and families. Because same sex marriage is not legal in NY, this interferes with my religious practice; as I practice my faith, nothing separates us from the love of God. I cannot minister to my people equally, though I try as hard as I can. But I should be able to marry two people who love each other!
7 REASONS WHY I VOTED FOR AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8.
There are several legal and social reasons why proposition 8 is legal and necessary.
1. PERMITTING GAY MARRIAGE IS A DISTORTION AND ASSAULT ON THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
The biggest lie that the homosexual propaganda machine has promulgated, and much of the American public has accepted, is that this is about discrimination.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!
It is an absolute insult and huge set back to the Civil Rights Movement and resulting legislation to allow special interest groups with a political agenda, like homosexual activists, to play the “race card” whenever they can’t get their way.
Homosexuals are not a class eligible for protection under civil rights statutes. Federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court have limited civil rights protections to specific the groups/classifications, which are limited to the following: 1) race/national origin, 2) age 3)gender, and there are also protections for persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It’s a short list, and homosexuals are not on it, nor should they be.
The thing that each of these groups has in common that warrants special legal protection is a long and ugly historically proven denial or restriction of access to education, health care, jobs, and other economic opportunities or benefits due to circumstances for which they have no choice or control.
2. GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BECOME A PROTECTED CIVIL RIGHT BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT HAVE THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT WARRANT SPECIAL LEGAL PROTECTION.
Homosexuals are by no means a historically disadvantaged group or vulnerable class. Homosexuality is a matter of “Sexual Preference,” not sexual restriction, and does not make them a class of people entitled to special protection. Homosexuals are not being disenfranchised as human beings or denied any basic human rights. Gays are a group of people who share a view point or preference for a particular mode of sexual expression that differs from the larger group that prefers something different. Homosexuality is not a race, gender, or condition, but a preference, and as such, it is not anymore entitled to special legal privileges than any other view point based group. Much of the hostility gays have suffered is at least partially attributable the fact that they have aggressive pushed their view point on the American public and tried to force others to accept, approve, and legally validate their preference. Gays and other people engaged in unusual or aberrant sexual practices suffer little or no ill treatment so long as they keep their private lives private and no one gets hurt. It is an unfortunate reality that sex is a very sensitive topic in this and most societies, and the choice to engage in sexual behavior that differs from the mainstream does have some consequences, but gays are not singled out on this issue. Could men who like to have sex with underage girls be as vocal about their sexual preference and find acceptance and sympathy for their view point? What about polygamists? Aren’t they all just looking for love in whatever way appeals to them? Ironically, laws prohibiting marriage for these groups aren’t declared discriminatory.
Racial discrimination and gay marriage are two issues that should never be compared because they are as different as night and day. I was born and will die an African American woman. I wake up every day and deal with all the social and economic consequences that come with this reality. Despite some advances, most African Americans still have to be smarter and work harder and longer to earn just a fraction of the privileges and opportunities that most Caucasians take for granted. My race and gender are genetic facts that are beyond medical science; they are not optional and there has not been one day of my entire life that I could choose differently. By contrast, all homosexuals have lived as heterosexuals for some portion of their lives and retain the option to choose differently if the burdens outweigh the benefits. No one is born gay or straight, and sexual choice was certainly not an issue before sexual attraction was an issue, generally during adolescence or later. It is a choice, even if its a difficult one.
I find it deeply offensive when people compare rejection of the campaign for gay marriage to the cruel torture, genocide, and immeasurable social and economic oppression that African Americans have suffered in the struggle for equality. My parents and grandparents did not endure slavery, lynching's, segregation, dogs, and fire hoses, to legalize homosexual marriage. Notwithstanding the recent election of Barak Obama, racial discrimination is still very much a current and real issue in this country. To permit gay activists to manipulate the hard fought civil rights laws penned with the blood of my ancestors is a sobering slap in the face, even while we as a nation celebrate and pat ourselves on the back for the symbolic “change” signified by the 2008 presidential election. Increasing sentiment accepting these false claims of “discrimination” made by gay activists and their supporters dilutes and trivializes the purpose and spirit of civil rights legislation.
3. GAY MARRIAGE REPRESENTS A REAL THREAT TO FREE SPEECH.
The continued expansion of the homosexual agenda has increasingly become an attack on our First Amendment Right to Free Speech. Over the last several years, increasing proliferation of the idea that any statement that criticizes, disagrees with, or opposes homosexuality in any way, has been regarded socially, and increasingly politically, as discrimination and elevated to the status of a racial slur. It has become career suicide to call someone a homosexual, even if they are! Free speech is ultimately about free thinking and the right to expression, and that is what is at stake. As Americans, we used to be free to dislike, disagree with, and even exclude people for an infinite number of socially and legally acceptable reasons.
You can still tease or criticize people who are over-weight, old, short, funny looking, unfashionable, etc, and its perfectly ok. And what about attorneys, who are clearly the most hated group in America because of their chosen profession? But after a very successful marketing campaign, homosexuals have become a hyper-protected special interest group with an insatiable appetite for privileges that jeopardize the rights of others to disagree with them. Opponents to Prop 8 make ridiculous statements like “chickens have more rights in California than gays,” pointing to a ballot measure that was passed under which chickens got the right to have cages big enough to stretch their legs. So far there have been no reported incidents of any chickens getting married. Gays have been extraordinarily successful in convincing others that they are disadvantaged and mistreated. The homosexual agenda is intent on driving heterosexuals “into the closet” and prohibiting any speech that gay activists don’t approve of. It is to the point that much of the media will demonize anyone who dares to challenge the gay rights agenda. Making anti gay speech into a discrimination issue is aimed at making the heterosexual viewpoint illegal, both as a matter of civil and criminal law. The news has been littered with examples of public figures who have suffered swift and extreme political, professional, and social consequences for expressing heterosexual view points.
The right to free speech is very much at risk, and the cost for sentimentality for gay privilege will cost far more than most people realize.
4. GAY MARRIAGE IS A THREAT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.
Religious institutions are increasingly facing loss of their tax exempt status and expensive law suits if they exclude or refuse to marry homosexuals. Faith based entities are being forced to hire homosexuals and put them in positions of leadership even though it violates fundamental moral and religious principles that are central to their religious beliefs. Despite all of the failures and shortcomings of individuals and marriages, the institution of marriage is the foundation for family, which is still the single most important social structure in existence. Our ability to maintain some basic level of moral and social structure is critical to the future of us as a people. The homosexual agenda threatens the right and ability of religious institutions and their members to practice their own religion and is a growing form of religious persecution.
5. A MARRIAGE LICENSE, LIKE ANY OTHER LICENSE, IS A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS PERMITTED TO SET REASONABLE CONDITIONS FOR ITS ISSUANCE.
While marriage is a covenant between two people, the state’s involvement in the choice
of two people to enter a marriage is pretty much limited to issuing licenses. A license is a grant of permission to do something, and may have other related rights or privileges.
Every license issued by a government entity has conditions governing one’s eligibility.
You need a license to run a business, drive a car, or march in a parade.
There are more laws prohibiting or restricting the ability to obtain a driver’s license than
there are for getting married. There are written tests, vision tests, age requirements, training requirements, etc, and failure to meet any will result in a denial of the privilege to drive a car. If you think its tough being a gay person who can’t marry; try living in Los Angeles and not being able to drive a car. Sadly, there is no advocacy group for Californians who can’t drive, so I guess this group will just have to suck it up and catch the bus. California law and most religions will only marry a man and a woman. It is a requirement that the intended couple be of opposite sexes. Homosexuals don’t meet this basic condition to get a license, and therefore are no more entitled to marry than a person who fails the written driver’s exam is entitled to drive. Two people can make a lifetime commitment without ever obtaining this now coveted piece of paper. You can throw a party and invite all your friends, but if you want the state or the church to bless, validate, or recognize your marriage, you have to follow their rules.
6. MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION GROUNDED IN MORAL AND RELIGIOIUS PRINCIPLES.
On a spiritual level, there is nothing hateful, sinful, or mean about opposing gay marriage. It is about preserving a fundamental aspect of our collective social and religious heritage. As a technical matter, the bible does not prohibit homosexuality, but prohibits the act of intercourse between people of the same sex. Leviticus 18:22. The very same chapter of Leviticus prohibiting homosexual sex also prohibits a number of other sexual practices, including intercourse with animals, close relatives, and UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUALS. Leviticus. 18:1-29. All of these practices are regarded as perversions and violations of spiritual law. The majority of Christian churches still teach abstinence from sexual intercourse of any kind outside of marriage. A difference of opinion on the fundamental issue of marriage has nothing to do with hatred or intolerance, but the preservation of social and moral principles that are essential in this time of rapid and progressive moral decay. People are getting tired of the oversaturation of aggressive and explicit homosexual images and messages that have been increasingly forced into American homes, through every conceivable medium, that conflict with their own values and beliefs. American people are pretty open and accepting for the most part, but occasionally, when things get too far afield of our collective moral sensibilities, the people will come together and set a limit.
7. CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO PROP 8 IS A VIOLATION OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
Californians have voted, not once, but twice, on this issue, and that choice has been improperly dishonored. The people of California made a choice to pass a law that is legal and valid and should be honored because it does not violate any civil right. As set forth above, this is not a discrimination issue, and there is no valid legal argument requiring gay marriage. The claim that Proposition 8 stripped away an “existing right” to gay marriage is misleading. California voters previously passed Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The purpose of Proposition 8 was to restore the existing definition of marriage set forth in California Family Code § 297.5. The recent opportunity for gay marriage is the result of a ruling earlier this year by activists judges in California overturning that law. Proposition 8 was necessary to restore the previously passed law by amending the California Constitution to protect the decision of the people from further improper judicial attacks, another disgraceful example of legislation from the bench and violation of the separation of powers. This second passage of legislation, in spite of a well funded and vigorous campaign in opposition, expresses the continued desire and right of the people of California to reserve marriage to heterosexuals. The political process needs to be honored, even when gay rights activists don’t like it. There was no need to pass laws redefining marriage until recently because for as long as the institution of marriage has existed, it has only been between a man and a woman, and there was never any debate about this until gay activists started screaming discrimination. Maybe it seems unfair to some, but that is what laws do, they limit the ability of people to do whatever they want. This program has been working since the beginning of time and despite the clamor, there is not sufficient reason to change it now.
Final thought.
Homosexuals are fighting for a privilege and disguising it as a rights issue. Ultimately, this is not about hate, but about preserving the fundamentals of the family unit. Everything that shines is not gold, and when ever you see a lot of privileged whites screaming discrimination, watch out because it may be a trick. The bottom line is that the cost to free speech, freedom of religion, education, and our culture is too high to support this indulgence.
I saw you on Rachel Maddow and I felt extremely betrayed and embarrassed that you were supposed to be the voice of reasoning for the Black community...
Here are several non biblical reasons that shows that separate names will be better for the gay community as well as those opposing same-sex marriage:
Different Goals:
Traditional marriage is a bestowal of rights. These rights are given in hopes of providing social good. In this instance, the social good that these rights are given are (to name a few):
1. The right of a child to be brought up and know his/her biological parents whenever possible
2. encourage the optimal situation for child rearing (social science consistently shows that this is a home with a mother and father),
3. bridge the male-female divide,
4. help children to develop the positive aspects of their respective genders, and finally,
5. providing a socially acceptable means of responsible sexuality and reproduction.
Admittedly, traditional marriage as a whole fails to live up to these ideals, despite this, it has the potential to live up to these ideals and commonly does. At its core, same-sex marriage cannot meet the same goals that traditional marriage has espoused. Specifically, it cannot encourage parentage by biological parents of different sex, nor can it bridge the male-female divide. This is not to say that same-sex marriage cannot have benefits of its own. It is merely to show that the goals must, by definition, be different.
Specificity:
As discussed above, providing for a separate institution, such as civil unions allows for the law to seek social goods that could come from civil unions. These goals include among others:
1. fostering relationship stability,
2. when procreative powers are used, it provides for more stability in the lives of children (already in that situation) than they would otherwise have.
3. providing a framework for more responsible sexuality
While some may agree with civil unions, and others would dispute them is a debate for another day. The point to this is that civil unions allow for a legal framework that addresses fundamentally different goals than marriage does in a more specific way.
Muddled Legal Framework:
Family law is based on certain presumptions specific to traditional marriage. The addition of same-sex marriages into the legal framework brings with it challenges. How does the law deal with divorce issues for same-sex couples? Issues that arise more frequently would be tied to child custody issues such as biological parenting rights, surrogate parenthood, and artificial insemination. For example, in Massachusetts, gay couples are having to spend much more money to divorce because the established laws and cases are difficult to apply, causing further litigation. For example, for traditional marriage, most child custody issues are decided presumptively in favor of the mother. In a same-sex marriage between two females, the court is forced to determine who is in the role of the mother first, then apply the law as if the other partner were the man. Legislatures will be forced to create responsive laws to the specific communities, rather than judges being forced to fit both groups into one body of law.
Additionally, what about the situations where one partner gives birth, while the other provides support, but is not the biological parent; under the current law, the biological parent is at a great advantage. Having a separate institution allows greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with issues that are largely same-sex specific.
It Does Hurt, and it Can Hurt me in the Future:
One of the strongest arguments against the protection of traditional marriage is the question “How is the marriage of Janice and Janet going to hurt the marriage of Brady and Nicki?” The reason why it is a strong argument is because in reality it won’t hurt me or my family directly. However, that is not to say that it won’t hurt us indirectly. Taken as a whole, the societal consequence is that I must view marriage in a way that I don’t believe that marriage is.
Just as most do not believe that polygamy is marriage, and most would not want it to be called marriage, I don’t believe that same-sex unions are marriage. Forcing me and my family to change that definition hurts my belief in marriage as an institution. I am not a bigot for believing that the role of a mother and the role of a father are essential in the lives of the children they create. That is a social opinion . . . NOT bigotry.
I recognize that many of the arguments against same sex marriage are “doomsday” or “slippery slope” arguments are not applicable now and are largely given for dramatic effect. Despite this, I do not wish to huddle with the people that agree with me and try to persuade my children that “real” marriage, as has been in effect for centuries is acceptable while “new” marriage is only acceptable to our belief system in certain circumstances. This truly does hurt how I raise my family. Whether the schools teach it, or society teaches it, same-sex marriage will be taught as marriage as long as it is legal.
Precedent:
Currently, three states (or two) allow same-sex marriage (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). To my knowledge, 28 (or 29) states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage and 19 have passed statutes, totaling 45 out of 50 states with some form of marriage protection. California and Connecticut both had laws protecting marriage that were overturned despite wide margins supporting those laws when passed. Additionally, federal law defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. That being said, precedent isn’t everything, so let’s go on.
Different Actors in the Legal Relationship:
At its core, marriage is a legal union, just as a partnership, an LLC, or a 501(c)(3) are legal unions. The choice of which legal union is applicable depends upon the purposes that are sought. Here, as discussed above, the purposes are fundamentally different. While the rights may even be identical, the purposes are different, thus a legal difference in name is appropriate—not discriminatory.
Rights, not Acceptance:
I don’t believe that the government has the job to tell people to like me. I believe that the government is in place to give me rights. Rights to do things without government intervention, and in some cases, like marriage, the right to do things with the help of the government. Here, the same rights exist under both the civil union framework and the marriage framework. With that in mind, seeking to change the name of those rights is a play for acceptance and not a play for rights. I do not believe that the role of the government is to sanction my lifestyle or anyone else’s. If the government seeks to end all marriage benefits that is fine. Changing marriage to something different in hopes of lending credibility and acceptance extends beyond the role of government.
From Brady Brammer - personally I encourage NO civil union just as polygamist, bygamist, and incestous loving cosenting adults
I can here the new knowledge.
Thanks for the great reference post.
Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang | Blog SEO | cah bagoes | oes tsetnoc | blogger
Post a Comment