TNC
I'm gonna have to side with Sully on the black homophobia argument.on CA Prop 8 shows that African Americans are the largest non-political/non-theological demographic in support of Prop 8 - larger even than the at-large over 65 population.
I look at all of these pro-8 arguments and they look exactly the same as the arguments used to oppose interracial marriage. Maybe the move in CA should have been to put up a competing amendment banning both gay and interracial marriage, just to drive the history lesson home.
A few things:
1.) Here are the SUSA poll numbers which do, indeed, show an appallingly high level of support for Prop 8 among black folks.
2.) If you look back, I never argued that blacks were going to be particularly supportive of Prop 8, so much as I noted the relatively small number of blacks in the electorate of California.. Blacks make up around 7 percent of Cali's pop--there are roughly double as many Asian-Americans (a lot of whom oppose Prop 8) in Cali as there are African-Americans, and many more Latinos (a lot of whom support Prop 8).
3.) Brothers we have a problem: All of the demographic points aside (controlling for income, religion, education etc.), it's very difficult to not be disturbed by all of this. It's sort of sick actually--all our experience with discrimination in this country hasn't made us any wiser. Right, it didn't make the Irish any wiser either, I got that. But, I once heard Bill Cosby say something that rang emotionally true for me, and I'm going to paraphrase. I'm black--I rooted for Doug Williams in the Super Bowl--not John Elway. I want what's best for my team. I want us on the right side of history.
Also, this is one of the reasons why we, as black folks--and frankly me as a black person--should resist the temptation to get all self-righteous about white racism. I still think that if Prop 8 passes, black folks won't be the decisive factor. But, you know me, I'd rather us not even be in the conversation.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I never really got this. A lot of the black folks that I know never really had a problem with gays. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but I don't know if this is really true, or was it just a wedge issue from the last few elections.
During the 2000 & 2004 elections, I seem to remember the Republicans tried to make the argument that (to paraphrase): 1. Blacks don't like homosexuals; 2. White liberals do like homosexuals; 3. White liberals are condescending to black folks and don't represent their interests because whites like gays; 4. Blacks should vote Republican. Back when the Republicans actually tried to get the black vote, were'nt their two big arguments gays and vouchers.
I think that George Will tried to make that argument. And I remember the Republicans kept trudging out Reggie White.
"I still think that if Prop 8 passes, black folks won't be the decisive factor."
In a race as close as this, there is no one decisive factor, everything's a decisive factor. If it only passes by one or two points, it will be the case that that wouldn't have happened if not for strong black support. And a lot of analysts will pin the win on blacks because they support it at a higher rate than any demographic.
Maybe it has something to do with how few black gay man there are in black communities. From Clay Cane:
"The black gay community is incredibly small. There are only 12% of black people in this country. There are only 10% of gay people in the country. So that means when narrowing to the black gay community you are chopping the numbers down even smaller. There aren't enough of us to make any artist successful. We are extremely specific and packed to mainly cities like New York, D.C, and Atlanta (maybe Chicago and L.A.)."
I can see how homophobia would be higher in groups that have little to no exposure to openly gay men. Not that it makes it right, but it may explain the real relevance of the statistic in question.
You should check out Clay's article, because he touches on various aspects of the relevance of the black gay "community" a term he finds confusing: http://claycane.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-there-black-gay-community.html
I am going to be very real about this. YES Most black people probably oppose Gay Marriage. However I personally don't believe that is a good litmus test for homophobia. There is a distinct difference between people hating gay people and people thinking gay people should not be granted legal marriages. I know some people think its either, or but I don't agree. People have their own personal reasons for opposing it that may have nothing to do with homophobia. For them it may just be about the term "marriage" which is to say they don't oppose "unions" but they think the word "marriage" is reserved for religious unions. I for one will step out and say that I am against gay marriage. My reasons are practical however. With the rate of divorce in this country as it stands a flood of new marriages will bring along with it a flood of new divorces our court system is totally unprepared for that new load. Gay marriges will also bring a slew of new precedents that will have to be decided. Consider the case of the two gay women who decided to adopt a child then later one of the women decided she was no longer gay, married a guy, and wanted sole custody of the adopted child. How does a judge rule in that situation. Before anyone answers what is obviously a rhetorical question, whatever you come up with you won't be able to back up with case law because there IS no case law on it. Having said that yes I have gay and bisexual friends although I will also admit all of them are female. Either way I don't discriminate against them and never would nor do I hate them or treat them any differently from any other friend.
Now I know I have just made myself a target and I don't mind because whatever I say I mean and I will stand by my words. And before anyone claims that the gay rights movement is the same as the civil rights movement of black people or the women's rights movement I will say what a lot of people won't nowadays. Black people are born black, women (most of them) are born women. There are those who say gay people are born gay but I pose this question to those people. If gay people are born gay then isn't the converse true that straight people are born straight? If that is so:
How do you account for bi-sexual people?
How do you account for victims of molestation by a member of the same sex who go on to have gay relationships?
How do you account for a relatively few yet still statistically signifcant number of people who enjoy a straight lifestyle for a period of time and then later enjoy a gay lifestyle or vice versa?
If the answer is that they are experimenting then I would go back to the premise. If you are born gay can you "experiment" with a straight lifestyle and conversely if you are born straight can you "experiment" with a gay lifestyle? I ask this because as a black man I haven't quite mastered "experimenting" with a white person's complexion.
Now having said that I can honestly say I don't pretend to have the end all be all answer to whether gay people are born gay or learn it. The real question is can YOU make that same admission?
"Maybe it has something to do with how few black gay man there are in black communities."
Missing word: "openly."
just my opinion, without any studies or specific facts to cite to but...
i think the rise of a certain element in the black church is responsible for the homophobia noted in the cited studies.
the same black evangelical element that was courted by and receptive to bush's attempts to use the church as a political entree into the black community is the same element that has helped to spur the kind of support for the homophobia noted.
while black folks can be exceedingly practical and therefore not stupid enough to buy the arguments urging them to support right-wing republican political measures that actually work against their own interests - unlike folks in places like thomas franks' kansas - for any number of reasons, they'd be a lot less resistant to the kind of homophobia peddled by those same preachers.
and i'm not even going to get into the longstanding tradition of larry craig-type lifestyles and denial that has been a storied part of the black church.
one of the things that always turned me off about churches and religion in my old urban neighborhood was that it was pretty much known and accepted that many of the most esteemed church elders would screw just about anything alive and moving, male or female.
those issues have always created a tangled, complex mess.
sgwhiteinfla,
The question of whether homosexuality is innate or acquired has nothing to do with whether discrimination against gays & lesbians is justified. You can choose not to be Catholic, Muslim, etc., and yet we recognize & reject religious discrimination.
There most likely is no be all, end all answer to the question of where homosexuality comes from. Point is, there doesn't need to be; it's irrelevant.
I also don't think "practical" objections to anti-discrimination laws are legitimate. Firstly, there have been practical arguments against eliminating every form of discrimination that has gone the way of the Dodo. Secondly, it's a circular argument: you say we shouldn't open this door because there's no precedent for how courts should rule in some of the situations that would arise--but there never will be precedent unless we open the door.
Actually Zak, that's a good point to bring up. Clay talks in his article about how black gay men are reluctant to be open about it.
I think it becomes a chicken or egg argument as to whether their lack of openness is because of a deep seated homophobia, or because they haven't been open homophobia has taken hold. A lot of these kinds of dynamics tend to take on a snowball effect, one contributes to the other, and the other contributes back, the cycle repeating itself indefinitely. And to the detriment of both (unfortunately).
I have to take issue with sgwhiteinfla's point about gay marriage setting too many precedents to clog up the courts. Not to say that that isn't true, but so what? Isn't that the price of progress, especially in the realm of civil rights. Giving black people equal rights to property, the vote, and interracial marriage led to a lot of precedents that needed to be worked out later, but it was still worth it.
I can't understand this notion that one can oppose gay marriage, a position that is in essence opposition to equal rights for gay people, and still say with a straight face that they aren't discriminating against gay people with that position. It sounds a lot like "separate but equal" to me, and this is coming from a straight white man who obviously doesn't know first hand what it is like to be discriminated against based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
All available evidence suggests that gay people are indeed born gay, as are straight people, but that doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion. Even if it were a choice, consensual sexual behavior is not grounds to deprive someone of equality. For me, the argument comes down to whether or not gay people are people, whether they are deserving of basic civil and human rights equal to anyone else, or not; and if you come down on the side of not on any of those points, how are you not a bigot?
Zak
I appreciate your response but I disagree. Your beliefs are just that the same way that my beliefs are just that. You used a false argument when you brought in religious discrimination. I specifically referred to issues of civil rights and women's rights. If you want to talk discrimination in general there are plenty of reason's people get discriminated against. A woman who dies her hair electric pink might get discriminated against. Thats a totally different issue in my opinion. Because in fact you CAN discriminate against people's personal choices in some areas of business for instance in this country.
Now what you are implying and correct me if I am wrong is that "marriage" is a right. However even the term "marriage" is historically rooted in religious beliefs. And state sponsored/endorsed marriage is defintely derived from religious traditions. That is why many people believe that civil unions are more appropriate. If you say on the one hand not to infringe on religious preferences, but then you say we should sanction marriage which historically is rooted in religion I think you have some of your own circular logic to contend with.
Ben I will give you an example. If I run a law firm and an applicant comes in to interview wearing a jogging suit with green highlights in her hair chewing bubble gum do you think I am going to hire her. Better yet would you??? That is why it matters whether or not being gay is innate or a choice. Again I don't have the answer but i don't think anyone else does either. Kind of telling that nobody has taken up that argument so far.
Now you can say seperate but equal all you want to but here is the difference which you may not know. There never was a seperate but equal for black people. When we had seperate facilites they were always shitty and thats just the fact. Im talking about schools, dining, hotels, public transportation, bathrooms you name it. Separate but equal was a joke with no punchline. I would go into a lot of detail breaking it all the way down for you but I won't waste your time nor mines I would just ask that you do some research on what the practical application of separate but equal was to black people before you use that term to try to equate it with gay rights.
@Ben: Even if it were a choice, consensual sexual behavior is not grounds to deprive someone of equality. For me, the argument comes down to whether or not gay people are people, whether they are deserving of basic civil and human rights equal to anyone else..."
The only problem with this is it reduces "being gay" to a choice about lifestyle and robs gay people of their worthiness and dignity. If I am simply making a choice to "act" instead of "be" then I have another hurdle to conquer. I must convince you that my actions are justified in order for you to allow me something in return. Whereas "I am" because I simply am is inalienable. My rights should inherently be the same as yours. That is the essential argument, and I would never reduce from that essential truth.
This is one of the few subjects where my wife and I have agreed to disagree. sgwhiteinfla, her position aligns with yours on a number of points, so here are my well-rehearsed arguments:
First, laws against gay marriage have no more moral standing than anti-miscegenation laws had when they were in force. Remember that such laws were constitutional until 1967, and the last one was not repealed until 2002 (Alabama, I believe); these laws would have made my own marriage illegal, and I look at them from that point of view.
Second, as to being born gay or choosing to be gay, several points: considering how gays are viewed in our society, who the hell would CHOOSE to be gay? Even so, what gives you the right to punish someone for that choice? At this point many folks will trot out the Biblical injunctions, to which I reply, what about the ban on tattoos, etc. etc. I believe the reality is that, as in every other human trait, we all lie somewhere on the scale of 100% straight to 100% gay. Wherever we lie, genetics probably are the main reason, but environment had a hand too.
So, what is the answer? When I was stationed in Germany, a lot of my friends got married to German girls. My understanding of the process there is that you go to City Hall to have your civil service, and you have a religious service in the church. I believe the civil service is what qualifies you for benefits, legal rights, etc. I think we are going that way here- we can separate the religious from the civil. No one should force a church to marry people against its precepts, but no one should be denied the right to marry who they wish to marry.
I've never really understood why this matters. If blacks are more homophobic than whites, I can see how that would seem counterintuitive, considering their history of being oppressed. But then what? Is black homophobia somehow more morally reprehensible than white homophobia? Does it then follow that racism against blacks is somehow less offensive?
In discussions about racism (and homophobia for that matter), I feel like there is always this question of whether or not a person or group is really a "victim" or if they "deserve" whatever they get. If blacks are homophobic, then they hardly have any business complaining about racism. Luckily for women, they oppose proposition 8 at a higher rate than men. That must mean they reserve the moral authority to talk about sexism. I know it's a bit simplistic, but that does seem to be the logic here.
Black gay male here. I don't know if there is "more" homophobia in the black community than others but I am going to go out on a limb to say that it's not about quantity it's about quality, and in my experience the quality of the homophobia in the black community is far more let's say, refined and specific and sharp than the kind of homophobia I've seen in other communities. Though to be fair, I've never seen black people carrying signs around to at like, funerals a la the Westboro Baptist church people, but I have seen how casually the homophobia fits with the Christianity of the black community, and like, a love of Tyler Perry and Oprah over a praying grandmother's Sunday dinner of fried chicken and collard greens.
@sgwhiteinfla
You wrote: "That is why it matters whether or not being gay is innate or a choice. Again I don't have the answer but i don't think anyone else does either."
Honey, I am gay, and I do have the answer. I spent 15 years of my life being utterly miserable because I didn't want to be gay. Back in the old country, Cuba, people used to say: "in my family there aren't any criminals or faggots". I even married a sweet, good girl and couldn't love her physically or emotionally despite doing my best.
I am not saying this to get your compassion. I am a sane, stable, mostly happy individual and all those struggles made me stronger at the end. But I find hard to believe that people wouldn't listen to us, to our stories before coming with "we don't know whether is a choice or not"
Do I believe some people are bisexual? Yes, I don't have any reason to not believe them. Do I believe that some people have a fluid sexuality? Yes. But most gay people have their sexuality very strongly set since they are born.
Finally, did I have it more difficult that the Blacks in say, the fifties? You freaking betcha! But a little bit of empathy will not kill you.
The cited survey indicates that support for Prop 8 correlates more to regular church-going than to ethnicity. And a lot of religious folks think that Jews have caused their own misfortune by dissing Jesus. (If God is homophobic and anti-Semitic, who am I to argue?)
Religion should be treated like alcohol, gambling, and fatty foods – permitted but not encouraged.
One more thing: a little bit of "experimentation" or "collegue lesbianism" here or there doesn't make you gay or whatever.
What defines your sexuality is the sex of the person you fall in love with. And that is the person you want to marry to.
Tessa said up above that maybe blacks are homophobic because there are so few gay blacks - only 12% of the country's black, only 10% is gay, etc. That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, 1.2% of the country, assuming the numbers multiply out, is still a ton of people. Over three million. Second, assuming that blacks mostly socialize with each other, which Mr. Cane seems to imply, it's not like only one out of a hundred people that a black person knows are black and gay, it's more like one out of ten. So I don't buy that.
As for what sgt. said, yes, we straight people are born straight. You don't recall choosing to be straight, do you? When you reached puberty, you began to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, just like any other straight person. Same thing happens with gay people. At some point, they discover that they like members of the same sex.
sgwhiteinfla,
To the extent that marriage is a legal institution, yes, I do think it is a right. To the extent that it is a religious institution, I'm perfectly happy to let churches make that determination for themselves. If the Southern Baptists or the Reformed Jews or whoever don't want to recognize same-sex marriage, fine. But that's not what Prop 8 or any of the other "defense of marriage" laws are about.
You're right about "separate but equal" being an oxymoron; and that's exactly the kind of citizenship civil unions offer to same-sex couples.
As we saw in the Democratic primary season, no discrimination works exactly like any other. I'm not "equating" anti-queer discrimination with anti-black or anti-female discrimination (for that matter I don't think you can equate those two forms of discrimination). I'm just saying that it is discrimination.
Whoops - that last comment was mine; I must've accidentally pasted in "sgwhiteinfla."
Asher, the statistics aren't mine and I agree they don't make perfect sense, but the point is we should explore the possibility that gay blacks might be more isolated from the larger black community, comparatively. And does this contribute to a lack of openness, and vice versa?
I tend to look for a pragmatic explanation to statistics like the one presented here. Black people aren't homophobic because they're black, obviously, so I'm searching for the relevant dynamics. The concept I wrote about at least seems plausible and is worth exploring further. So I'm throwing it out there...
There was a story in the New Yorker a long, long time ago, by Junot Diaz, that sort of crystallized the issue for me -- the definition of, and precarious nature of, "manhood" in minority communities in the U.S. (In the story I'm thinking of, two definitions came into direct conflict -- the first, of sticking with your boys no matter what, of intense male camaraderie being the most important relationship of all; and the second, of sexually conquering tons of women. Or wanting to.)
People who historically have trouble meeting society's defnition of "manhood" because of society (for example, in the black community, financial issues making it difficult to support a family or whatever factors -- drugs, hightened rates of incarceration, more difficulty in getting loans or starting businesses, or glorification of the "pimp" lifestyle -- whatever, I'm just throwing out examples, not endorsing specific ones) are going to cling to a heightened, if hollow, sense of "machismo." (Examples: gang membership, excessive promiscuity... fill in your own...) Those who feel powerless find personal power in whatever ways they can. There is no room for alternative sexuality in that intepretation -- even some men on the down-low, interviewed privately by doctors, refuse to identify themselves as "gay" but will answer yes to the question "do you have sex with men." So the "gay" label becomes a heightened threat.
That and the fact that minorities in this country have a bad tendency to play the "we suffered most" game, which hurts us all and helps no one. As if there were limited quantities of suffering, and therefore acknowledging someone else's suffering somehow diminishes our own case.
I... hate... this.
Divide and conquer -- not a time-tested tactic for no reason.
sgwhiteinfla said: (Ben I will give you an example. If I run a law firm and an applicant comes in to interview wearing a jogging suit with green highlights in her hair chewing bubble gum do you think I am going to hire her. Better yet would you??? That is why it matters whether or not being gay is innate or a choice. Again I don't have the answer but i don't think anyone else does either. Kind of telling that nobody has taken up that argument so far.)
I have no idea what this has to do with homosexuality. If a person comes in wanting a job, I can determine whether they have the requisite experience, judgment, and qualifications for it before hiring them, and how they choose to comport themselves in the interview would be a part of that. But if that person also happened to be gay, it wouldn't influence how I decided, as it has nothing to do with whether or not they should get the job.
sgwhiteinfla said: (Now you can say seperate but equal all you want to but here is the difference which you may not know. There never was a seperate but equal for black people. When we had seperate facilites they were always shitty and thats just the fact. Im talking about schools, dining, hotels, public transportation, bathrooms you name it. Separate but equal was a joke with no punchline. I would go into a lot of detail breaking it all the way down for you but I won't waste your time nor mines I would just ask that you do some research on what the practical application of separate but equal was to black people before you use that term to try to equate it with gay rights.)
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Brown v. Board decided that separate but equal is inherently unequal regardless of the conditions for each group, crappy or otherwise. Even if black schools during segregation had been as good as white schools, it still would have been a discriminatory practice (according to the Supreme Court anyway). The separation for the purpose of discrimination was harmful by itself. The deprivation of equal rights was not an injustice purely because of the practical application (the quality of schools), but because it was a betrayal of the American promise that all men are created equal.
I wonder if the reason why so many African-Americans oppose the measure is because they don't appreciate the rhetoric that gay people have been discriminated against "just like blacks" (I hear comments along this line a lot). Perhaps some people feel that if they tacitly support this viewpoint, it would diminish the disproportionate discrimination and struggles that their ancestors endured. Maybe if the gay community approached it from a different angle, stating "We live much more freely than did African-Americans did in the past. The level of discrimination against us is infinitessimal compared to the pre-1964 situation for African-Americans. We also tend to live much materially better than African-Americans even today. However, despite this, we believe we are experiencing some sort of discrimination, no matter how comparatively minor." That way, perhaps some people might be more comfortable voting for other people's rights, without feeling that they are mitigating their own families' histories.
Tessa, black people aren't homophobic because they're black, but they could be homophobic because they're more relgiously conservative than whites, or because black people, very very broadly speaking, construct masculinity differently than whites - I mean, there is no black equivalent to Seth Rogen or Michael Cera, there are no prominent black emo bands (thankfully). But there are a ton of Denzels and 50s and Morris Chestnuts and Boris Kodjoes and so on.
Mr. Coates,
I don't know if this point has been made by any other commenter, but while I agree that the relatively low African American population in CA could limit the impact of any latent homophobia within the group on whether Prop 8 passes or fails, the impact could be increased disproportionately by what is bound to be a disproportionately high African American turnout. I live in GA, and while 1 in 4 Georgia voters are African American, so far, in early voting African Americans have comprised nearly 40% of the vote. That number is bound to shrink as we get closer to Nov 4, but if it stays above 30% (by no means a guarantee), that could conceivably give the state to Obama. If African American turnout is disproportionately high elsewhere, Prop 8 could be in more trouble than it would be in any other election year. Still, if it fails, its failure will be on the backs of more than that community.
Adina, that's just offensive in the extreme.
It took until 2003 for the Supreme Court to decide that gay and lesbian Americans had the right to have sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes without being arrested and thrown in prison.
Right up into the 21st century, gays and lesbians could be and were arrested and put in jail for having consensual sex. I'm sorry, but that is not "comparatively minor" discrimination.
Arguing that somehow gays and lesbians have suffered "less" discrimination and should then somehow have to be submissive and apologetic for their fight for equality, is the height of arrogant self-importance.
All efforts to secure a freer and more equal society owe a debt to their predecessors. The African-American civil rights movement was hardly the first - it owes a debt to the fight for women's suffrage and to the organized labor movement, among others.
The gay rights movement assuredly owes a debt to the African-American civil rights movement. That does not mean, however, that it must grovel before the feet of African-Americans and diminish itself as somehow of lesser importance and lesser worth than the fight against Jim Crow.
Yeah, Travis, they could be arrested, but very, very few of them were. And gay people have been lynched (Shepard), but nowhere near as many as blacks who were lynched. And we never had slavery or segregation for gays. Comparatively minor is just factually true.
"black people, very very broadly speaking, construct masculinity differently than whites - I mean, there is no black equivalent to Seth Rogen or Michael Cera, there are no prominent black emo bands (thankfully). But there are a ton of Denzels and 50s and Morris Chestnuts and Boris Kodjoes and so on."
Where does Tyler Perry fit in with this?
"black people, very very broadly speaking, construct masculinity differently than whites - I mean, there is no black equivalent to Seth Rogen or Michael Cera, there are no prominent black emo bands (thankfully). But there are a ton of Denzels and 50s and Morris Chestnuts and Boris Kodjoes and so on."
Meh. There may not be any Michael Ceras or Seth Rogens, but limiting black masculinity to Boris Kudjoe and Denzel is myopic. Off the dome, it leaves out Richard Pryor, Andre 3000, Prince, Marvin Gaye, Dave Chapelle, Posdonus, Harold Perrineau Jr., Mos Def, Hill Harper, Bill Cosby, Prince, Chris Rock, Q-Tip, Jeffrey Wright and Will Smith. That's if you accept movies and music as an accurate gauge.
Meh. There may not be any Michael Ceras or Seth Rogens, but limiting black masculinity to Boris Kudjoe and Denzel is myopic. Off the dome, it leaves out Richard Pryor, Andre 3000, Prince, Marvin Gaye, Dave Chapelle, Posdonus, Harold Perrineau Jr., Mos Def, Hill Harper, Bill Cosby, Prince, Chris Rock, Q-Tip, Jeffrey Wright and Will Smith. That's if you accept movies and music as an accurate gauge.
Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | October 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Not to mention Pharrell, Kanye and Aaron McGruder.
@Asher: but they could be homophobic because...black people, very very broadly speaking, construct masculinity differently than whites...
Maybe so. I have no idea. But then, why? And what's the cause and effect?
The black community must be one of the must under represented groups in the country. I mean, name one prominent group that represents them. Name a TV show that celebrates them as at least part of our culture. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Wouldn't these dynamics push gay black men further into isolation?
And what impact has HIV/AIDS had on the black gay community? This seems yet another explanation for the possibility that the black gay community has become isolated, either through their own doing, or else.
And certainly these things seem just as relevant as an explanation for homophobia as how black men construct their masculinity. Maybe they're even related.
"Richard Pryor, Andre 3000, Prince, Marvin Gaye, Dave Chapelle, Posdonus, Harold Perrineau Jr., Mos Def, Hill Harper, Bill Cosby, Prince, Chris Rock, Q-Tip, Jeffrey Wright and Will Smith."
Pos is nerdy, but he's not an unabashed loser. Same with everyone else you mention. Admittedly Prince is kinda out there, but he was still a player, just a very short and oddly effeminate one. There really is no black parallel to Apatow.
We also tend to live much materially better than African-Americans even today. However, despite this, we believe we are experiencing some sort of discrimination, no matter how comparatively minor."
I'm black, I'm straight, and yet I cannot accept this, even remotely. I've known gays who were raped and then laughed at by the authorities, because obviously being gay means you want to have sex with whomever, whenever. You can get away with killing a gay or transgender person on the basis of "fear of being sexually approached." I... I'm sorry, I can't be more eloquent on this, I'm just kind of horrified.
Discrimination is discrimination -- I wouldn't want anybody to belittle mine, I can't belittle other people's.
sgtwhiteinfla writes: "Now what you are implying and correct me if I am wrong is that "marriage" is a right. However even the term "marriage" is historically rooted in religious beliefs. And state sponsored/endorsed marriage is defintely derived from religious traditions. That is why many people believe that civil unions are more appropriate. If you say on the one hand not to infringe on religious preferences, but then you say we should sanction marriage which historically is rooted in religion I think you have some of your own circular logic to contend with."
Where is the actual evidence that marriage is rooted in religion? I call bullshit. No, let's make that BULLSHIT. Which religion is it rooted in? All of them? How much sense does that make? Is fucking also "rooted in religion"? How about friendship, or sports, or any other activity/arrangement common to many or all social cultures?
Stupid arguments aren't much of a basis for institutional inequality. "Marriage is rooted in religion" is a stupid argument because there's no rational reason to think it's true. And no, "Yahweh started it" is not a rational reason to think it's true.
interracial marriage was not recognized as protected by the US constitution until 1967. various states led the way by changing their own laws before the supremes finally reached that point. it is hard to see how permitting the marriage of people who love one another is different when those people are same-sex.
not really liking other people's choices shouldn't be the benchmark. prop 8 seeks to do something tremendously weird in the annals of modern civil rights -- make a civil right now recognized in the state ILLEGAL, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. that is the opposite direction of all the advancements, incremental and large.
if gay marriage -- which is currently legal in CA -- can be abolished under the state constitution, who is the next loser?
Agreeing with Moe: Marriage is firmly rooted in economics. What it brought to human beings throughout most of history was not love, but strategic (rich, powerful, or as rich and powerful as could be expected given one's station in life) in-laws. Or clan connections and what not. Hence the tradition of courtly love and the idea that being "in love" with your lawful wedded wife was rude and unseemly -- you had courtesans for that, by jove! (Or take matrilineal societies, where "fathers" were less important in terms of cash than uncles -- kids inherited property from their mom's brothers. Or fun times in certain Native, Asian, and African societies, where a couple was a couple no matter their sex, and what was weird was if they were both doing the same jobs -- do as you like in bed, as long as SOMEONE is doing the outdoor work and someone is doing the indoor stuff.)
Try "Marriage, a History: How love conquered marriage" by Stephanie Coontz. It's really quite enlightening.
There were seven states where interracial marriage was always allowed and in seventeen states it's been allowed since 1883. Frederick Douglass's second wife was white. In addition to that in states where it was not allowed interracial marriage was usually more than merely "unrecognized." In Oregon, until 1951, the law stated
"If any white person, negro, Chinese, Kanaka, or Indian, within the degrees forbidden in section 1999, shall knowingly intermarry, or attempt the same, by procuring a solemnization of marriage, under any of the forms or ceremonies legalized in this state, such person or persons, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by IMPRISONMENT in the penitentiary or county jail not less than three months nor more than one year."
Oregon's not exactly the Deep South.
And maybe some people are sincere in the Democratic talking-point of "Anti-discrimination laws and civil unions, but not marriage." Would such people be homophobic or not?
Thanks for the response, TNC.
My reason for raising it (as an opponent to 8) is that I think much of the effort against 8 is targeting the wrong population. I think the AA community is more easily reached on this matter, and I think that even though AAs represent only 7% of the pop here, I expect they'll be notably higher than that of the electorate, as with the rest of the nation in this particular election.
And just for the record, I don't think opposition to gay marriage is necessarily indicative of homophobia, nor do I think the black community is notably more homophobic than other communities (for every cry of racism toward the GOP, assume homophobia should go along for the ride - they go together). I was simply surprised to see the numbers for two reasons - 1) the historical parallels to interracial marriage 2) the strong Democratic relationship of the AA community.
Thomas R.:
Given that there are no coherent justifications for opposition to gay marriage that are not homophobic, the answer is yes.And indeed, that verdict applies to every one of this cycle's major candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Which led to John Edwards all but admitting the homophobia of national Democrats' consensus policy position in the YouTube debate.
Whaddyagonna do? Abraham Lincoln was a racist. By today's standards, quite virulently so. Nonetheless, American history--including the status of ethnic groups Lincoln considered his inferiors--is still better off for his having won in 1860 and '64.
Obviously some policy positions are more homophobic (or racist or what-have-you) than others, even when the others have nonzero levels of homophobia. And that applies to politicians as well--thus Obama is far preferable to McCain and Lincoln than Breckenridge, Bell, and Douglas. But "notably less homophobic" is still homophobic.
Thankfully, this distinction will matter a lot less a generation or so from now. As Edwards sheepishly noted, America isn't going to put up with the Plessy solution of civil unions for long.
"Comparatively minor is just factually true."
No, it's not. Ask any of the thousands of gays who died in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Historical oppression of homosexuality is widespread and brutal.
You are betraying your own inability to come to terms with the fact that the struggles of gays and lesbians for equality are of no less worth than the struggles of African-Americans for equality.
I'd like to address sgwhiteinfla since at one time I held very similar views.
One of my favorite things that TNC has written about was the whole "go to a black barbershop, go to a black church" theme. I think it applies here to gays.
I really don't think homophobia can stand against reality. Mine couldn't.
It couldn't stand against the reality of my cousin, sixty years old, works for the Port of Seattle, married to her partner, good head for business, great laugh.
It couldn't stand against the reality of Martin and Andrew, who worked so hard for those twin baby girls. If you saw them with those girls, it would melt your heart.
My homophobia was challenged once again when I had lunch with Greg on his last day of work. I mentioned how, at first, his gayness was a little bit difficult for me. He said, "me too". I said that once, he was looking at the monitor and put his hand on my shoulder and it made me a little uncomfortable. He looked me right in the eye and said, "Jay, if only you weren't married." And then we laughed hysterically.
I really think that comes down to this: drink deeply from the world, it will enrich you.
Travis, I thought we were talking about America. The Nazis are an extreme case. I mean, the Holocaust was a horrible event but I can't extrapolate from that and say the plight of my race (the Jewish one) in America is anywhere close to what blacks have had to dealt with.
Anyway, TNC, I watched the New Yorker video - have to say it made me a little uncomfortable, there was just something condescending about Peggy and Keller's attitude whenever you'd start talking. But I do wish you would write something on the meaning of triple-XL Obama t-shirts. One thing that's very unclear to me is what urban blacks expect to see out of an Obama presidency, and whether expectations on 125th and Lenox (isn't that the corner Cam was always rapping about?) might be too high, or just misguided. Obama doesn't really have much of a poverty plan or urban revitalization plan, and I wonder whether people realize that.
"Given that there are no coherent justifications for opposition to gay marriage that are not homophobic, the answer is yes."
This amounts to "anything I can sneer at and call homophobia, is homophobia."
Gays themselves did not believe in same-sex marriage until very recently. Andrew Sullivan can confirm that. Marriage as an institute was created and designed for heterosexuals. The idea of SSM, in part, is actually that we can corral gays into living like heterosexuals. That homosexuality and heterosexuality are for all purposes identical.
If a state decides that I traditionally felt that's their right, but the more I've thought about this (and my own bisexuality, albeit celibate) the more I think it makes no sense. Men and women are actually different. That goes against feminist dogma, but it happens to be true nonetheless. So to say XX+XY=XX+XX=XY+XY is profoundly silly. To mandate that everyone recognize that they're all identical, even though they're clearly not, is insulting to common sense and reality.
I think their should be some kind of lesbian and gay unions, but it should be done based on an understanding of the actually different nature of their relationships. Trying to sell them on a bill of goods that they're "Virtually Normal" is about like trying to tell disabled people, like me, we can be baseball players if we just have a can-do attitude. It's nonsense.
That being said I think I could be wrong. If SSM doesn't end up forcing groups to do things against their own logic or require the state to pay for more artificial inseminations or end gendered-terms for parents I'll concede I was wrong. So far I don't think I am.
How do you account for bi-sexual people?
Bisexual people were born bisexual.
How do you account for victims of molestation by a member of the same sex who go on to have gay relationships?
People's sexuality follows a bell curve. A small portion of the population is entirely straight. A small portion of the population is entirely gay. A larger middle portion is bisexual. Bisexuality is easier to deny or ignore, particularly if you are "mostly" straight or mostly gay. Of course, once you have been introduced to a different side of your sexuality, you may find it harder to deny or ignore it. However, some people who are victims of molestation by a member of the same sex do *not* find themselves in same-sex relationships. This may be because those people do not fall in the middle of the bell curve, but are more predominately, or entirely, straight.
How do you account for a relatively few yet still statistically signifcant number of people who enjoy a straight lifestyle for a period of time and then later enjoy a gay lifestyle or vice versa?
They are bisexual.
There were some studies, a few years back, that showed how much of an impact shows like Will & Grace had on young people and their relative homophobia. It showed that young people who knew a gay or lesbian person were significantly less likely to be homophobic, and then the study went further and found that young people who regularly watched a television show that portrayed a gay or lesbian person as a relatable character showed the same lack of homophobia as those young people who knew actual gay and lesbian people. Over the past few years, there have been a number of shows, such as Will & Grace, Queer Eye, etc., that have made an impression... but these shows are all targeted at white people.
I cannot think of any television show targeted at black people that has a relatable gay or lesbian character. I cannot think of any major Black gay celebrities who are officially out of the closet. Currently, the most popular shows targeted at African Americans seem to come from Kelsey Grammar, a conservative, so who knows if that will change any time soon. But it might be a small part of the puzzle on how to change things.
Thomas R.,
I agree with you pretty much 100%. I'm very troubled by the fact that too many people today are swallowing the lie that gender is a social construction instead of an essential underlying fact of nature, and forgetting that men and women are essentially different.
All people are essentially different.
However, you are free to assume that I as a woman am essentially the same as all other women, or essentially different from all men.
When you decide your beliefs justify taking away my rights, then you have violated the constitution.
To quote the unwise, 'the mind wobbles' at how people can use the *exact* same arguments that were used against interracial couples who wanted to marry against when they discuss gay marriage, without noticing what they are doing.
Were you aware you were the villans in the movie they'll someday make about this era?
Just a few decades ago, it was argued that people of different races were "essentially different."
It was argued that interracial marriage went against the bible.
None of that matters when your beloved significant other is dying in a hospital and you aren't so much as allowed to hold their hand.
Make a decision not to be the villan. Decide to believe that all people are equal, and deserve equal rights.
You know what is right, if you just admit it.
Same-sex marriage is not a long-established right. It's a relatively new social experiment.
Obviously gay people have the right to schools, voting, assembly, etc. They have a right to form gay-churches with their own commitment ceremonies. Or homosexual communes or corporations.
They certainly have the right to bargain as well so we can find a solution on this issue that might be tolerable to all. I'm not opposed to some kind of same-sex union being recognized so long as we recognize the difference is meaningful. (And that same-sex couples have adoption rights more similar to same-sex siblings than a married couple)
Interracial marriage in this country is only decades old. Let's deny them adoption rights as well. Inequality for all!
Asher: One thing that's very unclear to me is what urban blacks expect to see out of an Obama presidency, and whether expectations on 125th and Lenox (isn't that the corner Cam was always rapping about?) might be too high, or just misguided. Obama doesn't really have much of a poverty plan or urban revitalization plan, and I wonder whether people realize that.
That's an interesting thought. Do urban blacks usually expect urban revitalisation initiatives from their presidents?
Thomas R.,
I'm a bit concerned about adoption rights. While I'm troubled by the thought that gay couples who want to might not be able to adopt, isn't it important for children to grow up with both a male and a female role model? Influencing the mind and thought patterns of a child is a grave and serious responsibility.
I can't say that I am decided on this issue, but I'm sympathetic to the arguments that the Catholic bishops have made about the importance of each child having a mother and a father.
CBQ,
All people are _born_ ontologically equal, true enough. But all acts are not equal, and not all sexual lifestyles are equal. Some of them may be more in tune with the natural order than others and society may choose to reflect that. If not in the secular marriage laws, then certainly in the truths taught by the churches.
As a gay man, I find one of the funniest -- and perhaps most damning -- parts of this whole discussion is that everyone ignores what the consequences FROM, not just FOR, the gay community will be if Prop 8 passes. Do people think that just because we're gay we'll simply roll over and let the people who took away our legally granted right scratch our tummies while we do their hair and flower arranging? I'm not predicting riots or violence here, or heaven forbid advocating it. Just observing that there's been a lot of talk about what the black community will do if Obama loses, and what some white lunatics will do if Obama wins. Maybe because of stereotypes, and despite the White Night Riots, people think we gays will just lay back and take this?
Because, what will happen once this actual granted civil right is blatantly taken away? There will be an intense amount of hurt feelings and probably a dam-burst of cynicism in the gay community -- one, I fear, that may completely shred any chance of coalition on other issues important to groups who statistically voted for Prop 8. Already I have a huge amount of my gay friends who are fleeing their houses of worship because of this -- and believe me, they've held on through a lot. Will communities whose majorities voted against us lose out as we turn our backs on them in bitterness and vengeance? While unfair to hold people accountable for other people's vote, I'm afraid that's what may happen ...
Perhaps people ought to start looking at this political issue, erm, politically. There's a lot of rich and powerful gays (as well as a lot of super-smart and dedicated ones) that you may just want on your side when other things come up. I'm hoping that no bad things come to pass, but people are already getting jumpy in the gay community on this (cf Sullivan's remarks), and if you think the Angry Black Man is bad, hang on for the Angry Gay Gurl. She's not pretty.
Oh, and sgwhiteinfla -- when 4000+ already married gay couples file suit against the state if Prop 8 passes, THEN we'll see a paralyzed court system, no?
Re: Already I have a huge amount of my gay friends who are fleeing their houses of worship because of this
Actually, Mark, churches which preach a more liberal theological and moral doctrine are the ones losing members. Please see the hemorrhage of people from my (Episcopal) church after their incredibly ill-advised decision in 2003 to ordain a gay man. Or look at the membership rolls of the Disciples of Christ, or the Congregationalists. At the same time, churches which hold a traditional line (Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox and so forth) are doing well.
Hector,
Being gay or lesbian has absolutely nothing to do with any particular sex act or sexual lifestyle. There are celebate gay people, there are bisexual virgins. Being gay or lesbian is about who you feel attracted to, who you feel romantic love for.
Meanwhile, heterosexual people of all sexual lifestyles are allowed to marry, and engage in whatever acts they enjoy.
Unless the natural order is something that can be measured scientifically, it is of no relevance to the law.
Within the churches, it is up to the congregants to decide what is and what is not permissable. Until recently, a number of them held that interracial marriage was immoral and against God.
------------------
I know you didn't address the adoption comment to me, but I can't help myself from answering anyway.
I am more troubled by the children languishing within the system than I am by gay and lesbian people who cannot adopt. If there are parents for these children, people who would love and guide and raise them, surely that is better than leaving them with no home or family at all.
Children may be better off with a mother and father. They may be better off in an upper middle class household in an island climate with two pets and personal chef. What they need is to be loved and cared for. Many, many children are not being loved and cared for, yet we have people ready to love and care for them.
"Isn't it important for children to grow up with both a male and a female role model."
No. There's no scientific evidence that children raised by homosexual couples are any different from those raised by heterosexual couples.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
"Some of them may be more in tune with the natural order."
Oh, sorry, I get it Hector, you're just bigoted. No sense having a rational conversation with you. Your church's "truth" is full of falsehoods, and has no business anywhere near our civil laws.
Okay, let me put this as bluntly as I can:
If you don't believe people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, then it doesn't matter to me whether or not you personally hate gay people. The end result for me is no different than if you were Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps: you are telling me, personally, that I am less-than, and that I don't deserve to be allowed the dignity of having a legal committment to the person I love.
I was married on September 5, 2008. Hector and sgwhiteinfla, did you know that? Did something change in your lives? Or did the fact that someone you don't know got married not affect you in any way, shape or form? Unless you can give me specific examples of ways in which the marriage of Nancy Wallace and Ruth Moore impacted your lives, I see no reason why you should be allowed to decide whether that marriage should be valid.
And you know what? If you believe that you have to right to make me miserable, despite the fact that I'm doing nothing to harm you or anyone else, based solely on the fact that I'm a woman who loves another woman? Then yeah--as far as I'm concerned, you're a bigot.
Thomas R wrote: "I think their should be some kind of lesbian and gay unions, but it should be done based on an understanding of the actually different nature of their relationships."
Oh, really?
I don't supposed you'd care to enlighten my on the "different nature" of my relationship with my wife, as opposed to my relationship with my male finance? Because clearly, I'm missing it.
Let's see...right now, we're in bed. My wife is sick, which means that I'll probably go out later and get some juice and ice cream. One of the cats is curled up on the bed--I suppose that's the big difference; we're lesbians, so we're pretty much required to have cats.
At some point, one of us will go downstairs and do the dishes and clean the cat boxes. In the meantime, the MMORPG we both play, City of Heroes, started the Zombie Apocalypse event two days early. I suppose that's the big difference between you and us: I bet you're just going to cower under your bed and not get out there and fight the damn zombies.
Or was there some other "difference" you had in mind?
Re: If you don't believe people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, then it doesn't matter to me whether or not you personally hate gay people. The end result for me is no different than if you were Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps: you are telling me, personally, that I am less-than, and that I don't deserve to be allowed the dignity of having a legal committment to the person I love.
Darkrose, a comparison. Let's say that you have pro-choice politics. (Correct me if I'm wrong....personally I would be delighted if you're pro-life, as we need more pro-life Democrats). Is it, then, fair for me to say that you're no different than the Khmer-Rouge cadres who forcibly cut babies out of women's wombs and left them to die? After all, both of your ideologies result in a heap of dead babies.
Of course it wouldn't be fair, and I'm not going to make that evil and vicious comparison. You shouldn't, either.
Let's put it this way, Darkrose. Your relationship with your female partner sounds idyllic, and is in fact, no different from the relationships of nearly all husbands and wives in modern America. You are correct there- and if that's all marriage is, then you should totally have the right to get married.
But Thomas R. and I don't think that's the entirety of what marriage is. Thomas R. would presumably say it's a sacrament, and while I'm not High-Church enough to call it a sacrament, it's still something special and fraught with spiritual meaning. In the modern late-capitalist American marriage, children are an optional extra. But in the traditional Anglican and Catholic understanding of marriage, children are not an optional add-on to marriage, they are its very core. In the Book of Common Prayer, childbearing is the _first_ purpose cited for which marriage was ordained, and not by accident. Some priests will not even perform a marriage for a couple who says they don't want children, and I support tjem in that.
Some priests will not even perform a marriage for a couple who says they don't want children, and I support tjem in that.
That couple can still walk down to city hall and get a marriage certificate, regardless of what any religious official says.
Moi:
Thomas R:
No, it actually means what I said. There aren't any coherent justifications for opposition to (legally recognized) gay marriage that are not homophobic. Your insistence on telling yourself that your rationalizations here are not bigotry doesn't actually exempt you from that reality.How nice--"Gays" as a monolithic entity. Just like "teh blacks" and "teh women." Surely there wasn't a single homosexual person (before, what, 1995?) who has ever thought that (s)he might benefit from legal recognition of his/her relationship with a partner. Glad you're here to clear that up.Which is to say: you're full of it. Sure, there are plenty of gay folks who at some point have been disinterested in marriage or concerned that gay marriage would somehow taint the community they lived in or adversely impact their lives. In the real-life current public policy debate about gay marriage, that plays no actual role.
Again, you're full of it. (Even if you'd spelled "institution" correctly.) Marriage has been institutionalized in all sorts of different ways, involving all sorts of relationships between human beings. Your ignorant Argument from Tradition doesn't change that.
Again, utter intelligence-insulting nonsense. The issue here is legal equality, of course--and whether there is a basis for treating gay couples differently than we do straight ones (or men than we do women). "For all purposes identical" is a contemptible strawman.
Whether a given couple should be denied the bundle of legal privileges called "marriage" on the basis of their sexes is a vastly different question than whether "homosexuality and heterosexuality are for all purposes identical."
The question is whether the differences between gay and straight relationships are sufficient to justify a difference in legal treatment--specifically, the granting of civil marriage to one group and the denial of same to the second. The only cohrent grounds for answering that yes, those differences are sufficient, is homophobia, as you are here helping to prove.
You are indeed brilliant.
You are impressively daring in addition to brilliant. "Feminist dogma"--how disgusting that must be. Those horrid, horrid people who deny that "men and women are actually different."
Back in the real world, we might notice that your representation, again, is full of it. Actual feminists don't claim that men and women are identical--just that neither should suffer invidious discrimination based on those differences.
Another laughable strawman. Your bigotry is showing.
The signature fantasy of the homophobe: "They's gon' force me t'say that my's weddin's no better than them queers' is!"
"Mandate." What utter garbage.
Again, real world: Bigots have always had the right to believe, and to say, whatever they want about their chosen target group. Racists today are not "mandated" to believe that African-Americans should be free of slavery. Anti-miscegenationists are not "mandated" to think that interracial marriage is swell. They can even hold rallies and organize churches and start political organizations dedicated to pushing bigoted messages like those.
The question is whether the law (and certain varieties of public accommodations) can actively discriminate. Folks who conflate that with a "mandate that everyone recognize" are... pretty consistently serious bigots.
Here's the cute thing, Tom: everyone is different. Every XY person is different from every other XY person. Every straight marriage is different from every other straight marriage. The funny thing is that those differences between people and marriages, at law, are generally held not to disqualify straight marriages from government sanction.
So when all you have to offer in favor of discrimination based on sexual orientation is "They's diffr'nt," you haven't in fact differentiated the cases. You have provided no coherent justification for denying civil marriage rights to gay couples... except your evident homophobia (and a scorching case of sexism).
"Virtually normal" my ass. Gay marriage says that gay people are fully human and deserve to be treated the same way before the law as straight people are. Your strawmen and your bigotry fail to obscure that fact.
TNC had a thought-provoking point in one of his Sunday morning posts that's centrally relevant here:"Entrenched, willful ignorance." As Darkrose, especially, has shown here, that's Thomas R.'s treatment of queers to a T.
"The end result for me is no different than if you were Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps: you are telling me, personally, that I am less-than, and that I don't deserve to be allowed the dignity of having a legal committment to the person I love." Darkrose
TR: This is your mental hang-up to deal with than. You can try to make me think I'm oppressing you, even though I've never met you and would not bother you if I did, but again your desire to feel persecuted has nothing to do with me.
"How nice--"Gays" as a monolithic entity" Rieux
TR: How nice, you misconstruing me in the worst way possible. How about you just deal with what I'm saying instead of smearing?
Obviously all gay people are never of one mind on anything. My point was speaking in general terms, which is necessary at times in conversation. Now then I was born in 1977. To me my life is still fairly recent. In 1977 how common was advocacy for SSM in the gay community? In 1985?
"Marriage has been institutionalized in all sorts of different ways, involving all sorts of relationships between human beings." Rieux
TR: I have a history degree and my sister's degree is in linguistic anthropology. Marriage in virtually all cultures I'm aware of is either explicitly or implicitly heterosexual. Even in cultures where males marry males the idea is generally that a "Man" is marrying a "Woman" or an intersexual. If a man wants to marry an intersexual or post-op transsexual that's within understanding of what marriage can mean.
"Another laughable strawman. Your bigotry is showing." Rieux
TR: Translation "I have no real response, so I'm going to just pout right here."
"The signature fantasy of the homophobe: "They's gon' force me t'say that my's weddin's no better than them queers' is!"" Rieux
TR: I'm not marrying anyone you dolt. And you're the one placing terms like "better" or "worse." I'm talking about difference. If "different" means "worse" to you that's your hang-up.
"Here's the cute thing, Tom: everyone is different."
TR: Oh really. Wow! Except that's not at all what I'm talking about. The difference between males and females is a profoundly different matter. If it weren't you'd be as happy to marry one as the other.
"Gay marriage says that gay people are fully human" Rieux
TR: No, it just says that they're like everyone else. You're not. I'm not. Trying to pretend that I'm like a walking person is foolish and not something I'm going to waste my time on.
"Your strawmen and your bigotry" blah blah
At this point you blow apart into a pure dither of bigotry, strawmen, and anger.
You are aware all I said is there should be a slightly different Same-Sex union with pretty much all the same rights, but protections for religious groups that feel different? I have at least two gay cousins and several of the men I admire are gay. I'm bisexual if celibate. But no this isn't what you want. You want a fantasy world where same-sex marriage always existed and is now being oppressed by some conspiracy. Or where recognizing any difference must be screamed at. You want to be a McCarthyist, but one who seeks out homophobes the way he sought out Communists. You want many things and won't listen to other things.
Fine. I'm sure screaming "bigot" at everyone who says "well let's work out a compromise" will really work for you. It's really quite efficient, it gets rid of that pesky need to talk to people you may disagree with or make a real argument in your favor.
State-sanctioned marriage is discrimination against the single -- marriage for anyone should be private and religious and the state should either give benefits to all or none. Discuss.
"well let's work out a compromise"
Compromise? Are you serious?
You think Martin Luther King, Jr. should have "compromised" on ending segregation, telling African-Americans that "well, we can just wait another 25 years or so to get rid of Jim Crow?"
You think Susan B. Anthony would have told American women, "Hey, look, we got three-fifths of a vote now, that's a fine compromise!"
No compromises for civil rights. This is a black-and-white issue. Either you're in favor of civil rights for all Americans, or you're an ignorant bigot.
Condemnation (Author un-known)
I have come to the conclusion
that faith comes not from condemnation of ones self
but from the knowledge that God loves us unconditionally.
If I should believe Christ distance from me depends upon whether
I act upon a natural instinct of which I do not understand
How then can his love be unconditional?
From my own inner feeling I feel the need to know the answer!
No matter how I position myself the fact still remains
That my innermost feelings and response remains the same.
I do not wish to remove myself from the love I truly feel from God
For it is as natural to me as any other feelings I may have.
Surely if God came to me to announce his displeasure, he would answer my prayers and remove the feeling.
I am weathered and as sinful as any human being, for we are all sinners, but sinning comes from a willful act against God. My feelings are not willful but a part of my very being, I am sure to control them is denial of ones self and the end is condemning myself for something I do not understand.
To believe one can understand my feeling who does not posses them,Would lead to a belief that my very being is behavior and not instinct. Some say the eye is the key to the inner soul, if this were true it is my soul from which the feelings stem and who is better to understand the soul than God himself.
unknown
TR: This is your mental hang-up to deal with than. You can try to make me think I'm oppressing you, even though I've never met you and would not bother you if I did, but again your desire to feel persecuted has nothing to do with me.
Excuse me? I don't want to be persecuted. I want to be left the fuck alone. You're the one who's arguing that it's legitimate for 50%+1 of the residents of the state of California to get in my face and tell my that my relationship is so qualitatively different from anyone else's that I shouldn't be allowed to legally marry my partner.
If you've never met me, then why do you care who I marry? You seem to be forgetting that "the gays" are not a monolithic, faceless entity. We're individuals. Like me. When you argue in favor of taking away our rights, it's not abstract to me. This is about whether I'm going to wake up on my 2-month anniversary and find that my marriage is no longer valid.
Hector wrote:
Of course it wouldn't be fair, and I'm not going to make that evil and vicious comparison. You shouldn't, either.
Why not? You are arguing that it's right and good for you to make me, personally, miserable. You apparently think that you have the right and duty to make sure that I wake up on November 5th devastated and unhappy--and you don't even know me! That sure as hell sounds evil and vicious to me. You're not saying "God hates fags"; you're just saying, "You don't deserve to be happy because you and the person you love happen to share the same bits."
See, this isn't about theory or hypotheticals from where I sit. This is about me. This is about Del Martin, who was lucky enough to be able to legally marry the woman she'd spent 55 years with before she died. This is about the guys who were at the County Clerk's office picking up their license the day I got married, who've been together 20 years.
But Thomas R. and I don't think that's the entirety of what marriage is....But in the traditional Anglican and Catholic understanding of marriage, children are not an optional add-on to marriage, they are its very core.
That's fine, if you're a traditional Anglican or Catholic. I'm not. *My* religion says two things on the subject: "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals" and "An it harm none; do as ye will". By trying to enforce your religious understanding of marriage onto the state as it applies to civil marriage, you're privileging your religion over mine--which last I checked, is kind of antithetical to the First Amendment.
No one's going to make the Catholic Church marry two women or two men. But if the Catholic Church can tell the State of California which marriages can or can't be recognized, then why stop with teh gheys? Why should divorced people be allowed to have civil marriages when it's against Church teaching? Why should non-Catholics be allowed to marry? Certainly, infertile couples are right out.
Oddly enough, though, the only people whose marriages seem to be getting your knickers in a twist are the queers. Funny, that.
Unlike Hector I'm not making a specifically religious argument.
From a secular perspective you, Darkrose, were not born knowing what marriage meant. Or with the idea you must be married at some point. If you'd lived in a culture that stated "the union of opposite sex is matrimony, the union of same-sexes is conjugallion" it's unlikely you'd feel anymore "oppressed" than women feel by the existence of men's rooms.
I personally reject the idea that marriage is something one must do, that you are somehow less human if you're unmarried, or that marriage is the only legitimate form of relationship. I think many gays have bought into an idea feminists had largely abandoned almost a century ago. If you are united in commitment by your Unitarian or Metropolitan minister, and by a stronger civil union than what we have now, how are you being oppressed? Because you don't get to use a specific word? Because you don't get the Hollywood wedding? How many heterosexuals get the second?
Darkrose,
I find it rather amusing that you seem to feel so threatened by the views I hold. I don't live in California, and I don't live in any state where gay marriage is currently a live issue. While I think Obama's stands on social issues are horrid, I'm still reluctantly voting for him because of his views on other issues. It's not like I am actively in a position to prevent you and your partner getting married. But go ahead, call me a bigot if it makes you happy.
That said, I think that it would be good if society didn't embrace the principles that men and women are essentially interchangeable, that gender is socially constructed, that your personal identity is solely up to you to create, that childbearing is an optional add-on to marriage instead of at its core, and that all sexual choices and lifestyles are equally valid. If you don't think that gay marriage will further those ideas, then tell me why and perhaps I'll believe you.
Thomas R,
You realize your argument is in direct contradiction to Loving V Virginia, right?
'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival'
--Supreme Court Decision, Loving V Virginia
"You realize your argument is in direct contradiction to Loving V Virginia"
To a degree. It was a good decision, but some of these decisions have a bit too much loftiness in them.
Obviously we would exist and survive without marriage. People procreate without marriage all the time. If no one married life might be so much poorer it wouldn't be worth living, but that's not quite the same thing.
Besides which "fundamental to our very existence and survival" just could not be a description of same-sex marriages. Obviously we've existed and survived for two centuries without it.
Out of all groups, Black people should be most opposed to Proposition 8. If they vote yes...well then.... maybe they deserve what they have gotten over the last 20 years.
Hey why is it some of you compare this to the black civil rights movement? Compare this to women rights, I never see you gays do that because your white and you know that women are going to void your point. So don't do it with the civil rights movement.
I am upset about this erroneous finger pointing at African-Americans regarding Proposition 8. Why are you so quick to believe whatever you hear? If someone told me 70 percent of gay people voted against Obama my first thought would be, excuse me Jesus, that is crap! I don't believe it! This political year was fraught with right wing lies. Bear that in mind.
"Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California's largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state."
Still, even though gays were fighting to preserve a basic right, it was the anti-equality side in California that seemed to have the most fervor. A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means - he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys - who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. "It was a decision we made very prayerfully," Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee's Jennifer Garza. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”
This is your real enemy. Don't trust exit polls. I think they are pitting one group against the other. African-Americans are less than 7% of the state population, do the math. Many more Whites voted and they put this over, not Blacks. What are the total numbers of each group that voted. Someone dug into the data and found that we're just now learning is that the exit poll was based on less than 2,300 people. If you take into account that blacks in California only make up about 6.2%, we get roughly 224 blacks who were polled. 224 blacks to blame an entire race! The original percentage of black voters who were expected to say yes to Prop 8 was only around 52-58%. Anytime you get a vote that much higher over the projected vote, something went wrong.
I know someone who watches C-Span and they said most Blacks did not even address the question at all. And they do not have the money to fund a tens of millions of dollars Proposition 8 campaign. Note that they also targeted affirmative action for eradication in another state.
I cannot believe that these groups get a pass and Blacks are being targeted for the blame game. Rather than be upset at the phantom African-American menace, fight like hell. There is no right wing black conspiracy against gay Americans. When you tried to align your struggle with that of Blacks you inherited their enemies. These same enemies are now trying to pit one against the other because they fear the combined numbers of both.
How many gay activists supported the civil rights movement in the 1960’s? Then how do you automatically expect support in return? Have you asked Blacks to support you or did you just assume?
No one gave Obama anything and they will not give gays anything either. Obama stands on the shoulders of a lot of brave people who gave their lives for him to stand on that podium last night.
Never trust exits polls because in all my years of life, no one has ever been seen at a polling place asking anyone anything when they left.
Don't fall for the lies.
It is wrong to call an entire group of people African Americans)homophobic just because they did not vote the way the gay rights groups thought they should vote. After all, there are white people who did not vote for Obama,but does that mean they are racist? Gays,come from every race, creed and color so when a blanket statement against African Americans is made it is made against the straight, gay, lesbian,bisexual and transgenders people in the African American commuity too.