Gay marriage and coalition politics

Pam reports some racist invective at a Prop 8 rally. It doesn't help, but it also doesn't matter. People need to support gay marriage because it's the right thing, not because they have some expectation that gay people are less racist. There's considerable data that a large swath of Latino America is more racist than white America. But, for my money, that has nothing to do with where you should fall on immigration policy. Ditto for this e-mail I got yesterday:

I am an educated, upper-middle-class, white, Christian man who can easily "pass" as straight.  For most of my adult life, I have voted against the self-interest of my own socioeconomic class in favor of affirmative action, public school funding, and all sorts of other issues and programs that benefit the African-American and other minority communities.  I think that a lot of the anti-black anger that has been expressed in the past week has been, in part, out of a sense of betrayal by communities that gay people have long supported.

I guess. But no one should ever cast a vote as a quid-pro-quo. If you truly believe a policy isn't in your interest, than you really should oppose it. I like Andrew and all, but I don't support gay marriage because I expect him to recant on the Bell Curve. I support it because I think family is a societal good--which benefits me individually. Raise your kid right, and I don't have to worry about him sticking up my kid. Pool your resources, and maybe I don't have to worry about you defaulting on your home. More abstractly, I simply don't enjoy living in a country that discriminates. That's my feeling. That's about what I want, how I want to live. I don't expect a reward for it. I don't expect a cookie.

UPDATE: Responding to Morzer's comment below, I added some hyperlinks. Still, "large swath" is probably too strong a phrase. I hope none of my brown folk are too ticked off.

Comments

TNC, if you are going to say things like: "There's considerable data that a large swath of Latino America is more racist than white America", it would be a very good idea to provide that data. People tend to get horribly annoyed by statements such as the one you have just made, unless you provide some proof. I doubt you would react well to being told that eg. "There's considerable data that a large swath of black America is more dishonest than white America" without any evidence to back such a claim.

Posted by morzer | November 11, 2008 9:18 AM

Morzer,

Fair enough. Gimme 20 or so, lemme throw in some hyperlinks.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | November 11, 2008 9:27 AM

For most of my adult life, I have voted against the self-interest of my own socioeconomic class in favor of affirmative action, public school funding, and all sorts of other issues and programs that benefit the African-American and other minority communities.
Anyone saying public school funding is not in their own self-interest pisses me off. I don't have kids and won't have any kids but education always improves a community. In fact the way this line was stated in the email to you, I suspect I disagree entirely with the author. Social programs and programs that invest in the community are not a waste. Even if you are a rich white person who won't directly use those facilities. Programs like school funding, community art programs, parks, playgrounds, adult education, public transit, and what not, all change the tenor of the community. They make the location desirable and improve the connectiveness of the community. People who are happy and can get around talk to one another and you end up living in a community where people wave at each other and say good morning.

It all adds up. An area like Park Slope in NY is nice because of the confluence of services and facilities created a nice community.

Posted by Duncan Watson | November 11, 2008 9:29 AM

I was just reading an SF Chronicle article linked from Sullivan's site about how poorly run the No on 8 campaign - no outreach to people of faith, no outreach to people of color, deliberately hiding any GLBT couples and keeping them AND their children off the screen, going out of their way in most (not all) instances to even avoid uttering the words "gay", "lesbian" or "homosexual" to avoid that ICK factor. Just one big "Vote against 8 because, well, we don't wanna say what it's about, just do it!"

The article also pointed out what a Goliath (allusion intended) the Yes on 8 campaign was, and how not just the LDS Church but also the Catholic Church (but especially the LDS Church) poured in millions to get it passed.

As a gay man, the article had me shaking my head, though I was oddly comforted by it as well. If the Yes on 8 campaign was SUCH a Goliath, and the No on 8 campaign was SUCH a poorly run, incompetent campaign, and Yes STILL only passed by a million or so votes, just imagine what would have happened had the No on 8 campaign actually had been run better, reachiing out to people of faith (there are a lot of active Christian and Jewish LGBT's, including a few ministers), people of color (there are LGBT's of all races), showing gay and lesbian couples with their children and their supportive families (yep, know them, too)? David could've felled a mightily funded Goliath.

There's also something Olbermann said last night that gave me pause: his repetition of that very important Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matt 7:12). Why in heck didn't the No on 8 folks trot that Bible verse out over and over!?!?

Posted by JDinBalt | November 11, 2008 9:34 AM

The transactional-politics stance of your correspondent -- "I gave you some stuff, now give me something" -- is the best set-up for the politics of hiring half of the working class to kill the other half.

Posted by Pesto | November 11, 2008 9:36 AM

Thanks for the comments, T-NC.

I'm not in California, so I was only vaguely aware of the amendment prior to election day. But since then, I have bounced from blog to blog to blog, reading Dan Savage, Kos, Andrew Sullivan, Pam's House Blend, Jasmyne Cannick, and all the many assorted comments peope have made.

As a straight black female, I'm extremely disheartened by this issue. I just support marriage, for exactly the same reasons you support it -- not because I expect gay people to be "on my side" afterwards. The quid pro quo arguments that I have seen some people making don't help us move toward a world of more equality.

I think one of the better comments I've seen someone make on this issue is that while there are some similarities between homophobia and racism, they are not exactly the same thing. It seems inaccurate to suggest that just because people have experienced racism they have an automatic affinity for other oppressed groups. The world just doesn't work that way -- no one is terribly shocked that there are racist white women, even though women have been oppressed in this society as well.

At a very basic level, though, I question these numbers. Is there homophobia in the black community, yes. Is it more than in a group having similar education, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds? I'm not sure -- I certainly could be convinced of that, but not by the exit poll everyone keeps citing. And anti-gay marriage amendments have now passed in 30 states, even states that have negligible black populations.

Homophobia is the enemy here. Not "black" homophobia.

Posted by Christina | November 11, 2008 9:44 AM

You're all very noble, but I want my quid pro quo! When they come to put me -- jew, obscenitist, hate-speaker -- in jail, I expect all of you to stand up!

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 11, 2008 9:53 AM

Thanks for fighting the good fight TNC,

Just as an add-on to your post about European Racism. (Sorry, irrelevant in this thread but it just hit me right now). Sarkozy is actually born to "illegal" immigrants from Hungary, and his opponent in the election, Sagolene Royal, (what a name!), is born to north african parent(s). So they are getting there!

I agree with Christina, homophobia is not solely a black issue or any other color either for that matter. I feel like it is discouraging to be criticizing black homophobia when we should be working against homophobia as the nemesis.

Furthermore, this on another level. I love your "music" posts as well, (TV on the Radio etc). You just need to check out Jay Electronica. In a world when BET is busy dealing with auto-tuners and what not. It is refreshing and reviving to hear the future of hiphop is breathing. I have attached a link so you don't have to check it up yourself. It'll take 10 seconds of your time and i promise you it is worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGr7XTB5Ddc

Posted by Marcus | November 11, 2008 9:58 AM

An interesting link. Not sure how I feel about it across the board, but food for thought.

http://slit.livejournal.com/416627.html

(For the record, I support gay marriage. Frankly, I support all kinds of core societal arrangements -- sexual and non -- where no one is miserable and everyone is able to consent, and competent to function as next-of-kin in emergencies. If there's misery, I'm against it. Boo.)

Posted by Galleymac | November 11, 2008 9:59 AM

TNC, thank you for the links. When I wrote my comment, I was partly motivated by a reluctance to credit strong claims without evidence, also by the memory of the episode discussed in the first paragraph of what follows:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1707221,00.html

Posted by morzer | November 11, 2008 10:02 AM

Screw quid pro quo-ism. I hate when people are oppressed and the 'othering' of these oppressed people is the reason why Republicans lost the election. They will continue to lose elections if they continue doing that. I agree with Christina on this. When the Irish came here from Ireland during the potato famine they were treating horribly, but they treated others just as bad. The public didn't vote on Civil rights, so they shouldn't be voting on human rights issues. Period.

Posted by Rainy | November 11, 2008 10:03 AM

No, your right. I thought the whole "Will Latinos vote for Obama" was blown out of proportion. I also have a more subtle analysis of the black-brown thing, to the extent that it even exists. I think, while there is prejudice in any ethnic community, we should be careful about extrapolating truths in L.A. and subbing them in for the country as a whole.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | November 11, 2008 10:07 AM

I would also point out, since we seem to be in dialog here, that some people have vested interests in ethnic/racial conflict/division. Bendixen is a good example, because he was clearly trying to spread a story to help his candidate. Equally, people on both sides of the black/white divide have used racial tension as a means of gaining (re) election. Perhaps the most hopeful aspect of this whole sad story is the "racists for Obama" phenomenon, which might indicate that some people are finally realizing that the old narratives of division and anger don't matter compared to the need to find the most competent person for the job. At least, that's my hope.

Posted by morzer | November 11, 2008 10:13 AM

" The public didn't vote on Civil rights, so they shouldn't be voting on human rights issues."

@Rainy, Could you explain your distinction between civil rights and human rights in the context of Prop 8?

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 11, 2008 10:14 AM

It is almost embaressing for pointing this out - but, indeed, one should not help other to freedom based on an expected pad on the back. Freedom is reward in itself.

Who does not have a gay friend of relative? which straight men would like to be forced to marry another men if he really loves his college girl? which straight woman would enjoy being forced to marry another woman and not the man she desires. The thought of it is soo freaking spooky that... sufficient to say - I cannot relate to yes-voters and am really interested to find out why oh why they get in involved into matter that have nothing to do with them whatsoever.

I am sure, or better hope, that nobody has voted no - just to be respected by others for their mercy. But as stated - I am not sure why people have voted "yes".

I have heard people claim, especially closet-gay preachers, that gays "have a choice"? What? Bi-sexuals, like my sister, have a choice - but even they cannot help being attracted to both sexes and it is in the end no choice at all.

I'd be very strange to me if somebody told me - you can marry all types of women except those who are red-headed and jewish and that is the LAW. what? anyway - the gays that I have known from when I was little definitely do not have a choice regarding who they are sexually attracted to - namely the same sex only. Now - I can understand how some people cannot relate to being attracted to same sex - I find certain foods and sports disgusting that others seem to be into it. I am not going to base a legal argument on "I do not believe you that you like American football. I really think that you actually like basketball more..."

but maybe I am going in the wrong direction and there are other arguments as to why men should tell women.. sorry, as to why straights should be able to tell gays what they can and cannot do with their lives...

Maybe it is all about some ancient book? Because the law or some religion say so. But there is not serious religious argument among Christianity that I am aware off - unless somebody can prove that Jesus, Christ himself, has ever mentioned gays. if anything - we can speculate that the reason why he was not married was.. never mind. Jesus never ever mention gays - he was a good man and would have embraced them..

..to continued.. due to the spam filter...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 11, 2008 10:16 AM

If you truly believe a policy isn't in your interest, than you really should oppose it.

No, you really shouldn't. You should try to behave in keeping with some sense of morality. American democracy, contrary to popular misconception, was not so spectacularly designed that it can produce good outcomes with a completely amoral populace.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 11, 2008 10:16 AM

continued:

Anyway - I am a big Will Smith fan myself (i find him a great role-model for men - no matter what their color - given how confident and self-content he seems compared to other leading men in hollywood). I mention him because I want to give an example of how real support for freedom works. From today's paper:

Jada Pinkett Turns Animal Lover

After Pamela Anderson's 'I'd rather be nude than wear fur' campaign, guess who's following the bold and sexy actress?? Actress Jada Pinkett-Smith plans to follow in the footsteps of Pamela Anderson with a new career as an animal rights activist, when she gets older.

The 37-year-old star, who's married to superstar Will Smith, is a hardcore animal lover and owns a menagerie of pets, including three cats and two dogs. She has also bought a red-tail boa constrictor, and named it ‘Beauty'.

However, after buying Beauty, Pinkett Smith admits she's become much more aware of the plight of caged animals. "I think I'll never get an animal like a snake again where I have to keep her in an aquarium," Contactmusic quoted her as saying.

'We have this whole thing for Beauty outside for her, to be in a natural habitat. But at the end of the day, she knows she's caged into her aquarium. "We can't set her into the wild now, but I told (daughter) Willow we won't do this again and won't have any animals that need to stay like that."Maybe when I get older, that'll become one of my activist endeavours," she added.

Jada is not going to liberate her snake because some other humans would give her cookie for it. Jada just suffers when she sees others suffer. The criterium for suffering is not race, specie, sex, intelligence etc.. it is the ability to feel and the need for autonomy.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 11, 2008 10:17 AM

In this context - my favorite vegetarians and hence modern-day freedom and liberty fighters are:

Bob Marley
Stephen Marley
Carl Lewis
Tupac (anybody know the song: Changes.. "let's change the way we eat)
The Martin Luther King family
Prince
Kevin Eubanks
André 3000
Forest Whitaker
Masta Killa
Q-Tip
Russell Simmons
RZA
Salim Stoudamire
etc

Last but not least:
The Rev. Al Sharpton Takes On KFC
Dick Gregory Speaks Up for KFC Chickens

Why do I mention all this? Cause often we do not need the government in order to do the right thing!

MLK:
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right."

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 11, 2008 10:20 AM

When it comes to social interactions, quid pro quo is called reciprocity, and it's very powerful. But that applies to personal, face-to-face interactions, not interactions between "classes".

Which brings us back to getting out there, making it personal. Making connections with people, telling them why its important.

@JDinBalt, I couldn't agree more. Given my own journey, and that of other straights that have reversed themselves, it's always because they knew someone, and "teh gay" stopped being scary and yuck,and became something quite familiar and human.

I'm a firm believer in "bloom where you're planted". I don't expect people to go to an unfamiliar community and evangelize for marriage equality. But you can make a difference where you are.

We will likely get another swing at this in a couple of years. Between now and then we have about a million minds to change. The question to ask is which of them can maybe do something about changing?

Posted by Doctor Jay | November 11, 2008 10:28 AM

"No, you really shouldn't. You should try to behave in keeping with some sense of morality. American democracy, contrary to popular misconception, was not so spectacularly designed that it can produce good outcomes with a completely amoral populace."

Morality comes out how you want to live your life. Morality IS your interest. "Your interest" isn't simply how much cash you have in your pocket today. It's a long-term proposition. It may not be in my interest, today, to save for college for my son. But over the long term it is. It may not be in my interest to be nice to some guy on the street asking for directions--I may be late for an appointment. But I may calculate that it is in my interest because that's how I want to live my life. That is, literally, what I'm interested in doing.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | November 11, 2008 10:29 AM

"Morality IS your interest."

This depends on how you understand interest, not to mention morality. After all, it may be in my interest to get eg. my rabid fox bite treated in hospital, but my morality may insist that such treatment is forbidden because of some religious imperative. Equally, one might argue that by being polite to the guy on the street one gets better directions, while one's morality might insist that a sincere, blunt request for information would be more appropriate.

Posted by morzer | November 11, 2008 10:35 AM

could not agree more with ta-nehisi. (not) losing empathy is a selfish consideration - like losing sight, smell or the ability to move. what if I or all of us were to become blind, or could not smell and taste anymore. could not feel anymore. could not feel what others are feeling.. simple communication and understanding of the world around us would be impossible. definitely an impoverishment and not a benefit. the other way around though - empathy can lift the individual and society to new heights...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 11, 2008 10:41 AM

RE: Morality vs. Self-interest

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that throughout human history there has been a strong correlation between what people perceive as a moral path and people's perception of their self-interest.

The genius of Madisonianism is that creates a framework within which various self-interests (or visions of morality, take your pic) can be set against one another as a check against the most volatile and dangerous aspects of democracy.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 11, 2008 10:43 AM

"I guess. But no one should ever cast a vote as a quid-pro-quo. If you truly believe a policy isn't in your interest, than you really should oppose it."

Do you really mean this? That seems like a really cold way to look at politics, and it's certainly not the way I and a lot of other folks in my particular slices of the demography see things.

I'm an Arab-American (and a Muslim-American, albeit a secular one), and I can tell you that there's a tremendous amount of goodwill towards the black community for sticking by us on Palestine and on profiling and on all the other bullshit national security issues of the Bush years. This is one of the reasons Arabs in this country are so thrilled by Obama's election (though there are others: my uncle supported Hillary in the primaries because he thought Obama was cowardly for not admitting publicly that he was a Muslim). It feels good, when you're a small, oft-demonized minority, to have a group of people you can point to and say "they're on our side".

Maybe it's not entirely rational, but I can understand perfectly well why some gays feel betrayed on something like a personal level by the black community's response to Prop 8. Left-wing politics and rhetoric is all about solidarity, sometimes it borders on the utopian - if we could all just cast aside our differences and respect each other we could achieve so much etc etc. It should be no surprise that members of left-leaning socio-ethnic groups that grow up believing we really are all fighting the WASPs together react strongly when they're disabused of that notion: it probably didn't dawn on a lot of gay folks until election day just how difficult Jesse Jackson's old rainbow was going to be to put together, or how much hostility they would have to face from their erstwhile brothers.

Posted by Jamal | November 11, 2008 10:51 AM

I don't think the idea is quid pro quo. I think it's just disappointment when you fight against inequality for others and they don't get your back.

I'm sure this feeling goes both ways, which is why we should join together under the concept of equality for everyone as a matter of principle, rather than deciding whose actions make them deserving of what rights.

Posted by lupe | November 11, 2008 11:03 AM

"Left-wing politics and rhetoric is all about solidarity, sometimes it borders on the utopian "

This is why TNC's "You don't have to have to like me or have me over for tea, I don't care, so long as you treat my job/loan app. fairly." strikes me as a rather conservative position. Of course cheering the allocation of rights by referendum strikes me as a rather liberal position, so maybe I'm just confused.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 11, 2008 11:07 AM

I totally disagree that you should never vote for a policy that you think won't be good for you, personally. Sure, don't vote as a quid pro quo unless its been made clear that both parties sign on for both parts. But if we all only ever voted our personal self interest then there would be no minority rights at all, by definition, because there would never be enough concerned citizens to push them through. And there'd be no taxes, either, because each of us would total up what we receive vs. what we give and probably say to hell with the polity as a whole.

aimai

Posted by aimai | November 11, 2008 11:11 AM

And also, this short article is worth reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/rosen

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 11, 2008 11:20 AM

TNC's response to his correspondent is (IMHO) uncharacteristically flat-footed. The guy in the e-mail isn't expressing anger that some quid pro quo hasn't worked out the way he thought it would. He doesn't say African-Americans have "reneged" or "welched" or been "backsliders."

He says he feels betrayed. That's not what you feel when a quid pro quo doesn't work out. It's what you feel when someone you thought was you ally, who you thought was in your corner, turns around and sticks a knife in your back. That's a whole different kind of hurt.

Now, maybe TNC wants to say no one ever made any promises about being an ally to gays, and ultimately that's probably true. But that's an entirely different conversation, and the nature of quid pro quo politics is neither here nor there for it.

Posted by Scott E. | November 11, 2008 12:13 PM

Prop8 has exposed a big problem with constitutaional ammendment initiatives. The courts ruled Prop22 was unconstitutional and in response we got Prop8, and now it seems likely Prop8 will end up in the courts again. If that happens, will we put together yet another ballot iniative? This is a never ending revolving door; something's gotta give. I don't think the issue is settled until it's ruled on by the US Supreme Court. This is what eventually happened with interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).

Posted by Tessa | November 11, 2008 12:25 PM

Yes, maybe we want people to support us when we believe we've supported them, based on solidarity, morality, etc. And when they don't support us, it's okay to feel disappointed.

But we shouldn't turn our backs on (what we perceive as) their cause -- an impulse I've felt more than once. Because we all have a stake in a more just world (call that self-interest or morality, I don't know). God knows I'm not religious but moving toward perfection is our human purpose and struggle.

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts on this. This is important, this is going to keep on being really important in the years to come if we want to take advantage of the opportunities this moment presents.

Posted by mutakhalef | November 11, 2008 12:27 PM

But if we all only ever voted our personal self interest then there would be no minority rights at all, by definition, because there would never be enough concerned citizens to push them through.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'self interest' to a certain extent. I want to live in a certain kind of society, so I vote and behave to that end-- supporting gay rights, throwing money (that was apparently mostly wasted) to the No on 8 campaign, etc. I feel like we're veering into Ayn Rand territory or something, but 'self interest' is, or at least can be, about more than just a narrow 'I've got mine, fuck the rest of y'all' mentality.

Posted by Persia | November 11, 2008 12:38 PM

As some have noted a major problem was the lousy efforts put forth by the NO campaign. The expectation that AA voters were supposed to have voted one way or another is misplaced; but for Obama would this expectation have been as strong. It may be fair to say that the election of Obama was important to the AA community as a whole, but it is foolhardy to suggest that Prop 8 had a similiar importance.

Live in Northern California very little by the NO campaign until the very end of the election cycle; the YES side did much more. A few AA LBGT folks have been in the media of late, these have not supported the view of non AA LBGT folks; they do note that racism is not less in the broader LBGT community than in the broader society.

Conflating the Prop 8 issues to the level of the seemingly endless political actions of AA is very misplaced; yes, some basic issues are much the same, but resolutions vary greatly. Assumptions that one group or another will follow a presumed path absent much effort is the real problem in the failure of Prop 8; I do note that the AA communities suffer from an excess share of this malady of assumptions.

Posted by ADLEED | November 11, 2008 1:01 PM

I believe TNC has the right approach re enlightened self-interest. I doorbelled for the Democratic campaign in the rich parts of Bellevue, near Seattle, and talked to a couple of people who supported Obama even though their own taxes might increase under his proposal. We agreed that you spend money on what you value, and what we valued was a healthy society, a clean environment, less income inequality, infrastructure improvements.

If there really were policies that were of no value to me, at all, even in the long run, even thinking of myself as part of a larger, well-run community, I wouldn't vote for them. But public schools and affirmative action don't fall into those categories.

Encouraging people who love each other to make a public commitment to care for each other long term and their children, i.e. get married, is good for the community, period, whoever you happen to be.

I am white, straight and middle income. I will continue to vote for policies directed to ensuring that when I walk out the door each morning, it is into a well-run community full of people who care for each other and are maximizing their potential to do good things. I am selfish that way.

Posted by glenn | November 11, 2008 1:10 PM

Wow, the conversation on this thread is really depressing to read. That said; given the stupidity of the post (sorry Ta-Nehisi, it was), I'm not surprised.

Any of your "brown folk" who are pissed off have every right to be.

So you've linked to one Duke University study and now feel vindicated with using it as fodder to sully Latinos. You'd hit the roof (and rightly so, I might add) if somebody made a similar assertion that African Americans are a highly racist lot using anecdotal evidence.

Hell, I can give you a ton of anecdotal evidence to "back-up" that claim. How about this: Perhaps many Latinos have a negative impression of African Americans based on the way they've been treated by them upon arrival in the US.

I live in DC and I cannot tell you how many times I've seen African Americans openly calling Latinos (and Asians and Indians and Whites, etc) racist names and otherwise treating them like dog shit.

Perhaps first impressions have something to do with this.

How about the statistic (and I can find the hyperlink if need be) that African Americans are the least likely of any ethnic group to support interracial dating/marriage.

Again, this is anecdotal and therefore does not prove anything, but as long as we're making idiotic generalizations to tar an entire group (sorry, trying to qualify it by saying "large swaths" doesn't exonerate you), I'll use this evidence to make an equally absurd generalization that African Americans are among the most racist groups in the US.

Again, I'm not saying I believe it, but I do have crappy evidence to back it up, so it holds about as much water as your statement - which is to say; not much at all.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I will now be debating whether or not this blog is worth my time.

Posted by BS_SI | November 11, 2008 1:16 PM

BS_SI, I agree that the post was perhaps not TNC's finest hour, but he did respond when challenged on it, and did say that he had probably gone too far. I understand your annoyance, but TNC did engage with criticism and did step back somewhat. I don't think any community can claim clean hands when it comes to race and racial issues. Also, TNC does allow comments and does respond to them - which is rather more than others at the Atlantic are willing to do. Rather than getting on your high horse and making threats, why not lay out a detailed argument and debate the issue in a civilized and amicable way? How else can we make progress?

Posted by morzer | November 11, 2008 1:29 PM

Morzer: In all due respect, he didn't address anything. He essentially doubled down on his statement by adding links (A story from the LA Times and A shoddy study done at Duke)! He then tries to cover his ass by later adding (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I probably shouldn't have called out ALL Latinos, just most."

I'm more saddened than anything as I really liked this blog, but now I'm starting to think Ta-Nehisis is just another black racist who gets away with murder because he's a smooth talker.

Like I said; Ta-Nehisi doubled down on his statement, he didn't address anything.

Posted by BS_SI | November 11, 2008 1:55 PM

For most of my adult life, I have voted against the self-interest of my own socioeconomic class in favor of affirmative action, public school funding, and all sorts of other issues and programs that benefit the African-American and other minority communities.

What does this mean? No one benefits from living in a society where many of the poorer members are not educated. As for voting for Affirmative Action ... I'd really be interested in seeing what he's talking about because I can't think of anything.

Whatever, some people are just plain dumb, narrow-minded and petty and being surprised that oppressed people can exhibit these traits implies that they're a separate species. And fairly frickin' stupid.

Also, what mozer said up-thread. Nothing delights the heart of the bigot like seeing the people he's been stepping on fight amongst themselves. It means they don't have time to turn on him.

Posted by jsg 4 that 1 | November 11, 2008 1:56 PM

I have voted against the self-interest of my own socioeconomic class in favor of affirmative action, public school funding, and all sorts of other issues and programs that benefit the African-American and other minority communities.

This statement is also problematic in that these things also benefit people who are not African-American or minority, or even of a different socio-economic class (white women across the board, for example), but who still have troubles.

It's already been said, too, but it's very presumptuous to assume support from a group (that you haven't really spoken to, if I'm to believe reports I've seen here) and then feel betrayed. A group needs to actually pledge support before they can betray you. Which involves conversation, not pre-assumption and entitlement.

It's a fine line between this one and the guy who spews "Blacks are a fifth column who don't appreciate that taxpayers' money has bought them things like schools and public transport!" (as if no black people had ever paid taxes).

(And again, I must caveat, I am disgusted with the passage of Proposition 8.)

At any rate, I don't believe the fight is over and will do all I can as a straight black woman to help and support. (So, having pledged this, if I fail to do it, "betrayal" would be absolutely the correct term.)

Posted by Galleymac | November 11, 2008 2:25 PM

No one benefits from living in a society where many of the poorer members are not educated.

That is simply not true. An uneducated working class is cheaper labor. Educating a lot of people for middle class jobs puts more pressure on the middle class, reducing middle class wages. And the more options a worker has, the more expensive it gets to have them work in service-sector jobs.

Can you really staff a restaurant or shop with college-educated workers? Can you harvest your crops with them?

No, education is a benefit for the educated. Above and beyond that, it gets a lot more complicated.

Posted by Lemmy Caution | November 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Lemmy, I have to disagree. A basic level of literacy is essential for a functioning society, and the people who work in restaurants and shops can and should have decent literacy and math skills. The people who harvest crops should be able to decide, for example, if the low, low mortgate rate or payday loan they're being offered is a great deal or a scam; anything less, as we're seeing, can affect society for the worse.

Posted by Persia | November 11, 2008 2:40 PM

Persia, then the answer is some minimal amount of education to help people operate at a basic level is in most peoples' interest. But that doesn't get you very much public policy change: if it is in my class interest that education provide a socioeconomic membrane, then I will make sure that education is very two-tiered at the very least. And that also changes the nature of education: right now, most educational reformers are geared toward college prep. If we switched to viewing a lot of the students as future farm workers, we would stop at basic literacy and "life coping" skills, such as budgeting.

Posted by Lemmy Caution | November 11, 2008 2:48 PM

yo lemmy. education as we discuss it here is not about knowing the difference between an option and a swap. it is about how to actually pro-actively manage your life. that includes close and distant social relationships. and sex education is part of it. you don't need to be a wall street shark, software geek or university professor to have a good decent life. but at a minimum, in this context, learning and knowing that gays don't fake it is a good start? (i am not saying that gays don't fake it - they probably do, being human and all. but they do not fake being attracted to the other sex. it is not an option or something acquired like liking the taste of beer..)

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 11, 2008 7:24 PM

TNC,

I haven't quite digested the issues involved in Gay marriages. I suspect many African Americans went into the voting boots uninformed as well. In so far as the issue is about names, meaning gays are whining about the word marriage itself rather than equal benefits and treatments then I suspect there is no real discrimination... I don't understand why Gay's would be unhappy with the word Civil Unions or any other word such as Domestic Partnership for statutes that represent them, if they have equal treatments. Its quite ludicrous to demand names....its quite silly. And please don't equate this with racism, marriage is custom practiced by heterosexuals. I assure you this is not a way to discriminate you but you are gay....its reality...You should demand equal treatments and benefits not equal names....so silly.

Posted by Hassa | November 11, 2008 8:14 PM

Wow.

Well, first things first: how are you defining racism? To the extent that racism is about power, I respectfully doubt that Latinos as a group are "more racist" than white people. Get back to me when you have some structural racism built upon latinidad by Latinos. Regardless, who cares about who is worse than who? That's a red herring that stops real change from happening.

Secondly, I'm sure that you are aware of the difference between Latinos and immigrants from the spanish speaking Caribbean, Latin America, and South America. And that, of course, that racism exists in these countries in its own pecualr and quite specific ways.

And that? Is because there are Latino folks both US born and immigrant who are of African descent.

Just had to get that off my chest as a queer American born Latin@ of African and Asian descent.

It's always hard to parse out what is in one's "best interest" as interest functions on many levels, and is not linear, in any case. I often feel that coalitions function as collective movements when what we are working FOR seems worthwhile compared to what we might have to leave behind. In working to build community and coalition, it;s important not to see the struggle as a zero sum game--it's not tit for tat, and much of what I've been reading round the internets suggests that not only is this the predominate analysis, but also the theoretical underpinning of much of the strategizing.

For example, a certain amount of folk keep trying to show the equivalence between the fight for gay marriage for queers and interracial marriage for black. Now, aside from the fact that we know that not all gay folk believe that legalizing marriage is the foremost issue to be working on, and therefore we might assume that not all black folk thought that interracial marriage was the most important issue to be working on in 1967, it also highlights the fact that folks don't know exactly what the Loving case was about, and therefore can't use the case effectively to begin a discussion about what "marriage" means and how marriage is, itself, an issue.

Now, same sex marriage has moved fast forward since 2004, but current movements for gay marriage STILL take place in a context in which institutions of white supremacy and capitalism play an enormous role in determining political agendas and controlling resources. Gay marriage advocates used to talk much more about how marriage allows couples greater access to the social and economic privileges of the US, without actually clarifying that only folks with access or marrying someone with access actually benefits from this version of marriage. Are we fooling ourselves that gay marriage is just about proving a commitment? Are there really no material benefits to [gay] marriage?

It was just four short years ago when the dialogue about marriage and what marriage IS was much more robust and complicated. I remember Bush's Healthy Marriage welfare reform act that enforced poor women---disproportionately Black---marrying as a way to end social welfare support. Enforced heterosexuality in the name of economic mobility. Hah! When folks working for same sex marriage show up for rallies against destructive marriage reforms for poor folk--some of wham are also queer---we'll have moved forward. Because while we can approach marriage as an individual right we can also see it as a systemic wrong.

Posted by moonmarked | November 11, 2008 10:40 PM

A marriage license is an instrument of the government, in some ways, much like a business license or a drivers license. If you, as an adult citizen, want to assume the responsibilities and take advantage of the benefits it confers that is your right. I think it has something to do with equal protection under the law. End of story.

Posted by anna perez | November 11, 2008 11:21 PM

@Hassa:

There are three reasons why "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are not an acceptable alternative, although they constitute an admitted improvement over no familial protections whatsoever...

1) With few exceptions, most DPs do not provide all the same rights of marriage within the state or locality that institutes them. Most civil unions do provide an equal level of protection, on the state level only. Which leads to....

2) Even if all 50 states had full-fledged civil unions, only the marriage rights and benefits controlled by the states would be applied. NO Federal rights of any kind would apply, and there are more than 1,000 Federally-sanctioned benefits to the status of marriage. A very relevant one for many people is being able to marry (or civilly unite with) your partner who is from another country. Impossible for LGBT people without full Federal marriage. Which leads to...

3) If at some point, there exists a Federal-level civil union status that is equal to marriage in all but name, it will be subject to the "separate but equal" legal argument; this argument was successfully used in the Connecticut Supreme Court to convert civil unions into equal marriage.

The practices and "customs" of "heterosexual" marriage are far less homogenous than anyone should suppose without plenty of research. And in the end, it comes down to more than a name, it comes down to a class distinction. How would you feel if AAs couldn't get married, but could only get "blarried", with limited rights and benefits as opposed to everyone else? Sure, you'd be pleased to have some protections, but some part of you would hope that someday, the government at least, and society at best, would recognize your "blarriage" as a marriage.

Also, and I can't believe I almost forgot this, the legal status of DPs and civil unions is so complicated in most places that GLBT folk are advised to seek legal counsel before entering into one so that they'll be aware of what they're getting into. For example: I live in Boston, but I'm moving next summer to go to law school. My partner and I could get married here, and our marriage would be fully legal in the state, but not for Federal purposes. If I go to school in NY, most institutions (but not all, and who knows which ones) will recognize our marriage. If I move to DC, we can have a DP, but who knows if we have to dissolve our marriage to get a DP, or if it automatically converts. If we move to CA, well, just who knows at this point LOL. If we moved to most other places, our marriage would simply cease to exist, but still be in existence in the state of Massachusetts. It's so complicated, and there's just no need when it is a government contract we are demanding and nothing more. There's very little about it that is actually "silly". :)

Having said all that, thank you for asking the questions. :)

Posted by Erika | November 12, 2008 3:31 AM

Very, very rarely do I see anyone point out the most obvious answer to all of this nonsense...remove the word "marriage" from all civil statute/regulation/law verbiage.

Mating pairs predate religion and religion predates nation-state governments. Marriage is a religious ceremony that got absorbed into government, not the other way around.

Take the word "marriage" out of all the laws and statutes and require those that want to gain the legal benefits get both the civil and the religious if they so choose. That pretty much ends the argument in a simple, pragmatic way.

However...there's a simple problem with that. If you're going to open what we now consider as "marriage" to mean more than a man and a woman because of "seperate but legal" or "equal protection" arguments, what do you then say to the woman who wants to marry two men, or the man who wants to marry two men (etc etc)? Why should a threesome "marriage" be any less valid than a twosome? I can think of many reasons why it would be BETTER to pool the resources of three incomes and efforts than it is for two. Why should multiple-partner marriages be valid as well?

Posted by Scott | November 12, 2008 8:29 AM

Erika,

I guess it comes down to abolishing something so sacred to many....and just removing the word marriage all together. Of course I am sure some of you guys will still protest about that too...why now? when gays come around you want to change the system huh? Its a religious thing....not personal..

Posted by HassaN | November 12, 2008 11:40 AM

To the extent that racism is about power, I respectfully doubt that Latinos as a group are "more racist" than white people"

Racism is about race. I don't know where this weasel-worded crap about racism being about power started, but it's obvious why it started - the Black Nationalist movement quickly showed that it was as racuialist, and even as racist, as any other nationlaist movement, since nationalism eventuually always comes down to tribe,and is inevitably racist. it was simple self-serving exculpation.

"Secondly, I'm sure that you are aware of the difference between Latinos and immigrants from the spanish speaking Caribbean, Latin America, and South America."

Whatever the diffenrences are, they are sure to be very fluid and dependent on the specific defintion endorsed by whatever groupuscle is using the term at the moment. There are Mexicans (Aztlan Movement) in the who deride the term as just more Spanish racism, there are Mexicans who deride the term Hispanic as just silly, there are Spanish descendants in New Mexico who consider themselves white all the while maintaining their language for three hundred years, there are people who think the term Latino or Hispanic really describes a social reality. It's all over the map and basically silly and uselss as any kind of designator. The fact is that in the past there has been little love lost between Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans at the street level, whatver the CBOs and activists and campus ideologues may like to think.

Posted by Jim | November 12, 2008 4:02 PM

@ Hassa:

I really appreciate your response. I don't take anything you said personally, I responded because a lot of people are led to think that the current statuses are equal when in fact they're just not.

A very big thing for me, is that I highly respect people's right to worship as they choose, and I don't want to take anything away from anyone or desecrate something that is sacred to someone's religious beliefs... I just want to make sure that my family is protected *by the government* in a manner that is equal to the protections afforded other families. If they want to call it something else, I don't really care what it is called, they can call it a "big fat gay wedding" or a "totally non-religious government union" or whatever they like as long as everyone has the exact same protections!

There is no way that the government can force a religious organization to perform gay marriages if they are opposed to such a thing, so nobody's altars will have to be stained with the taint of gay-ness if the church so determines. :) At the end of the day, it is enshrined in our Constitution that government doesn't force religions to do things, and it also states that religions (even majority ones) don't inform the policies of government.

I can't speak for what some or all gays would protest, I can simply say what the legal arguments are and how a separate but equal civil status would likely play out in the courts. I personally don't think I would mind too much if I truly had all of the exact same rights, but it seems likely based on legal precedent that it couldn't stay that way for long. State by state progress is definitely encouraging, but it's kind of annoying to think that if my partner and I were married here, our protections would evaporate every time we went on vacation, unless we wanted to vacation in exotic Connecticut. :)

Anyways, I appreciate your honesty. :)

@ Scott:

If civil marriage is separate from religious institutional marriage (which it currently is in most senses), then there should be no need for anyone to receive *government* benefits based on a religious ceremony (which in fact is also the case now - you obtain the legal benefits by virtue of your government marriage certificate, with or without the religious blessing). You couldn't just go into a church, get married by a religious official, and be considered legally married without following up and certifying your civil marriage with the government.

In light of this, it actually makes a great deal of sense to have two different words for the religious ceremony and the legal compact. However, my guess is that many married folk would be annoyed to have their existing marriage somehow "downgraded" to a civil union, probably even more than they are annoyed that gay civil unions might be "upgraded" to marriages. Language matters to us a great deal, doesn't it?

Quite personally, and from a civil-libertarian standpoint, I take no issue with the idea that committed polyamorous people (ha, I almost typed 'couples') should be able to designate the scope of their own families for legal purposes. However, you clearly couldn't call that a marriage! ;)

Just kidding, I was trying to make a point. Call it whatever you want. Maybe that can be a "totally non-religious government union" too. It doesn't matter what I think about other people's lives and relationships, at least not from the standpoint of what the government does or how it acts. Why should it matter what we *personally* feel distasteful about or are religiously opposed to, when what we're talking about here are agreements between individuals and the government?

--------
Either of you, or anyone else, please feel free to comment on my blog if you want to discuss further, it's certainly not my intent to hijack the page!

PS - BIG thumbs down for ANYONE blaming AAs or some other random group for this electoral outcome. I promise you that this opinion, while it may exist among the ranks of gay people and others, is NOT a representative one, for whatever that matters. Our anger at this outcome would be much better directed at the specific efforts of organized religion, and it would be much better applied as outreach and informative efforts than as hate. How totally counter-productive it is to act hateful towards those who hate us, those kind of actions solve nothing and reap no positives!!!

Posted by Erika | November 12, 2008 10:39 PM

I don't think Latinos are more racist than whites, but I wouldn't think this has anything to do with power or lack of it.

It also might be a bit complicated by what we mean by "Latino", "white", and "racism." From what I recall many "lighter" Guatemalans are not fond of Mayas. If they have that prejudice it might be more or less moot here as I don't think the Maya population is particularly large. (Although maybe it is in California or Texas, I don't know) Likewise I believe some Cubans are fairly "white" and more or less identify as such.

Still from what I recall in studies Latinos have a less negative view of blacks than whites do. Both Latinos and whites, as I recall, had a fairly okay view of Asians. They didn't really ask how various groups viewed American Indians at least not in the study I saw.

Posted by Thomas R | November 13, 2008 4:29 AM

@Erika

A conservative never wants you to have your rights because they know that today's fight is never enough. Take the case of blackness and racism, although I must say that this was totally inhuman and had no basis on religion or morality, but gays probably say is parallel to their trife. The racism card is still in effect today for justifiable reasons, even now that we have a president. That is...the marginalized will never stop protesting until they do whatever they want.

Though I do not expect you to understand why that world is not a world I am looking forward to as it relates to gays, its so much about values and so much about family. That you are gay is probably nothing to me until you are outwardly gay as the norms of a culture become affected.

We are different and this is championed in the constitution but still I am not looking forward to that day. That you seek political correctness is one thing....I just hope you understand that it will never be enough.

This system favors you....I doubt the people do.
Your fight then becomes a fight with spirituality and religion. I am sure your champion Sullivan would agree with this.

C'est la vie

Posted by Hassan | November 13, 2008 11:49 AM

Jim,

Racism is about race AND power, and I apologize for not making my meaning clear on that. Racist structures operate because of the collective powers that can enforce those structures.

And in terms of Latino, my issue is not about the differences between the groups who choose to organize under that umbrella, but that there is a difference between American-born Latin@s and immigrants.

I mean, would a study about the racism of recently immigrated Brits (meaning Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and English folks) be valid in a discussion about white racism in America? Could I sue what they say about the Somalians in the East End to infer anything about what Texans feel about Somalians?

Posted by moonmarked | November 15, 2008 9:41 AM