For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn't been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven't reached them; there hasn't been enough effort expended.And Andrew's:
There is a difference between blaming African Americans and recognizing that the black community needs to be engaged more energetically on this issue.As a member of said community, expect me to be more engaged--and perhaps more importantly, engaged with people I know may not want to be engaged. I believe in the moral obligation here. But there's something else. I have repeatedly said that it's in white people's interest to confront racism, that they shouldn't do it as a favor, that they shouldn't lend us a hand, but that they should recognize that it's the best thing for their kids. This is even more true for black people and homophobia. We need all the community we can get. And in these times--like white people and racism--dissing people who want to make family is a luxury we really don't have.
And then there's the obvious detriment of homophobia--the appalling HIV stats in our community. I always thought the absolute worse part of the Rev. Wright fiasco wasn't his quasi-damning of America, but the pushing of conspiracy theories in regards to HIV. It didn't make it better that it came from a guy who's been doing exactly the sort of outreach we need more of from the black church. Talk to black health professionals out in the field--they understand where the notion comes from, but they hate it all the same. Our unwillingness to talk pushes serious issues under the table. This shit will kill us. It's not a game.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
What ti-nehisi has posted, I think, still applies too all of - not just blacks. At the risk of re-posting and repeating myself.. here is an infamous letter again. The founder of the Black Panthers addresses African-American in 1970:
I could not agree more with Mr Netwon - although by now we have moved beyond addressing the sources of homophobia in modern discourse. Homophobia is what he explains it is - fear to lose nuts that one does not even have. Fear of being a homosexual oneself - mainly among men. White and black males did not have this identity fear when it came to giving women liberty - they were afraid of losing some power but that's it.
I can understand where males are coming from. Again - I idolize Malcolm X (more than any other human except for some ancient greeks). Who would not get weak, straight or gay, when... but is that "bad"?
The question is - are you more afraid of being a coward or a homosexual?
I have believed for some time and continue to believe that ending the ban on gays openly serving in the military early in his administration would be a shrewd political move by Obama.
No hemming and hawing like Clinton did (Sam Nunn--ugghh), just do it. Cite the dozens of Arabic translators who were dumped because they preferred the company of their own sex to the company of the opposite sex. Show how not allowing them to serve made us far less safer than letting would have (that's insanely easy). Remind people that gay people have always served in the U.S. military and in all armies since the beginning of time. Challenge the U.S. armed forces to be professional about it, and that he would tolerate no gay bashing in response. Mention the other strong military forces which allow gays to openly serve (among others--Israel!).
Sure, this was a problem for Clinton, but that was long before Will & Grace came and went. This is coming. Everyone knows it. Get out in front, and Obama will be remembered a strong leader. Sure, there are obvious differences with the struggle for racial equality, but there are plenty more similarities. A President Obama showing whatever portion of the black community--and the rest of the nation which needs showing--that gay people need not be feared and shunned would render any future Prop 8-type votes a joke.
Obama would do himself a world of good, politically, with this move. The media, for all their notreallyliberal slant, would, I think, herald this a bold, long overdue move (the media people are horrible in many ways, but they live in the city; they don't hate gay people as a rule). If Obama acted quickly and decisively (unlike Clinton), the issue would be an afterthought by 2012. The only people still reacting by then will be the Right Wing Religious Kooks, which is about all the Republican Party has right now anyway, and all they deserve. Social realists and libertarian leaning Republicans no longer want to be part of the Party of Hate and Fear, as we saw this time around.
Obviously, allowing gays to serve openly in the military is sound policy (well, it's obvious to many of us). But this would be smart politics as well.
This is why I love his blog-- the content and the commentors are just on this amazing level. I'd never heard that Huey Newton quote before, and it's like the man was twenty years ahead of us all.
As a follow-up I note the Onion's typically brilliant piece on the election (read all the War for the White House stuff, it's all gold) Nation Finally Shitty Enough to Make Social Progress. The U.S. military is no exception. President Cheney has fucked up the military so badly, stretched it so thin with the disastrous and thoroughly stupid Iraq Invasion, that we're reduced to recruiting psychopaths into the Marines, but Arabic translators get tossed because, although they're entirely professional in their jobs, they have a different sexual orientation. How hard could it be for anyone, let alone someone with the political capital and charisma of President Obama, to demonstrate how silly this is?
Dang. I knew I should have previewed.
Nation Finally Shitty Enough to Make Social Progress.
Is there any analysis of the Proposition 8 vote based on both race and age, i.e., are there generational differences in the black and latino communities on this issue? Assume there must be, as there are in the white community, just have not been able to find any data.
Deleted. Out of bounds.
I seem to be suffering from a wicked case of the slows this Saturday morning, but how do you get from widespread homophobia to believing conspiracies about the spread of HIV?
I'd always assumed that the lyrics to "Heard 'Em Say" were a product of Kanye being a little nutty--never occurred to me that homophobia might explain it.
I decided to speak with my family and friends about this topic last night, presenting some of the arguments from commentors, etc. Two people who were present during the discussion had voted YesOn8, so it was tense. But I kept it going until we had exhausted our thoughts on the subject and everyone fell silent (especially the Yes-On-8ers).
I left the conversation thinking, at first, what was the point? I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But then again, I thought, you never know how someone's thinking is going to evolve. It's sort of like when you're trying to convince a child to do something (take a liberal view of the analogy, please, I'm not trying to be condescending). You tell them over and over again to do it (or not do it) and you get sassed back, or you get silence, and you wonder if anything you're saying is really sinking in. Then one day, they surprise you and do the right thing. So despite the repeated sass and silence, it did sink in after all. And sometimes it doesn't work---but you keep at it because, well, that's your job.
So I think you're right on, Ta-Nehisi, we need to stay engaged. We need to keep talking even if we think our words are falling on deaf ears. And we need to start at home.
It appears some sanity in the debate on California's Prop 8 has begun to surface in the past 36 hours. As regard the 70% issues, 70% of what has not been clearly specified. I do concur with the view that outreach to AA communities on LBGT issues is weak; the leadership of the NO campaign was ineffective; and the recognition that Prop 8 was overshadowed by others issues this election cycle. Tend to think that the so-called 70% became a handy scapegoat for some of the Prop 8 opposition and the news cycle; it appears some magical association was made due to Obama being on the ballot. The election for President and Prop 8 have no connection to each other. Intially, it was overlooked that about 3/4 on the funds supporting Prop 8 came from members the LDS church; not too many AA in this religious community.
Except for elements in the religious community have never had the impression that the bulk of the AA community pays much attention to LBGT issues, are generally tolerant but focused on other issues. LBGT folks are within the AA communities and are no more or less acceptable than in any other broad group. I tend to believe that the so-called backward view in the AA community is more urban myth than reality; rarely have observed the Latino or Spanish speaking communities loaded with the same burden on this issue as AA communities. It is noted that voter turnout in San Francisco was about 50%; this City/County is a center for a major force in the LBGT community, the 50% turnout is much more telling.
I'm totally with Pam on this one. There was so much anger from people like Dan Savage (who I generally read religiously) that was just completely counterproductive. Such a sense of "those fools--they would vote for our side if they knew what was good for them!" It was the kind of nonsense that you expect from Republicans about black voters supporting the Democrats.
And, ok, yes. Equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans would, in fact, be good for black people, too. But you shouldn't be surprised when they don't turn around and apologize for being so stupid, vowing to do the right thing the next time.
You don't win votes by lecturing people. There are a lot of white queer activists who don't try to reach out to communities of color at all. Or (sometimes worse) who try to do so without understanding the problems faced by people of color in America.
There are some groups who are doing great work on this, at least here in New York. Look at people like the Audre Lourde Project, or Qwave, or the many other groups associated with them. Go to a pride parade and see how diverse they've become. That's the work that needs to be done, but there's a lot left to do.
Others have hinted at a lack of outreach by the proponents of gay marriage to the black community. I don't know if there was much effort or not, but I do know that liberals shouldn't have risen the day after the election and been surprised at the results. When Michigan voted on it, african americans voted against gay marriage, polling has been clear on the issue for some time. Many people seem totalled puzzled, as if they assume because blacks are solid democratic voters, that they think like the white liberal.
It reminds me of the post mortem in November 2004 when a lot of people had no clue how Bush got reelected. If people don't understand why something happened, it is on you to figure it out. Like Nicholas Kristof once pointed out, after 9/11, many on the left ran out to purchase the Quran so they could understand Islam, but they fail to put forth the same effort to understand some of their fellow countrymen who vote differently.
I don't have any great insight into how to change the minds of white Mormons or African American churchgoers on this issue, but there certainly are wrong ways to go about it.
Again, I agree with everyone and all the activism around this issue is awesome and continue but these conversations need to be, as commenter Tessa pointed out, had at home in close, unescapable quarters, but also in the barbershops and the beauty salons where Tyler Perry (who is most likely a gay man--as is Mark Curry, Jaleel White, Anferny Hardaway and countless other black celebrities and historical figures) is playing on reruns of Oprah or on BET, in churches, and BOTH within the context of HIV transmission and the context of sexuality IN GENERAL, specifically given how the media portrays black sexuality in music videos, on movies, etc. THE MORE UNCOMFORTABLE THE CONVERSATION, THE BETTER! SERIOUSLY! FOR REALS! I need to see preachers and church ladies with big hats blushing and fainting in front of girls named Shonte with terrible weaves that they keep beating the itch underneath it, and boys with tattoos and cornrows and two earrings who hate going to church but have to because their Mamas make them come every Sunday and they tune out by playing a PSP during the sermon. This very uncomfortable conversation needs to take place over artery-clogging fried chicken and potato salad in the church basement with Yolanda Adams and TD Jakes playing in the background and everyone present and understanding that it's too important to wave away the uncomfortable topic of sexuality--gay, straight, and beyond with a funeral home church fan.
@Michael R Jackson
I love the scenes you've created. Hilarious...LOL
"uncomfortable topic of sexuality--gay, straight, and beyond"
I think MRJ is getting at something with his comments, on this post and elsewhere, about how much of the antipathy towards gay marriage, from people of all races, is a product of the undifferentiated erotophobia that runs through our culture, and has frequently been enshrined in our laws.
It's easy to forget (or maybe some people just don't know) that it wasn't until 1934 that our civil rights were understood to include the right to buy and read books containing sexual passages (US v Ulysses). It wasn't until 1965 that our civil rights were understood to include the right to contraceptives (Griswold v CT). It wasn't until 2003 that our civil rights were understood to include the right to have consensual sex with another adult -- male or female -- in the manner of our choosing (Lawrence v. Texas.)
I seem to be suffering from a wicked case of the slows this Saturday morning, but how do you get from widespread homophobia to believing conspiracies about the spread of HIV?
The argument in its simplest form: When you're not willing to admit that your community has a significant number of men who have sex with men, it's much harder to explain why all kinds of men and women in your community are getting HIV. It's a breakdown in cause and effect. That's why Michael R. Jackson is right about the conversations that need to happen.
In my rural white community, it takes different forms, most notable the tragically high suicide rate among young people, but that's another story.
I've had this discussion before. One incident keeps coming up, though--the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments.
Not that I think there's a shred of truth to anything but the idea that humans got HIV by killing a monkey and eating it without cooking it all the way through. But I can kind of see where this could run into "I'm not paranoid if they are out to get me!" with that sitting in the cultural subconsciousness.
Andrew Sullivan is now suggesting that gays are as racist as blacks are homophobic. Hm. I just don't know where to start, anymore.
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat." -Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
Yup. Dead on.
I know straight couples who don't go to HIV/AIDs support groups because all the support groups in their city are gay-friendly.
I know people who have gotten the cold shoulder from their pastor when they've gone to the church for help.
I've talked with black HIV/AIDS gay activists for HIV/AIDS who won't consider doing outreach to black churches - because of how they've been treated by the church.
And I know people who claim - I can't say a degree of self-hatred isn't in there too but this is what they say - that they won't date black women because of the spread of HIV/AIDS has so rampant in the black community.
I know people who won't take their medication because they can't can't admit that they have HIV because they think its a gay disease.
Homophobia is deadly to the black community in the age of HIV/AIDS. Thats the real lesson of this vote against Prop 8 - that we'd be stronger if we worked together.
This is an interesting take from a AA lesbian in LA.
One of the points she makes multiple times is that AA's can't be expected to care about equal rights (or at least marriage rights) for gays as long as terrible conditions exist for themselves, repeatedly invoking driving while black. I really don't understand this attitude at all. Gay marriage costs blacks nothing, except perhaps some mild intellectual discomfort. The notion that everything has to be good for yourself before you would stick up for others strikes me as ridiculously mean-spirited.* If gay rights and AA civil rights were a zero-sum game, this might make some more sense. As it is, it just pisses me off. If she were claiming that organizing in such a situation will be doubly hard, that would be okay, but it really seems to me that she is declaring that it is a frivolous (and bourgeois white) waste of time to pursue marriage equality.
She also repeatedly makes a claim that is regularly made within certain corners of the queer world: marriage is a middle-class privilege that is obsessed over by middle-class whites and it is a waste of time organizing around it when you consider all the other terrible things that queers face (active discrimination, violence, HIV, etc.). She just extends that argument to include AAs. But this is a frankly stupid argument: there are privileges no one should have and there are privileges everyone should have. Marriage is the later--every adult should be able to form a family of their choosing and have it recognized by the state. Period. Marriage won't solve all those other problems, but that's beside the point.
Sorry to rant about something someone else wrote, but since it's not entirely off topic, I was hoping someone in this audience would have something constructive to say about it.
One last note: the only demographic that voted No on 8 was white women. So nearly everyone out here in Cali needs to get their people in line.
* I can't really speak to whether this representation of the state of mind of AA's in LA is accurate or if it is a flawed interpretation on her part.
I agree with Ta-Nehisi and others... up to a point. I think, though, that calling all of this "homophobia" kind of blankets another easy to misuse term where it doesn't entirely fit; and further, I think Ta-Nehisi lets the black community off to easy with an equivalency like "in the way whites need to confront their own racial prejudices, blacks need to confront homophobia" because what's getting swept aside, yet again, is the notion that African Americans might have racial prejudices too that need confrontation and examination. And I think tied up in the rejection of the gay community by much of the black community is seeing the gay rights movement as primarily the province of a set of privileged whites.
In thinking about how Prop 8 fell out - and I too think, as Andrew does that it's less about "blaming" one group for the outcome, than asking how one group could have gone for it in such lopsided numbers - I also suspect that part of the problem was that outreach to the black community was in fact too nice. It assumes that "we all share concern for each other's civil rights' is actually the case, and just to be really un-PC, I think that's debatable. I suspect, now, that in fact one has to not paper over what can't be said in hard arguments, but in fact bring it up - that confronting the African American churches on the refusal to acknowledge or discuss homosexuality in the black community and not supporting the gay community is in fact, and that one way to address it would be to support the rights of another group. In other words, don't equate gay marriage with the lofty goals of a Dr. King, and assume some great sense of lofty ideals as inherent in African Americans, but instead ask them to confront their own prejudices and misconceptions, and to be direct, get real. I suspect without actually doing that, the prospects of progress on this are actually zilch.
On Tues, I worked as an Elections Clerk in FL where the anti-gay-marriage provision (Amendment 2) also passed. My precinct was located in a senior community. Thoughout the day, I heard multiple voters say that they were voting for only 2 issues: the presidency and Amendment 2. I also heard some elderly voters requesting assistance in locating Amend 2 on the 7-page ballot.
There's a reason why these voters were specifically interested in Amendment 2 and it wasn't because this senior community is on the vanguard of gay activism. It's clear that someone or a group had engaged in successful outreach and educated the voters on the consequences of Yes on 2. They learned that a vote against gay marriage meant that their domestic partnerships would also be affected. Many seniors live together w/o marriage because of social security benefits. Yes on 2 could mean that their partners would not be able to visit them in the hospital should they get sick.
This is the kind of outreach that needs to be done with all segments of the population. Whether the message is "You, too, could be affected" or "Any kind of discrimination is an injustice" or "We all have family and friends who are gay and deserve the same rights", etc., one of these will resonate with most open-minded voters. I remain comvinced that with the right amount of publicity and outreach, a gay marriage initiative can pass.
There was so much anger from people like Dan Savage (who I generally read religiously) that was just completely counterproductive. Such a sense of "those fools--they would vote for our side if they knew what was good for them!" It was the kind of nonsense that you expect from Republicans about black voters supporting the Democrats.
I don't know how nonsensical that is. Take my hometown of Philly. We've had Democratic mayors, and only Democratic mayors, since the 50s. Any way you slice and dice it, the welfare of black Philadelphians certainly hasn't improved a whit in that period. Actually, it's really gone down as far as education and crime and unemployment go. We average something like a murder a day, our schools are awful, drug sales are rampant, etc. I really don't get how they're better off voting en masse for whatever candidate the Democrats put up. As for blacks voting against Prop 8 if they knew what was good for them, that doesn't make sense. They'd vote against it if they had a sense of justice, or reciprocity, or empathy for those who, like themselves, have been discriminated against by the state, but voting against Prop 8 isn't good for black people in any particular way that I can see.
Yo. Asher. It's not about how blacks can benefit from legalizing homosexuality all the way. It is about how straight people can benefit from it. Take these arguments and bring them to whoever minority you think you need.
One untouched benefit, for example, of legalizing gays all the way is that straight and married people can rest assured that they really are who they are. Straight blacks can finally feel secure that they are really straight and gays can come out more freely without the fear of second-classness.
One does not need demographics for that, does one?
OK - I'm sorry. But are you all fucking kidding me?
Less than 1 week from the election and you want gay people to calm down? Saying they're over the top? Millions of people just saw their hopes for marriage (something I personally view as one of the pinnacle achievements in my hetero life) dashed.
And they find out one particular minority group (AAs) voted disproportionately in favor of discrimination. One that has enjoyed lots of support from gays, jews, etc.
And another previously persecuted minority group (mormons) spent $30 million to deny the right of marriage, and is now calling for "civility" (meaning: stop bugging us, free speech means we get to say what we want without criticism, go away gays).
Seriously, fuck that shit.
Did black people just "sit down and take it" when the powerful white folks said "sit at the back of the bus", "you can't eat here", "the law says you can't marry a white person?". Did black people just chill and try some education over the long-haul? Loving v. Virginia was decided by the Supreme Court when 18 states still had anti-interracial marriage laws on the books and far more than 52% of people were against interracial marriage.
AA didn't, and haven't, taken that kind of stuff lying down. A little outright anger, demonstrations and some over-the-top lashing out is entirely to be expected from gays right about now.
AAs would do well to STFU and look inside themselves. They're part of the problem. Yes, gays should reach out and try to educate. But when 70% of your community is bigoted and hateful, they've got a problem and it needs fixing.
Is there some reason that a) this sort of ballot issue only appears in presidential election years and b)tend to either distract or disrupt democratic voters?
There's a reason that the 70% AA vote against the prop was made a big deal (if it is at all accurate): Divide us.
I agree with the above commenters who advocate talking and convincing -- I'm on the other side of it. I'm going to meet a man on Monday who will probably be more than a little upset about the passage of the prop. in Cali. I will try to remind him that I ran off the anti's in my state when they swarmed our parking garage, and that we must understand the politics of this.
I will also remind him that his angst at not being able to bring his Mexican lover to the U.S. as his mate while watching greasy old white guys bring over young eastern European girls as their brides was completely justified.
It's cynical election year politics. Just like the Palin pick. It's really insulting that these props get on the ballot. It's doubly insulting that this prop in Cali is now dividing our joy.
Fuck them. Fuck Rove being seen as reasonable. Fuck the divisive people in politics for playing politics.
It's a plot to divide the Democratic coalition! Surely we'll see this plot pay big dividends in the ... um... Georgia runoff next month! No, not at all Michelle. What happened was the California Sup. Ct. made a decision that drove a lot of people crazy (kinda like how Roe v. Wade pisses off pro-lifers like myself), and so they decided to do something about it, and obviously it wasn't all pushed by a few nefarious operatives and the Mormon church, because what do you know, it passed. It had broad-based support. And it's a pity that it passed, but it's not a conspiracy to divide your coalition. As for the black role in all of this, I agree that it didn't pass because of how blacks voted. But that doesn't change anything or exonerate anyone. Suppose in a much more anti-Semitic America than the one we live in, some bigots decided to propose an initiative preventing non-Jews from marrying Jews, and it failed, but (in this strictly hypothetical situation) a majority of blacks supported it. Would it really make Jewish people feel any better about blacks' votes that the thing failed? Would it be a valid argument to say, "hey, what are you so mad at now, the thing didn't pass, our votes didn't actually take away your civil rights or anything"? Hell no. That would be the end of Jewish-black relations for the next 50 years. So I can imagine why gay people would be mad too, regardless of whether your votes were the deciding factor or not. It really doesn't matter either way.
There's a difference between anger on the one hand and violence and slander on the other. Given the level of money and support given to Yes on 8 from the Mormon Church, they should expect to take some heat. Sometimes the only discussion that can be had is an angry discussion. Wouldn't you be angry if you were told by the voters that you couldn't marry your true love?
We're going to have some anger of the nature, "Why didn't you do more?" Parallel to such is the anger of "Why didn't I do more?".
The conversation isn't over. We are in a very strange place legally at the moment in CA. There are some gay couples who have been married and remain legally married since Prop 8 does not appear to annul their marriages. I'm not sure why, perhaps it's political, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps my understanding of the law is wrong.
What's religion and race got to do with homosexuality and oppression? Does an oppressed black mormon gay not suffer like an oppressed straight white jew? The point is that gays are oppressed (certain jobs and marriage etc) and that non-gays, no matter what their race or religion, have nothing to lose or fear from liberating gays and acknowledging them as fully equal to heteros.
How should the marriage of two heteros suffer from acknowledging that some humans are really not sexually attracted to the other sex but rather to the same? How does the longing of heteros for strong relationships and family suffer from acknowledging the same longing in homos?
Why should mormon marriage be more at risk than jewish, islamic or say catholic or greek orthodox marriage? I know that some catholics are scared of the orthodox church because they allow their priests to marry... but even in a catholic nation - it would be a far cry for voters or the government to prohibit orthodox priests from marrying?
No - all gays, men and women, mormons, jews and catholics, democrats and republicans, suffer from their second-citizen status. if anything - a black or mormon gay suffers even more than say a white catholic gay - but both suffer. A black or mormon gay does not feel better when white straights and white gays point the finger at AAs and mormons? Had 70% of whites voted no...
This is democracy - Barack Hussein Obama won due to the young, white vote and not due to the black. Again, had 70% of whites voted no and not a mere 51%... the point is - I see only two groups in this discussion. Those who have a problem with giving gays full legalization (all jobs and marriage etc) and those who have a problem with it. Those who feel they have nothing to lose but to gain and those who fee they have nothing to gain but to lose.
There is no point in mixing all of our issues and ideologies into the legalize-gays discussion?
Yes - we can be angry. but what is the point of being angry at AAs, mormons or whites. We do not know what the individuals have voted and it would be racial or religious profiling. In this context - we should be outraged at all yes votes or at none.
(Only in the context of - how does a gay black or gay mormon feel - should we confront those groups for hurting their own - as we, the US, have critiqued Iran regarding the non-existence of Iranian gays.)
My wild speculation is that deep down, on an emotional level, all who voted yes - voted for more or less the same reason and vice versa. Now - what does that mean? It means finding out what the yes-voters were afraid of and confronting these fears.
What are the fears of yes-voters?
NB: I agree with Andrew that given how young voters view homosexuality - it is only a question of time that full human right are given to gays. In the meantime - it is supposedly straights who will suffer, maybe more than open gays, from their insecurities and fears. Sounds like masochism to me..?
If people who votes yes feel that they have just saved their marriage with a tick.. they have merely discredited their marriage for ever and have made a fool of this institution. Good. I've never understood why the state can control a purely religious matter while pretending to take seriously the separation of church and state... i can understand religious rules like: only a female can pass on the jewish faith to her offspring etc - but the state doing the same is insane..
jcricket, why do you think blacks owe you something? We don't owe you shit!
You say, "And they find out one particular minority group (AAs) voted disproportionately in favor of discrimination. One that has enjoyed lots of support from gays, jews, etc."
We have enjoyed lots of support from gays and Jews? You have any information to back this up? Black people have always supported themselves in our fight for equality. It took hundreds of years to get where we are today. You're angry? Give me a break. Stand in any blacks shoes for a month and say that shit. We don't want to hear your complaints! You have to work for what you want. Period!
You say, "Did black people just "sit down and take it" when the powerful white folks said "sit at the back of the bus", "you can't eat here", "the law says you can't marry a white person?". Did black people just chill and try some education over the long-haul? Loving v. Virginia was decided by the Supreme Court when 18 states still had anti-interracial marriage laws on the books and far more than 52% of people were against interracial marriage."
Yeah, thanks for point out all the shit we went through. You haven't even gotten to our level yet. You know, before all that there was 400 years of slavery. We don't need no history lesson from you! WE KNOW our history.
You say, "AAs would do well to STFU and look inside themselves. They're part of the problem. Yes, gays should reach out and try to educate. But when 70% of your community is bigoted and hateful, they've got a problem and it needs fixing."
While you say we need to look inside ourselves not being hateful or whatever. You are writing your hateful, vindictive and evil post. Nobody cares about your anger and nobody cares about what you think WE should be doing. You don't take religion into account and you don't take into account that people may have a different opinion from you. Why don't you go talk to white people? I don't believe any exit polling because it's always inaccurate. This country is 65% white and more whites voted this thing down then blacks did. If this was a national vote, white would be the group to vote it down.
This is the response you will get if you come at blacks with anger. They don't care about your anger or your complaints.
I know I'm coming to this late, but I just read the Huey Newton passage in the first comment and was very inspired. I had never read it before and I'm glad somebody posted it. Thanks!
Many people are surprised by the stand-points of black civil rights leaders on issues such as LGBT and animal-rights. It is an interesting phenomenon on its own. For me - the intuitive conclusion would be that somebody who has been oppressed (as my family has for political and later ethnic reasons) - would be most likely to feel empathy with other oppressed beings. The realization that it is not about color, sex, IQ, religion but about the ability to suffer... never mind. Here is more:
Coretta Scott King, widow of MLK, on LGBT oppression:
God bless her. And her family... But there is more. The King family on animal rights:
... so what is up with Dexter King?
The question, again, here is; Are there people out there, white or black, who believe that the King family is trying to damage hetreo marriages or that they will turn homosexual or that Dexter will turn into a chicken?
I guess the following link is even more provocative? If you like it - move on...
There's an excellent essay called an Open Letter to White Activists that addresses a lot of the issues surrounding the No on 8 campaign and its failure to reach out to the black community.
I found it compelling, convincing and very well-written. Well worth reading, and it deserves wider exposure than it's going to get from the LiveJournal community.
We have enjoyed lots of support from gays and Jews? You have any information to back this up?
If you read about the history of the civil rights movement, you'd see that it's true. Haven't you ever heard of Schwerner?
Dear Friends,
I'm normally a lurker, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this one.
First of all - full disclosure - I am a Caucasian gay male (with a partner of 12 years) living in New York City.
I voted for Obama and was positively ecstatic when he won. It was an exhilarating night. It felt like something had finally gone right after so very much had gone wrong.
The next morning, though, I was completely stunned to learn that Proposition 8 had passed. I remember I had to ask my partner twice - just because I was so sure I'd misheard him.
Afterward, in an effort to find more information, I started reading different websites/blogs including, well, I won't mention anyone by name. Let's just say that I was quickly brought up to speed on the now-infamous "black people threw us under the bus" theory...
...and I spent the next few days discovering some truly ugly emotions. It's been horrible.
Is there homophobia in the African-American community? Of course. Is the AA community MORE homophobic than any other? Perhaps. But I doubt it.
I think the big difference, really, is that gay white men are just more incensed by black homophobia.
An admittedly imperfect example - when Eminem uses words like "fag" and "dyke" he's being clever and ironic. Pushing the envelope. Displaying genius worthy of analysis by the likes of Frank Rich. It's not nice to hear, but I put up with it.
When Isaiah Washington uses the F word, though, that's when the bomb goes off. It's the lynching mentality, plain and simple.
At any rate, I'm writing this in the hopes that other gay white men like myself will, rather than lashing out in hurt and anger, take this as an opportunity to do some much-needed self-analysis. I'm hurting as much as anyone - but this isn't a game. It's critical that we learn the right lessons from this experience and not take the easy way out by scapegoating. I f@*king mean it.
In fact, maybe the most racist thing of all was that I never stopped to consider that some AAs might - for whatever reason - vote YES. Ultimately, that was the real failure.
And, yes, I'm sure the AA community has some self-examination of its own to do. But since I'm not a member of that community I'm not going to be stupid enough to tell anyone where my responsibility ends and theirs begins. There's been plenty of that already and it doesn't solve anything. Is that clear my white brothers? Stop typing, shut up and look in the mirror.
Meanwhile - Mr. Coates and friends - thank you, thank you, thank you for your very real support. I'm sorry for the hideous things that have been said, both in print and in person.
The only way we can have a future is together.
By the way, Ta-Nehisi, your hero of the cinema, Will Smith, has discussed the possibility that the CIA invented HIV in its bio-weapons program.
Not helpful.
For the record, this shit is ALREADY killing us. Over half of all new HIV/AIDS cases are Black women. But here's the other news flash, if you run a cross tab across all demographics it isn't the number of Black people that is most stunning. The key indicator is WEALTH. Impoverished and lower middle class people of ALL ethnicities tend to be against GBLT rights. This is largely due to the lack of access to education and the improbability/ difficulty of effective outreach. That's where the divide lies. Not on race, but class.
That said, we represent 6% of the California voting population and did not have the ability to make or break Prop 8. It took a lot of white people to do that. I'd say you've got work to do in your own community before you start hurling bricks at ours.
As for some feigned sense of solidarity you thought you had with African Americans, a real connection begins with conversation and outreach. Not because you "think they ought to know better." Most African Americans don't know any more about their history than Sarah Pailin knows about NAFTA.
As a Black woman who has lost a brother and cousin to HIV/AIDS and a nephew who was murdered because he was gay (and a 19 year old daughter who came out last week), I was appauled to hear and read some of the vitriolic hate being spewed across the net at African Americans in general. I don't remember Dr. King ever saying f--- anybody. I don't remember him calling white people "crackers." I do remember that he paid the same level of respect to those who agreed with him as he did those who disagreed.
If those nasty voices don't represent the GBLT community then you have the responsibility to shout them down.
And finally, Barack Obama is the president of the entire U.S. Although as a people we take great pride in his election, some of the GBLT posters should think twice before they hold Obama up as a "gift" they gave to us and that somehow we shortchanged them by voting for Prop 8. Tell me you would prefer McCain and his side kick, the holy rolling Sarah Palin. Tell me that if she had become president one day that your lives would be better.
We've got work to do people. We can keep this argument going and lose precious time or we can decide to re-double our efforts to make real change.
BTW, I don't know where I stand on this issue. Growing up, I was taught that homosexuality was a choice. Knowing what I know now, I question the validity of that. I've had a better education than most. I have opened my heart and mind, chiefly because my daughter deserves that. She needs her mother everyday and I refuse to let somebody tell me that something is "wrong" with her. So I'm listening with as open of a heart as I can. Are you going to talk to people like me or are you going to keep kicking us?
1. Ed: Having been around for the Clinton gays in the military fiasco, I have no taste for that battle now. Sam Nunn, as ugh-y as he might be, actually helped save Bill's ass with a face-saving compromise that threatened to end his presidency right there. How a man with such political instincts could think that he could get gays in the military with 40-some percent of the vote is still beyond me. But I digress.
2. Rainy: You don't know that Jews were in the forefront with you of the modern civil rights movement?? Study!
3. More people voted on 8 than voted for president, but over 100,000!!
Looking at election returns, my best guess is that what defeated No on 8 was evangelical and fundamentalist religious voters, including and maybe especially Catholics, voting religious/"moral" beliefs without thought about the constitutional/discrimination/wait til your ox is gored issue.
Plus, there's plenty of blame to go around: Complacency in the No camp at the beginning and poor organization; cowardice among political leaders (Rep Barbara Lee, for example, who touts her LGBT credentials on her site but said not one public word opposing 8); late funding vs the Mormon money.
4. As a white, gay, Jewish Oakland resident who worked with the AIDS Project of the East Bay in the 90s, I can tell you that one great barrier to dealing with the infection back then was the unwillingness of the churches (most) to deal with it. Plus the paranoia about HIV, given credence by Mbecki, by the way, certainly didn't help. Apparently, the issue has STILL not been properly faced.
As a gay white activist for many different sorts of causes, all I have to say is this: if, in fact, AAs voted overwhelmingly to pass Prop 8, as seems to have been the case, then that choice has far, far less to do with the color of anyone's skin than with the potent influence of religion on AA culture.
We could all sit around for an eternity debating the minutiae of the results, who turned out to vote, how they voted, etc. In the end, we as a community either have to reach out to people of faith (of *all* varieties), or hope that the courts will overturn what seems to be an unconstitutional implementation of religious principle as public policy. Maybe better, both.
It's important to note that people of faith understand the fear of persecution just as powerfully as those who are perhaps more genuinely oppressed in our times. However, they have been taught to believe that we want to take away something that God gave especially to them... That sense of privilege will be difficult to overcome.
If it turns out that the judicial system has not yet evolved enough to fully support the equal recognition of the gay community, then our "target" should be the faith community, and the application should be one of outreach and establishing common ground, not blind rage.
I don't mean to say that the effort will be won on the ground, because like all other equal protection issues, this one will have to be decided in the courts in order to find enforcement. Regardless, we *can* benefit from broader support on the ground, and however amusing it may be to laugh at Mormons' magic underwear, or however easy it may be to target statistics about the AA vote, directing our collective anger at narrow groups of people can hardly broaden our coalition. We have to channel this passion in productive directions.