1.) The 70 percent figure for black support of Prop 8 is wildly overblown, and in conflict with all the other polling done. The study concludes that 58 percent is a more likely number. To put that in context, the study also concludes that 59 percent of Latinos supported prop 8. That isn't one-up-manship--it just means we were about the same.
2.) Black people almost certainly did not account for 10 percent of the voters on Prop 8, they accounted for seven percent
3.) 58 percent is still higher than the 52 percent for the state, as a whole, but that difference is almost entirely accounted for by the fact that no ethnic group in California is as religiously devout as (as measured by church attendance) African-Americans.
4.) Among those who attended church weekly, African-Americans were support for Prop 8 was lower than amongst any other ethnic group.
The faultiness of exit polling is well known. But when it comes to blacks, we believe the worse and ask questions, uhm, like never.
Look, my fight is clear. Homophobia is bad for my community. I support gay marriage because I believe it is a moral imperative, and the marker of a just society. I support it because, as a black man, I have seen first-hand the value of all kinds of family. In other words, it's in my interest. It's in my son's interest. It's a part of a world, that I hope to live in. But frankly, I have no use for people--gay, straight, white, red, rich, poor--who feel like black people "owe them." I have no use for people who like to trot out their history of supporting "black causes." I have no use for people who want to compare gay racism with black homophobia. With friends like those...
There are people in my business who took to the highest hills to decry the betrayal of black Californians, and to this day, are giddily noting that blacks sunk marriage equality in California, who foist the failure of marriage equality on seven percent of the electorate . I will not speculate on their motives. But let's see how loudly they address this study. Let's see how much ink we see spilled revisiting those assumptions. Or will it be on to the next calamity, where the blacks--or the Arabs, or the Latinos--can be trotted out and blamed for the failings of others. For the failings of us all.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
We can still blame the seriously loaded Mormon Church though. Lovely outfit, that.
It's about time! I never trusted the exit poll numbers anyway (presidential election 2004 & John Kerry anyone). I've never believed that Black people are the more homophobic than other groups. I just think people who think that Black are the most ___ (fill in the blank) like to scream from the rafters. Thanks for speaking some truth.
Damn it, now we're gonna need a new scapegoat. I say we blame Lichtenstein.
Blame the breeders!
I'm glad someone coherently addressed and eased this bitterness I have felt for some time now about how the passage of Prop 8 has been laid squarely on the shoulders of black Californians. I am a bisexual, LIBERAL non-church going black woman living in the county seat of activist/bougie blackness in Los Angeles -- Leimert Park. I railed against Prop 8 from the very beginning, made calls against it, and even angrily protested the offices of an organization that posted fliers all over black neighborhoods with pictures of black leaders and politicians (including Obama!) who supposedly supported Prop 8 (he didn't). I even went as far as to steal the "save our children from gay marriage" lawn signs some sketchy "pro-family" neighbors put up near our middle school and laughed at the unfortunate lateness of Obama's one pathetic little robocall the night before the election saying he was against Prop 8, while the pros had been calling us for months unchallenged. I was heartbroken after it passed, but (for the sake of statistics alone) never believed those who shouted all over the media that we ungrateful blacks had "betrayed" the gays when they worked so hard to "give us a black president." This "us" vs. "them" thing was so painful, as if queer blacks did not exist. I wondered, does this mean that white GLBT supported Obama solely as a gift to black people, that somehow white gay interests would not also be served by electing the better, smarter, more progressive candidate? Blacks number too few in California to have such a dubious honor of sole responsibility of screwing the gays, and I declared this to everyone who would listen. And what about we queer blacks? Or the many progressive and enlightened straights like TNC? Or even the church-going nanas who refused to vote against the interests of their queer children and grandbabies? Do those blacks count? Or is it like hip-hop where the most retrograde image of black thought enjoys the most publicity? It was especially disgusting the thinly veiled racism coming from even the supposedly "open-minded" bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, whose Daily Dish I boycotted for weeks because of his nasty "blame the blacks for Prop 8" fixation. Today, no one is happier than me that REAL numbers have come out on the issue. I hope this shuts up a few nincompoops out there, because I am exhausted from the pain, disinformation, and media hypocrisy.
Yeah -- it always had the odor of bullbleep.
What's telling is how easily it took hold. If we (white LGBT marriage supporters) want to win this thing, we need to include all our friends from the get-go and learn who really lives with us in the state of California.
You should all read the thread on huffpo. It has descended to Black Women having a hatred of Black men, I kid you not!
I agree with you, TNC.
That said, what is the source of this report's data? All I saw was this: DBR Survey of California Voters for Equality California, November 6-16, 2008. I don't know what that means. I can't say their data is better until I know where it came from.
Black people are not to blame for the passage of Prop 8. I thought that had been cleared up, like, 3 days after the election.
However, 58% is too f---ing high. So is 59%, for the Latino community.
But you wrote a 500 word blog post to attack data that anyone who really cares about the issue knew was faulty months ago.
I would much rather see you devote blog space to issues of why (which you have before) blacks voted 58% (i.e., religious beliefs, links to interracial marriage ideas) or how to improve the situation within the community.
Knock 'em out the box, Coates. Knock 'em out, Coates.
I love Sullivan, but you got to stay on him here, keep up the dialog, and bring the man into the fold...start there and keep on pressing...you're doing some very important work here, and your voice is urgent and necessary. Don't let up. Especially because you are so right.
nother question is what is the age demographics for each group?
A pretty safe assumption is that support for Gay Marriage increases as the populations get younger. How did Black 20-30 year olds vote compared to whtie 20-30 year olds and so on. If the black vote skews older that alone may explain the 58 vs 52.
Outsider,
These guys did the data:
http://www.davidbinderresearch.com/
I read the report and what most got me is, while the DBR report is clearly important, in regards to that 70 percent number, that isn't the only data they cite. They use Field survey taken roughly a week before election day, a SUSA one taken a few days before and a SUSA one taken shortly after. Of those four, the one they rely on--the DBR--actually reports the highest level of support for Prop 8. I understand that some of that is apples and oranges. But still, the one they relied on, was actually the worst--but it was still 12 points short of 70 percent.
A lot of gay marriage proponents have been so used to regarding anyone who is against them as bigots, so maybe some were so angered, they lashed out at a group that as a majority, voted against their interests. They assumed large parts of the black community would be with them because they usually vote with them, and when it didn't happen, rage rather than reason was the first response.
Of course, this explaination (assuming it is correct) is no comfort to black people who were blamed for the proposal's passage.
I would love to speculate on the motives of those who so harshly and loudly called out the black community, but looking at it from a rational perspective leaves me empty, so I assume much is the anger of the moment. Gay activists certainly aren't pursuing a Nixonian stragety here by blaming the blacks. I guess if I am being speculative, it could be that those so irked were guilty of assuming black voters are so robotic that they will follow whatever the liberal issue of the time is.
@Outsider: in addition to the polls TNC talks about, the 58% estimate of blacks voting yes on 8 is also based on an analysis that used a combination of census data and official precinct-level election returns. (I did the analysis for that part of the report, although I'm not one of the principal authors.) This also isn't 100% reliable, because it requires some statistical heavy lifting to avoid the difficulties of inferring individual behavior from aggregated data. But I think it's more believable than the 70% number.
@TNC - Why the bouncing back and forth? I ask this as a sincerely confused cracker who's got more than a passing interest in writing.
"2.) BLACK people almost certainly did not account for 10 percent of the voters on Prop 8, they accounted for seven percent
3.) 58 percent is still higher than the 52 percent for the state, as a whole, but that difference is almost entirely accounted for by the fact that no ethnic group in California is as religiously devout as (as measured by church attendance) AFRICAN-AMERICANS.
4.) Among those who attended church weekly, AFRICAN-AMERICANS were support for Prop 8 was lower than amongst any other ethnic group.
The faultiness of exit polling is well known. But when it comes to BLACKS, we believe the worse and ask questions, uhm, like never."
Can you provide data that shows that blacks attend church regularly in greater numbers than Latino or hispanic Californians? Further, why point out their church attendance then point out that of church-goers was lower? Just curious.
I was listening to News And Notes a while back and they were discussing labels between Latino and hispanic, one guest making the point that some of them consider it bigoted to be called one or the other. A black panelist interrupted frustrated and listed off all the different names that group has been saying it wants to be called, saying something very close to "don't tell us what to call you when you can't figure out what to call each other".
This is my basic problem with identity politics and multiculturalism in general. It almost unconsciously causes the very practices we contend we're trying to do away with.
I hope you forwarded this to Andrew Sullivan. He's been the standard-bearer of the "It's official! Blacks are the most homophobic Americans" movement, no? Is he going to offer up a mea culpa?
Let me echo Maya- Walk across the hall and make sure Sully comments on this. While he wasn't as bad as some in the blame game, I do think he can help this to gain wider airing.
I really have to agree with John B. It would suit you a lot better, I think, to try to figure out why as groups Blacks and Latinos voted above 50 percent for the passage of Prop 8.
Looking at the map I have seen it appears that only the SF and LA multiplexes voted against 8 while the central valley and inland empire voted heavily for it.
California in general has a huge red/blue split between the urban and rural areas.
This is in fact where the John Birch Society came from, so to expect prop 8 to be defeated easily was a bit much to ask.
That's the thing with polling, especially exit polling. When you have a comprehensive poll, ifyou take of a subset (i.e. Blacks, latinos, churchgoers, etc) you have to increase the margin of error from the original comprehensive poll. So if the exit poll had a margin of error of ±3, if you take blacks only it's ±5-6, then for black churchgoers it could be as high ±10. In other words, pretty unreliable.
Andrew Sullivan cannot be excused, nor can other members of the gay community who scapegoat the black vote for prop 8 or stereotype black people as being anti-gay.
That being said, the people who trumpeted the black vote = prop 8 line from the beginning were conservatives, gleefully pointing at supposed overwhelming black support for prop 8 for moral authority and for proof that this is not a civil rights issue. This turns the "scapegoat first, ask questions never" dynamic on its head a little.
Using exit polls as electoral and cultural analysis is lazy thinking. Bill O'Reilly et al. live off that stuff. But I think the majority of the gay community understands it cannot afford to be lazy in assessing why Prop 8 passed.
Scott,
Take a moment to read the report. The data you ask for is all there. Moreover, in looking at church-goers, the point is to try to compare apples to apples. In other words, let's not compare blacks to whites to Latinos. How about we compare blacks to whites to Latinos, who's religous habits are similar.
In the interest of honesty, it's worth also noting that among people who went to church less than once a week, black support for Prop 8 is higher than in the general pop.
Please don't confuse my anger at the simplicity of blaming Prop 8's passage with an attempt to brush over homophobia in the black community. I'm not down with that either. I want black folks to confront this issue--we have some things to work out in terms of how we see family. And I don't want the scapegoating of others to be an excuse not to do our own work.
It may be true that you live in a racist world. That doesn't mean you don't have to go to school today.
I'll definitely read it more in-depth when I can get The Man off my back for a little while (the man being my boss...the fact that he's white is incidental).
Hopefully this will get more play nationally, but I doubt it. Prop 8 news seems be buried under tons of other stories right now. I imagine our brethren in CA have a different and infinitely more personal take on it though.
On the issue, though, since you mentioned fighting for gay marriage because you want a just society, do you also support, then, repealing the laws against polygamy?
I'm not baiting anyone. I'm sincerely interested in how anyone can argue for codifying gay marriage into legal statutes based on discrimination and at the same time discriminate against someone who believes two wives or two husbands is the way to go.
I, for one, don't need a doubled-up honey-do list, although the bennies would probably make that livable :)
While I don't expect any backtracking from those who pushed the "blame the blacks" meme, I'm really glad to see more realistic numbers. As a black person, I felt like crap when I heard that my community had voted so heavily against equality. That was followed by anger when I heard the self-righteous tone some took in their condemnation of black folks. So while I don't imagine this report will garner much attention, I am glad to see that black folks pretty much voted the way I thought they would.
I for one am still disgusted with Dan Savage for his unqualified attacks against blacks as a whole, and for his cowardice in not yet addressing the disparity between the figure he cited in making these attacks, and the actual figure.
Andrew Sullivan struck a far more moderate tone than Savage, who basically spazzed out and refused to apologize even when the figure came under fire months ago.
Its a shame, because I really liked reading his column, but he mightve lost one on that one.
A travesty? I think you're taking this too far. All this report shows is that the original exit poll data may have overstated the degree of black support for prop 8. So black opposition to the gay marriage remains a significant barrier to gay rights, which is all that most people were saying anyway (And while I don't have time to analyze the report as I'd like, it does say that being African American has the greatest direct effect of any characteristic on whether the voter was for or against does it not? See Table 3).
You seem only to be addressing the extremist "scapegoat" crowd. Most of us just think blacks need to get their heads out of their asses and do the right thing. Just like alot of us need to do on various other issues. I don't think you disagree on this point, and I think the unfortunate result of your and others overwhelming focus on black scapegoating will be to abandon the real issue, which you have identified, of blacks confronting their own homophobia.
No other comment, but to applaud. Thanks.
I have to admit, I was pretty raw after the election. But I wasn't about to make any crazy conclusions based on what people told reporters. I feel that the leadership of the NO on 8 campaign led a bad campaign, and as someone who was directly affected by the vote, I WAS LAZY. I am responsible, I took my marriage and family stability for granted. It doesn't help the gay community to be angry at anyone. It just means we have to learn humility and set ourselves calmly to the work at hand: Show this country that we are worthy of their respect.
History always bends toward justice, however slowly. In my lifetime, people were institutionalized for being gay, and the law certainly didn't protect them. Now, gay couples are getting married and raising kids. When compared to what African Americans still have to put up with, we (gay whites) have very little to complain about on a daily basis. Let's just shut the hell up and get back to work!
"do you also support, then, repealing the laws against polygamy"
I actually don't think this is baiting and would be interested to see what discussion evolves around this. If adults choose to live their lives in polygamous relationships I do not see how that is any business of the state.
What two or more adults do in their private lives is no one's business but their own. Granting legal status to affairs of the heart is always going to be problematic, but if everyone is of consenting age it becomes a matter of civil rights.
Labor,
"So black opposition to the gay marriage remains a significant barrier to gay rights, which is all that most people were saying anyway"
Please offer proof of that statement.
In regards, to California, you're cherry-picking from that table--probably because it contradicts your claim that blacks "are a significant barrier" to gay rights. The difference between blacks and Latinos is .01 percent in that state you cite--but Latinos made up almost twice the percentage that blacks did.
That same table you cite says that the mere factor of being black affected 1.8 percent of the vote. Being Latino affected 3.3 percent. Being 65 over affected 3.2 percent. Being a conservative affected 6.8 percent. And yet I've never seen you once claim that Latinos, conservatives or the elderly need to get their heads out of asses. Frankly, I'd prefer that you didn't because, I think it's all problematic--but your singular focus, I think, says something.
On the other side, my thoughts on black homophobia are quite clear. Here in this thread alone, I've said the following:
"Look, my fight is clear. Homophobia is bad for my community. I support gay marriage because I believe it is a moral imperative, and the marker of a just society. I support it because, as a black man, I have seen first-hand the value of all kinds of family. In other words, it's in my interest. It's in my son's interest. It's a part of a world, that I hope to live in."
And:
"Please don't confuse my anger at the simplicity of blaming Prop 8's passage with an attempt to brush over homophobia in the black community. I'm not down with that either. I want black folks to confront this issue--we have some things to work out in terms of how we see family. And I don't want the scapegoating of others to be an excuse not to do our own work.
It may be true that you live in a racist world. That doesn't mean you don't have to go to school today."
Now, that may not be enough for you. But I'm addressing both sides of the issue.
Susan/Labor
The biggest obstacle to gay marriage was actually the cruel concept that AFTER the supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional, it was still allowed on the ballot.
Rights should not be up for a vote.
Scott,
If I understand you correctly, is one of your questions about why TNC uses the term "Black" (vs. African-American, in a similar vein that some use Latino vs. Hispanic)?
In my opinion, folks use African-American when they're writing or speaking more formally, and black when they're speaking or writing more casually. Let's face it, "African-American" is much more of a mouthful than black, so in ordinary conversation (or blogging), black is easier to use, and thus remains more common. That's just my experience, anyway--other people's MMV.
Your other question, about support for polygamy vs. gay marriage. I've seen a good argument against legalizing polygamy that included these thoughts: legal marriage in the US is currently a contract between two unrelated consenting adults of the opposite sex. Nothing in the legal contract that is currently marriage has to change when you extend the right to two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex. However, when you start extending that contract to three or more adults, it becomes a lot more complicated (parenting, property and inheritance rights, and so forth) and may even be a legal nightmare.
@ Daughter
You're almost there. What I was asking about is why switch back and forth within, I'm assuming, a couple of minutes or less worth of typing. Why switch back and forth? I don't have problem one with "black" any more than I do with "white". The problem, at least from my perspective, is that political correctness nazis browbeat people into using Afro-American and then African-American for seemingly arbitrary and, frankly, devisive reasons. I understand what you're getting at, but why flip back and forth?
As far as your second point, if it is wrong to arbitrarily assign legal marriage as being between two people of opposite sex, because you want to allow legal marriage between two people of the same sex...what part of the number two isn't arbitrary as well? And any less discriminating to the polygamist? It seems to me that all of the same arguments currently being used to advocate gay marriage can be used for the polygamist.
If you want a legal nightmare, look up some custody cases between adopted parents, in which neither father or mother has a biological link. Currently, those are extremely rare. I think you would agree that, at least on the two-males side, that number would increase significantly if gay marriage is made the law of the land. Thus, the argument doesn't necessarily stand.
My point being that the legal contract you describe still says two people for no other reason than that's the way it's been done for a couple hundred years.
Coates:
Jesus you are the most defensive person I've ever not met. I thought I was agreeing with you!
First which part of the statement am I now obligated to submit evidence for? That it remains a barrier, or that that's what most people were saying?
I'll assume the former. When you have approximately 60% of a a group opposed to your civil rights than I would call that a significant barrier. While you may say that the percent over average is statistically insignificant when blacks make up a small portion of the electorate, I would say that this is not the case where results differ by one or two percentage points, as they often do. I'll acknowledge your criticism and drop the word significant.
As to whether I cherry-picked on citing Table 3; of course I did. My purpose, which was clear, was merely to show that the report that you were citing for support didn't necessarily support your conclusion. Had I been offering the report wholesale as evidence of some grand conclusion, e.g., "a travesty" I certainly would have mentioned statistics that contradicted my conclusion. Just as you probably should have mentioned Table 3 in your original post.
As for my not mentioning asians, latinos or anyone else besides blacks removing heads from asses, this is not true since I said in the very next sentence: "Just like alot of us need to do on various other issues". And, in any event, its blacks that we're talking about here so I didn't feel the need to raise other minorities. And don't worry about my "singular focus" saying something. I'm a well-meaning critic not a closet racist.
As for your final charge, which seems to be that I've misrepresented your position. I don't see any basis for your attack. I acknowledged in my original comment that you have recognized the need to confront black homophobia. My criticism was that your primary concern seems to be the scapegoating of blacks for Prop 8 rather than black homophobia. Despite the constant reminders that you insert at the end of your comments that your fight is against black homophobia, the majority of your focus since the Prop 8 vote, at least on this blog, has been the scapegoating issue. I stand by my criticism.
I'm not sure what is actually discriminatory against a polygamist from a legal standpoint. Right now, an opposite-sex couple can get married and take advantage of tax laws, insurance provisions, etc. A same-sex couple cannot. That is discriminatory. A polygamist can legally marry one person assuming that person is of the opposite sex and take advantage of these benefits. While he may want to have ten other spouses, he can get legal benefits for only one.
To me, the argument becomes whether we should have marriage from a legal standpoint at all.
Polygamy, as commonly practiced, is not a good situation for the women (and young girls). I'm not sure how many truly consenting adults are really interested.
I've long contended that the problem is the use of the word "marriage" in legal statutes in the first place. Marriage is, and always has been, a religious ceremony. To use a religious rite and codify public law around it was the problem to begin with and can be easily solved by replacing it everywhere with civil something-or-other. Not that accomplishing that will be any easier than simple (lol) gay marriage, but that's the solution.
If a law spells out that marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman, that is just as discriminatory to the polygamist who, with two other polygamists, wants to get married and enjoy all the legal protections thereof. How is that any different than prohibiting gay marriage?
You're also assuming, according to your post, that all polygamists are apparently male. Remember, we're not talking about reality here. We're discussing public policy.
"Jesus you are the most defensive person I've ever not met."
Meh, I plead guilty. More to the point, I'm not sure what you want. If I disagree with you, should I say it or not? It's not like I said, "How dare you accuse me of defending homophobia!!!" I just made my case--like you made yours.
Scott
I agree w/you on the marriage terminology. I just don't know how many ppl would support civil unions (for everyone) and then marriage can be a religious thing (if you wanted it).
No polygamy simply bc that would make divorces crazy.
@Eh?
Not to jump topics, but divorces are already crazy. Part of that is the fault of the no-fault innovation to family law, part of that is the continuing decline of personal responsibility in our culture. I hope that we reverse that particular trend, but I'm fairly pessimistic about it.
TNC, I live in CA, San Diego to be exact. I had a baby in August and two young girls in school. I'm married to their father and agree with you that marriage equality is in everyone's interest. My personal experience with this is that the gay community itself didn't do all they could. I live in an upper middle class neighbourhood - lots of yes on 8 signs. So... for three weeks before teh election, I emailed, called and left messages for the local no on 8 folks - give me a sign, have me make calls. I wanted to help. Nothing. I think they expected it would fail and a lot of my friends who were against prop 8 agree with me that the brunt of the blame should be on the community who this affected... if they had put the effort into this before that they put into it afterwards - marches, rallies, etc etc etc - I don't think the prop would have passed. BTW, I've been reading you on your facebook feed - if we do that do you get "credit" for page hits... AS always talks about that as important. Love the blog - love the opportunity to see a new perspective.
Scott--
I agree with you that government should get out of the marriage business completely and have some type of civil union.
Again, I think when you extend the argument of discimination to polygamy, you might as well do away with the concept of marriage or civil union completely. I would argue that the concept is actually more discriminatory to single people than to polygamists.
Also, I don't necessarily assume all polygamists are male from a public policy standpoint. The paragraph referring to the women and young girls harmed was regarding polygamy as commonly practiced, which is real life. I think it would, in fact, be entertaining to observe two average guys in a marriage with the same woman in the same household.
@CLR
That doesn't follow, though, that you have to do away with everything. See, again, I've heard those same arguments from staunch anti-gay-marriage types.
"What? Legalize two men married? We might as well do away with the whole institution."
There are definitely some significant legal reasons to have a mechanism for marriage or unions...whatever. Property, child rearing (or support), taxes, income, etc. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be any common law marriage statutes.
Labor,
"As for my not mentioning asians, latinos or anyone else besides blacks removing heads from asses, this is not true since I said in the very next sentence: "Just like alot of us need to do on various other issues"."
Not to butt into your convo with TNC, but thats a pretty weak cop-out. That sentence suggests that Asians, Latinos or anyone else besides blacks have work to do on many OTHER issues, just not homophobia specifically, which is where you think Blacks uniquely need to "pull their heads out of their asses."
When the stats suggest that there is no remarkable spike in Black opposition to gay marriage when compared against other solidly religious groups--like Latinos, whose voting percentage was pretty much equal to California blacks but whose population was several times larger.
If you're gonna start throwing down gauntlets about who needs to pull their head out of their ass I suggest you stop pulling arguments out of yours with slippery disingenuous qualifiers.
Scott--
If I were starting from scratch, I would argue for a legal marriage/civil union mechanism only as related to children (support, child care, insurance, inheritance, etc.) And everybody else gets treated the same for property rights, health care decisions, whatever. Obviously, that is not going to happen which is why I think gay people should be able to get married.
I don't really have any objections to polygamy involving consenting adults. But I still don't see not allowing legal benefits to more than one spouse as particularly discriminatory. I'm divorced and intend to stay single. Therefore, I cannot pass my estate to a spouse free of inheritance tax. To get that benefit, I have to get married, and I don't want to. This seems just as discriminatory as not allowing more than one legal spouse.
I don't see being gay as a choice. Staying single is a choice. Polygamy is a choice.
Scott,
The way I understand it is polygammy introduces all kinds of legal complexity. Whether you call it marriage or a civil union, the concept of 2 people is very simple. Just to take one simple example, if a person is on life support their spouse is given the legal right to determine when to turn off the machines. How do you handle it if there are 2 spouses and they disagree?
Personally I think government should get out of favoring couples over individuals all together. The state should treat every individual as an individual, how people choose to live is a personal/contractual matter. But I'm also realistic and recognize that we have tons of laws and simple conventions based on dealing with married couples. As long as that is the case the equal rights thing to do is extend all those privilidges to gay couples as well as straight couples.
Labor:
You write,
"Most of us just think blacks need to get their heads out of their asses and do the right thing. Just like alot of us need to do on various other issues."
This implies that the Black people are the only group of people that have a significant percentage of folks that are opposed to gay marriage. It seems like you're saying that other folks, let's say white folks for example, have got this whole gay marriage thing wrapped up and they just need to take head out of ass on *other* issues.
When did gay folks overcome in white communities? Looks to me, in that study, HALF of all the white voters voted for 8 too. Half is not that much less than 60%. Seems like there's a lot of head in ass going on with white folks on the *same* issue, no?
Nobody can blame Black folx.......
Look, everybody does not have to agree with homosexuality. It's not about being homophobic either. You cant have everything you *want*. This is a fact of life. We are taught this as kids. Some people TRULY love their relatives, but they can't marry them. Why? Because it is unacceptable and illegal in this society. Same with polygamy, necrophilia, beastiality and a whole bunch of other lifestyle choices that I cant even name. Gay people should not be offended when their lifestyle is not accepted. It is not personal.
sitfu.com
sitfu:
I don't think anyone is moved by the fact that folks don't "agree" with homosexuality (I never understood the use of the word "agree" - gay folks will exist regardless of whether or not you "agree") but it's when YOU decide for two adult human beings (beastiality, necrophilia and polygamy don't apply) that they shouldn't be allowed to call their relationship whatever they want, or to have that relationship recognized by the state. We shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for others in the first place, and one can't be surprised at the disappointment folks feel.
Prop 8 was an opinion poll. SSM supporters didn't like the answer to the question. I'm of the opinion that if you're not grown enough to hear the truth, then don't ask the question. If you don't want the matter to come up for a vote, then it's on you to do the leg-work to make sure it doesn't. Black folks don't have a problem. It's folks who think SSM is a constitutional right, but would rather scapegoat and criticize black folks instead of making their case, who have a problem. Black folks didn't organize the Prop 8 campaign. Black folks didn't orchestrate the failed opposition to Prop 8. I doubt that many black folks even knew what Prop 8 was, or even gave a damn until the national media dragged black folks into it. How this ever got to be about black folks, and why you're still talking as if race is of any consequence in this issue, I'll never understand. Seriously, WTF?
An analogy to the scapegoating of Black people for the failure to defeat prop. 8 is the right wing's canard that Black people and Hispanics caused the national housing mortgage meltdown. Despite being debunked thoroughly with hard facts, this wrong headed notion was and still is still everywhere in the right wing blogosphere, respectable and otherwise. As if.
In all the controversy over the role the Mormon Church and black conservatives played in getting Prop 8 passed, it would appear that the role of others have been over looked.
The Roman Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, donated over a million dollars to the "Yes on 8" campaign. I'm a inactive 4th degree Knight mainly because I'm 29 and the average age of a local council is between 65 and recently deceased. But if I wasn't already inactive, I would have been after I found out the 1 million dollars.
This was somewhat of a surprise to me, as the gay marriage issue is nowhere near as hot as the abortion issue inside the Church. But then again, with the average member being so old, it's not that surprising. Either way, the KOC shouldn't get a pass, most of the charity work they do is directed inside the church and not to the outside community anyway. And outside of the Mormon Church as a whole, no group donated as much "Yes on 8" money.
"I would much rather see you devote blog space to issues of why (which you have before) blacks voted 58% (i.e., religious beliefs, links to interracial marriage ideas) or how to improve the situation within the community."
It always amuses me when cats come up in your space to tell you what you SHOULD write about. But to answer the question: Cali's LGBT contingent ran a piss poor campaign. Hell, they barely reached out to the colored folks in their OWN group. So maybe it's a matter of building relationships with POC--queer and non--instead of ignoring them while attempting to co-op the civil rights movement. THAT may be a start.
@laborlibert...you completely missed TNC's point and reinforced that fact with your comeback. I don't think you realize how ham-fisted you're being in generalizing "the blacks" as being the main ones with a homophobia problem and still wanting to lay prop 8 at our doorstep on account of that.
Your analysis ignores the diversity among Black people- age, religious beliefs, sexuality, economic-class, education level etc. and relates to us as a monolith, which I for one find frustrating as all get out.
It might be a lot more useful to say religious people were the ones who took down prop 8 and that would include a majority number of blacks and latinos and white people, esp. white people over 65. From that framework, appropriate messaging that speaks to those various communities could be developed to actually change minds and attitudes.
But I guess it's just a lot sexier narrative to blame the blacks (Finally!...They always get to be the victim!) *stomps feet...pouts*
TNC,
I don't think that everyone used this number to blame Blacks. I thought the high percentage that voted for Prop 8 was a credit to them. Your point that it was due to their devout beliefs would also be a credit to them in my opinion as their political activism would be.
I never once thought that people were trying to blame them, but credit them. It's interesting that you see that credit as racism.
I'm not sure why you even bother trying. White folks will always blame black folks. They literally can't help themselves.
Oh ok, so a majority of black people want to strip rights away from a minority but because blacks only make up 7% of the total vote, they weren't the deciding factor.
Pretty lame rationalization for bigotry.
Maria,
That is really cool that you were involved in NoOn8 early. I'm not gay like a lot of people I got involved late when it was obviously close. Since the passage I've been involved with some of the repeal organizing.
I take issue with this statement "the brunt of the blame should be on the community who this affected". The "No" folk ran a poor campaign - they neglected grass roots organizing - folk like you - focused on big-donor fundraising and timid mass media ads. A lot of people, gay and straight, were pissed off and have taken up the cause since November. We supporters of marriage equality, gay and straight were let down by the campaign. It can't only be up to a minority to protect their own rights.
i appreciate the post tnc. the numbers smelled funny to me too and i was saddened by the fallout. however, getting the correct numbers does not negate the much more critical issues. homophobia does exist in the black community to a larger degree than other communities (exit polling is not a measurement for homophobia). it is a deeply complex issue that, as a black gay man, i have plenty of experience with. hiv is a bigger problem for us for a variety of reasons - one major one being that black people do NOT want to talk about sexuality/homosexuality. while i am disheartened by the divisiveness of the gay/black argument and i feel somewhat betrayed by my gay brothers and sisters, i am choosing to use this discussion to talk about sexuality in my communities of color. rather than rail against the "blame the blacks" racism, i have decided that saving lives in the black community by opening a dialogue about issues that are killing us is more critical. that said, i appreciate your staying on this and holding that mirror up for everyone to see. now lets turn that mirror back around and continue the work we need to do.
I've said it before and will again; the largest homophobic segment in the US and California is conservative white Christian males. Without their support, 8 goes down like a sack of cement in the sea.
Then congratulations, your post pissed me off. I think it'd be disgusting if African-Americans had opposed Prop 8 by only 58%, let alone supported it. That's not a matter of "oweing" gays or other minorities anything, it's a simple moral judgment. It would be like a Jew opposing a law against genocide and then saying "hey, I don't owe those other races anything." It's your own friggin' history you're betraying, not your "self interest" or the interest of your community.
Malik,
You're an intellectually lazy asshole. Anything can be put up as a proposition on a California ballot. That includes everything from same-sex marriage to affirmative action. Short of legal maneuvering, which the anti-Prop 8 folks tried, there's nothing that can be done about it.
Here's my view on this issue:
A lot of liberal, white, Californians like myself view black folk as allies. For me, I have devoted my life to urban education because I've wanted to help the least fortunate people in our society. For me, this has translated into especially caring about black folk and their community and their issues. In my experience in black churches and at meetings in the community, I have been surprised by the level of vitriol and hostility toward gay people that is openly expressed.
Then, Barack Obama wins an election, which without citing data I presume led to higher African American turnout in California. So you have the historic nature of Obama's win, combined with prop 8 narrowly passing, combined with a fairly well known anti-gay feeling within much of the black community. I don't think it was that much of a jump for people like myself to feel bittersweet that some of the same African American voters who came out for the first time and voted for Obama also voted yes on 8 and tipped the balance.
Yes, of course religious people voted yes on 8. Of course republicans voted yes on 8. Of course old people voted yes on 8.
But I wouldn't expect any of those groups to agree with me. What is unique, for me at least, is that the black community, who I see myself allied with, voted against my conscientious on this issue. And that felt crappy.
I'm sure other white liberals felt the same way. Latinos are an interesting parallel, but as a group, it is a fairly conservative community, and for whatever reason, I do not feel as connected to the Latino community as I do to the African American community.
My point is just that I felt angry and hurt that prop 8 passed. That African American bigotry played a role felt like a betrayal. Maybe some African Americans don't like to hear this. Maybe my "white guilt" pisses you off.
I just don't think that the reason I felt angry at the black community as a whole (and obviously not lots of individuals) is because "white people always blame blacks for everything."
TNC: you say that you "don't want to speculate on their motives." You and I both know that you are speaking in code to say that you *are* speculating on their motives. White racism undoubtedly plays a role in all the airtime that "blacks caused prop 8 to pass" has received. I think that the reasons I outline above are another "motive" for why some people have felt this way.
Rusty,
Your "moral judgment" is nothing but a form of racism motivated by fundamentalist religion and anti-white racism.
These numbers make more sense, though still disapppointing! Regardless, the No-on-8campaign was run badly; many of us in the community were very frustrated with the latte-sipping focus group driven views. We SHOULD have been out there building bridges with everyone but ... in any case, the mismanagement has been well discussed elsewhere.
As for the tiresome polygamy meme, every marriage law would have to be massively re-written to accomodate polygamy. Who gets the house? The car? etc etc. Not a one has to be re-written for marriage between a same sex couple. (The same slippery slope arguments about re-defining marriage to include polygamy or incest were used by opponents of the Perez V Sharp and Loving v Virginia decisions, BTW. Good company, eh?)
Starting from scratch, any sensible country would make civil unions the law, and restrict marriage to the religious. Moreover, they would NOT have religious pastors act as agents of the state. But in the US we have conflated the two with predictably disastrous consequences.
@ David:
TNC's specifically addressed this. No one thinks that 58% of black voters voting to pass Prop 8 is ok, nor is the undercurrent of anti-gay sentiment in some parts of the black community ok. What will NOT solve this issue is the wholesale blaming of an entire population for something it couldn't have done. Now isn't the time to throw around words like bigotry and hate. It's time to make inroads and gather a coalition. Get angry and shout all you want, but when your voice is hoarse and you're out of breath, this problem will still be here.
Can we once and for all STOP using Exit polls? look, half the polls in this last election were wrong, the Exit polls were over the top etc... it just gets ridiculous after a while.
I think the most important takeaway from the study is that, among Democrats, the only reliable indicator of how people voted on Prop 8 had to do with the frequency of religious service attendance. Race is an independent variable was *not significant*.
With that, I guess those of us who believe in marriage equality should be glad religious service attendance continues to drop across the country, since apparently they are the wellspring of ignorance and bigotry towards LGBT people.
I don't blame any racial group.
I blame church.
Really? So it's possible to amend the California state constitution via ballot measure?
Yes, 58% is too high. The point never should have been that Blacks were "to blame," but that religion is never an excuse for injustice, and that goes as much for those who have suffered injustice as it does for anyone else.
The hilarious part about this is. If there was a gay marriage bill in say, uhm, Idaho. We all know it would fail, but who would they blame then? I guess we just blame whoever voted for the bill in the highest majority in whatever state it happened to be on the ballot in.
Trig Palin is retarded.
With all these claims about bigotry and homophobia from the black voters who voted for Prop 8, what is missing is any actual knowledge of WHY they voted for Prop 8. Nobody has polled that, as far as I know. I am certain that some are bigoted and homophobic, but I'm willing to guess that most don't see it as a civil rights issues because it has never been presented to them that way. Without knowing this, bigotry can't be assumed based on the vote alone.
I would suspect that many don't see it as a civil rights issue, because many have never thought much about gay marriage, if they aren't gay or close to gay people. It can be talked about at great lengths among gays, but if it isn't presented and sold to a wider audience beyond the gay community, than the result will be predictable. A majority of Americans are still against same-sex marriage, according to Pew polls.
The gay community and the black community are pretty much socially segregated from one another, with the gay community assuming a relationship that probably most in the black community don't even see. To me is a case of cultural myopia on both sides of the issue, and the answer it to reach out and educate. If anything, the vote is a wake-up call, another large poll on popular support for the issue of same-sex marriage, that indicates the work that needs to be done.
Clearly, the real problem here are the Christians. They're a bunch of bigots who voted to remove people's rights. They should be made to pay.
What if we're not talking about "blame," but about disappointment?
I'm not disappointed when a white evangelical votes his disapproval of my lifestyle at the ballot box. I expect nothing from white evangelicals in the first place.
But I expect other minority groups (whom I have supported literally all my adult life) to join me in my fight for equality. And when they refuse to, I am disappointed. I think that's valid.
Remember that when the courts were securing race-based civil-rights victories in the 1960s, black people did not have to face every state in the union allowing its voters to come out and vote for their disdan of black people. But this is what gays have seen for ten years now. In state after state, 55, 60, 70 percent of voters institutionalizing their bigotry, loud and clear, at the ballot box. You really can't blame people for being demoralized in the face of that, and being disappointed that their good will toward others is not returned.
bdiddy,
No not white guilt but hamfisted stereotypes and wholesale condemnation pissed folks off.
"Latinos are an interesting parallel, but as a group, it is a fairly conservative community, and for whatever reason, I do not feel as connected to the Latino community as I do to the African American community.
My point is just that I felt angry and hurt that prop 8 passed. That African American bigotry played a role felt like a betrayal. Maybe some African Americans don't like to hear this. Maybe my "white guilt" pisses you off."
1. Blacks are as conservative religiously as Latinos, which explains the eerily similar voting numbers for/against prop 8. The surprise that some in the gay community felt at discovering this suggests that they had only a superficial, perhaps even patronizing awareness of Black folks and Black communities.
2. Your feeling of connection is extremely subjective and does not excuse any effort to single out blacks as being particularly homophobic compared to other ethnic groups. This also goes for your feeling of betrayal.
3. If any positive comes out of this fiasco, its hopefully as a motivation for self-examination on all parties' behalves--Gay, Black, religious, straight, white or areligious.
Oh my god, Roger (three comments up), surely you are NOT telling me I have to "sell" my case to have rights!? You've GOT to be joking.
Rainy,
The bill has failed in every mostly white state imaginable yet we are the most homophobic. It is all too classic.
Everyone else,
I have a serious, serious problem with what are white liberals telling blacks what do in the paternalistic fashion that I have been seeing. It is condescending and dehumanizing. I also was offended by the amount of black bloggers and journalists who helped to promote the "blame blacks for prop 8".
I will begin by stating that black people are not the most homophobic. Quite frankly, I am tired of blacks especially black women constantly occupying accusatory space. I am tired of facts being no longer important when it comes to promoting myths, stereotypes and negativity about black people. This issue has to do with heterosexuality vs. homosexuality not race. It also has to do with religion. I wrote to someone just two months ago about following because they seemed unable to understand what they claimed was "an opressed group opressing another" in their opinion:
I broke it down like this,
"You see, I am a black womanist and I more than anyone knows the capabilities of oppressed people to oppress others-white women have been central to the oppression, dehumanization and marginalization of black women as well as black men who are unable to understand sexism. I grew up in an neighborhood with a very hostile and hateful Italian, Jewish and Irish population all of which had there own moments in this country when they were maligned and hated. Nonetheless, unlike blacks, they benefited from white skin privilege. White women benefit/ed from white skin privilege and their proximity to white male patriarchy and black men benefit from male patriarchy within the black community. Non-homosexual blacks benefit from heterosexuality.
My best friend is lesbian, black and female...she was also raised poor. I know of no one she can oppress.
I am heterosexual, black and female....I was raised upper class.
While I work heavily on behalf of the poor and working class especially those in inner cities, I benefit from class privilege. Prior to moving to Harlem to attend college, I was ignorant towards those whose daddy did not make six-figures and work on Wall Street and mother who had the luxury of staying home and shopping. I was prejudice towards those of lower social classes.
The issue is that when it comes to race, sex, class, gender, sexual orientation and religious prejudices, people are unable to equate them. It is that simple. The vast majority of people are unable to do this. Within the GLBT community, there is racial prejudice. Many black gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals have spoken about this as well as myself.
I have dedicated my life to eradicating various prejudices across the globe which is why I take on all these issues. I am able to equate them. Many are not.
I have spoken to people who view homosexuality as a sin or as a choice and that it cannot be aligned with being black. Many are even offended when people equate the two because they are unable to understand the correlation or simply view it as different. Many are not knowledgeable as to why issues of race, sex, class, gender, sexual orientation and religious discriminations are all connected and that the injustices of one group in a society threatens the quest to eradicate all injustices and prejudices."
Ta-Nehisi, Margaret Kimberly over at the Black Agenda Report cleared up these numbers about a month ago. She also made a lot of good points. I agree that there needs to be dialogue about homophobia and homosexuality as there needs to be in every community. Nonetheless, we cannot discuss "homophobia" as if it exists alone or as if certain currents around ignorance or even hatred about/towards homosexuality simply exists without a root cause or without something aggravating the situtation. Issues surrounding black sexual politics, the prison complex, the role of the church etc... are all aspects as well as economics that effect one's attitudes towards homosexuality and the family.
Ta-Nehisi,
Thanks for bring the first MSM writer I've seen to help get this study's information out there.
To all who are upset that the No on 8 campaign didn't reach out to people of color: it also didn't effectively reach out to gay white people, or the Central Valley of California, or Latinos, or people online, or almost anyone because there was not a strong grass roots campaign of any sort and messaging was tightly controlled from the top down.
There weren't signs in many windows in the heart of San Francisco until weeks before the vote. And a majority of electoral attention from most folks was going to Obama one way or another. He had impeccable timing and more important he earned it.
This is not to excuse blame seeking or racism or just the inability of people to regard each other as complex whole human beings. But it may help explain some of the pre Nov 4th omissions that have been seen by some people of colour solely as proof of white gay racism.
Post Nov 4th, I think TNC you've pretty much nailed a lot of it and your reader.
@Uju I'm so glad you did everything you could do. I did too and it was lonely for me too. The failure of the top down campaign (while it was the best earnest effort of those who ran it) is that you and I and everyone like us are the new leaders. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the best way to reach people in your community and to help you and anyone else wanting to make a difference.
...Frankly, I have serious doubts about anyone who'd need to have the case for same-sex marriage "explained" to them. What the heck are we supposed to explain about it? The case for same-sex marriage is that opposing it makes no kind of sense in the world. The pro-8 campaign was literally nothing but a pack of outright lies and hysterical bigotry. There is not a single remotely plausible reason to oppose same-sex marriage. There's just bigotry. That's really all there is to it. What the heck kind of outreach do voters want? What are gay people supposed to do? How are we supposed to win these people over? Sense and reason don't seem to work.
Andrew,
That's why I've significantly cut down the days I deal with race and ethnicity in my courses. Now I'm sticking to inequality around gender, class, sexuality, and disability. Why should I spend so much time getting privileged students from affluent families to think through issues of race when obviously that civil rights struggle has been so successful. And from comments that I've seen on the internets, blacks would prefer to be left alone and not bothered by other groups fighting for equality. Even in my social movements course, we're skipping right over the black movement for civil rights. The women's movement for civil rights will now take prominence.
I've given up. TNC was right a long ways back...something like: blacks weren't against slavery, blacks were against being the slaves. I got it now.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/07/7857
The numbers have not necessarily become better.
Simmer folks. No need for name calling. I know it's an emotional issue, but let's keep it civil.
Our author doesn't confirm nor is he able to prove is that the black community's conservativism probably keeps more of its own members in the closet.
Because all race groups should generally spread out the same on the 'likes d___' or 'likes p___'category, I think the reason the polls might have initallly been inacuratte is because many blacks would be willing to lie about about supporting gay rights in order to not be seen as being down with 'the gayness'.
I think blacks should speak up about gay rights: blacks have an impressive history in this country in supporting social rights movements: this would be a good opportunity to take the lead because white people will not.
Also, black communities should be more accepting of gays in the future now that the older generations of bigots, homophobes, and racists is beginning its slow drift into the sunset. I certainly hope more black people come out, especially the men, because they are HOT!
Aloysius, I want to address what you wrote here: "The pro-8 campaign was literally nothing but a pack of outright lies and hysterical bigotry. There is not a single remotely plausible reason to oppose same-sex marriage. There's just bigotry."
As I understand it, one of the memes promoted by the pro-8 campaign was that supporting gay marriage would lead to teachers being forced to teach about it in schools, and ministers forced to marry gay couples. There are a lot of religious people who, however they might personally feel about homosexuality, don't feel they have the right to tell other people how to live as long as it doesn't infringe on their own rights. That's why you see greater support among Americans of all races and religions for gay rights in the areas of employment non-discrimination and adoption rights.
However, the anti-gay marriage folks have hugely promoted the idea that supporting gay marriage will take away their rights to believe and practice their religions as they see fit. And frankly, I've seen tone-deafness about this on the left in the recent Rick Warren controversy, not only on blogs, but also by Rachel Maddow.
One of the complaints about Warren (and there are many, many legitimate ones) is that his church practices discrimination because it won't allow gay people to be members. I think the actual wording on the church's web site (since removed) is that gay people are welcome to visit, but if they are living an "active gay lifestyle" they can't be members.
For the life of me, I can't understand why many progressives were so shocked by this. Did they expect a conservative Christian church to say otherwise? Would they accuse the same church of religious discrimination if they said (which they probably do) that only people who believe in Jesus can be members?
My point is, by criticizing Warren for what his church teaches and practices within the confines of his church (and *not* what he brings out into the public square, which is always fair game), then those of us on the left are playing right into that fear: that if gay marriage is allowed, soon even in churches Christians won't be able to practice and teach what they believe.
So from that perspective, the pro-8 campaign sounds like prophecy, not lies, and the rejection of gay marriage sounds like a protection of one's own rights, not bigotry. (Please note, I am NOT saying this is what I believe, just trying to help you understand the perspective of some religious people).
The poor quality of the initial exit polls was obvious from the beginning*, but "controversy" is what sells these days. It makes advertising revenue for websites and it can make careers. There was a time when promulgating false stories broke careers. Sadly, that time has passed.
* 274 black individuals in one or two undisclosed precincts. It never made any sense that black voting would be so different from that of latinos and other historically-oppressed racial minorities.
Andrew said:
"But I expect other minority groups (whom I have supported literally all my adult life) to join me in my fight for equality. And when they refuse to, I am disappointed. I think that's valid."
Why is it valid? Because they should see this issue exactly as you see it, but don't?
and how exactly do black voters know that gay voters have good will towards them? The two communities don't know each other. You seem to missed all the relevant points in my previous post. Here is an additional one: many black gays have noted that the gay community itself is socially segregated by race in most places. How do you think you know the thoughts and feelings of black people if you don't know them at all on a personal basis?
@jimmy (6 up)
If your summarization is accurate ("TNC was right a long ways back...something like: blacks weren't against slavery, blacks were against being the slaves.") -- and the more I think about it, I would have to agree -- we/"the gays" can only count on ourselves and those we can directly influence. I think "we" did a great job of imagining support from Obama and the other minority communities.
It's every minority group out for itself! It took 30+ years, but I think I've just learned an invaluable life lesson.
@jimmy
if you are teaching courses on gender, sexuality, and class, and aren't doing so in a way that integrates race, your courses are bad. No offense. Any class on feminism that eliminates Combahee River Collective, any class on queer sexuality that eliminates Audre Lorde, any class on class that eliminates Ella Baker fails.
Not trying to be rude, just trying to check you on the academic front.
@chicagoreg
if marginalized folks only depended on ourselves then we would have nothing. The backbone of movements relies on coalition building. I recommend Bernice Johnson Reagon's article on this. Coalitions ain't easy, but they are central. The No on 8 campaign did not do a good job building coalitions. That's one huge reason why it failed. That's the lesson. Without building coalitions with white liberals, it's not clear if the Civil Rights Movement could have accomplished all that it did. Don't take your toys and go home. Get uncomfortable and build relationships, that's how winning is done.
Check out Milk. He got it.
Thanks Ta-Nehisi for your EXCELLENT work on this. I don't know why it's so hard for folks to hold on to two truths at the same time: Black folks (just like all other racial groups) need to figure out strategies to eliminate homophobia in our communities AND blaming Black folks for the pass of prop 8 is a disingenuous move that goes nowhere and benefits no one. This is not rocket science, folks.
@jimmy and chicagoreg -- I'm not going to tell you not to be angry. I've no desire to cite any bingo cards. You SHOULD be angry. You got railroaded, and blindsided, and it was abhorrent. You should be f*cking FURIOUS. But while your anger is utterly justified, your tactics here, quite simply, will not help you achieve your goals. In particular, you are willfully misunderstanding what the blogger is trying to say. Be angry, let it be your fire and your drive -- but stop with the willful misunderstanding. It's just bad rhetorical strategy.
Adina Levin:
Yeah, you're right, but that was mostly just poor wording on my part... I'm just disheartened that the community this prop robbed rights from were more motivated afterwards than before. I heard in SD of lots of great parties, and fundraisers in high rises downtown. That's not what is going to change peoples minds - going door to door (we had no less than 4 people knock on our door to ask for yes on 8! No on 8? Zero) and changing peoples minds. Telling them that gay marriage isn't going to be taught in schools, any more than "straight" marriage is... telling them that they love their families as much as I love mine, and they just want the rights to protect them. etc etc etc... It was a poorly run campaign, extremely poorly run, so to see anger towards any one group for how they did or didn't vote I think is hypocritical.
Thank you! Many of my fellow Facebookers and I have been on the discussion boards trying to engage Yes supporters in thoughtful conversation, and you won't believe how those initial exit polls took a life of their own. They should never be used to "blame" people. If anything, they help campaigners do some retrospection to figure out where they could have done better outreach.
If any other minorities would like to help us, several of us are on the "Pastor Rick Warren" fan page, respectfully engaging in discussion with many of his supporters, most of whom are generally respectful back to us. There is this one fellow, however, who insists that he talked to Coretta Scott King and to Yolanda King before they passed away, and insists that they would never support gay marriage. He also insists that African Americans find it insulting that the gays are trying to align themselves with the Civil Rights Movement and that the exit polls showed that African Americans would never support gay marriage. I would encourage some of our African American brothers and sisters to come and engage in some good discussion and help us reach out and educate people:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pastor-Rick-Warren/34845120902
Daughter, I get what you're saying and it does make sense, but...
Ultimately, it's hypocritical of us to pretend that we respect the religious beliefs of people like Warren and that we aren't out to change how these people worship. We don't, and we are. We want to make homophobia socially unacceptable. We want people who rail against gays to be viewed with the same contempt the mainstream now shows to white supremacists. We want to teach kids in our schools that everyone is deserving of the same basic human rights and dignities even if their parents and their churches disagree.
Rick Warren's sincerely-held religious convictions are anathema to people like us. We ultimately can't avoid this issue. That kind of religious zealotry is fundamentally incompatible with what we would consider the essential values and norms of a pluralistic, liberal, modern society.
We are out to replace their values with our own. Aren't we?
I think ChicagoGreg is basically right. And I don't even think it's all that bad a thing. Feels like I've gone through the cynicism and come out the other side.
As a bisexual woman, I came out with the idea that the glorious history of Stonewall et al was the history of my people, and that gay liberation had something real to do with my own liberation. As an out queer woman, I felt that I was part of that lineage. Imagine my surprise when I found out I was supposedly a lying nympho traitor. (See the work of Paula Rust for more on lesbian attitudes about bisexuals.) It hurt, angered, and alienated me. In the end, I simmered down and recognized that I would be wise to be part of creating a social/political identity for bis that didn't count on gay people as 100% allies. Because while we have some things in common, we are not the same. I learned not to expect to be accepted as a first-class citizen in gay-dominated spaces, and I learned that I'd have to make a case for myself if I wanted to stay there. I learned to stand on my own feet and stop implicitly allowing gay men and lesbians to be gatekeepers of queer authenticity. What I'm saying is, I grew up already.
I see a parallel in some of the rhetoric around black voters and Prop 8. Coming of age in the seventies and eighties, in a city like mine, any white kid gets used to singing "We Shall Overcome" at school assemblies. The movement led by Dr. King becomes paradigmatic of all civil rights movements. It's practically mythic. The phrase "ur-text" comes to mind. So anyone working in a civil rights capacity is bound to feel (at least at times) like a spiritual descendant of the King era.
For white GLBTs to be rejected by black people, therefore, can be particularly painful. Because black people get assumed by white people to be the arbiters of whether something's authentically part of the King legacy. My gay white friends thought, consciously or subconsciously, that the liberation history of black civil rights was in some way part of their own history of liberation. But, as they believed themselves to have been roughly informed, they were wrong.
It's not just a matter of "oh, liberality, blah blah, we white GLBTs should be able to take those black people for granted," though I sure wouldn't deny that there's some of that. (Also, the anti-8 campaign was plain stupid.) But it's not all that facile; there's also, I think, some deep, ugly emotional stuff getting stirred up here among the GLBTs in the wake of Prop 8. I'm using words like "lineage" and "descendant" carefully here, because we're talking in many cases about people who've been rejected by their families, or who have had good reason to fear rejection by their families. There's a resonance. And it makes people weird out. If they're Dan Savage, who's not exactly a clear thinker to begin with, it makes 'em entirely crazy. You get temper tantrums.
But you know what? That's too bad. We need to grow up already.
thanks to all who have posted - I was devistated by the passage of Prop 8 - I live in Ohio and lived through our own ssm ban in 2004 - but Prop 8's passage was much worse for me. I was deeply hurt by the initial news that Black and Hispanic voters backed passage by over 50% - but the most profound thing I read here - in all of this - is that the gay and Black communities don't know each other - and that is sadly true. This is our chance to win equality in the gay community - to get to know others who don't know us. to reach out and share our lives and our stories with others. The only way we bridge the gap is to simply keep living our lives - openly and honestly - and we must reach out. Only then will it become silly for anyone to ever ask to have the gay marriage "issue" explained to them - or need an explanation as to why necrophelia is jaw-droppingly ignorant. Thanks to those of you who have posted to help me to understand the Black community better - how much we all have to learn about each other...
Aloysius,
I hear what you're saying, but that means you need to be prepared for more resistance. It gets tricky when you're talking to people about what they believe their God is telling them. You're not just telling them to change their opinion; you're telling them to go against what they believe is coming to them from God. People are much more amenable to thoughts such as, "I don't agree with it, but I don't believe in imposing my beliefs on someone else" (and therefore I will accept gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever) than they are to being told they have to change their beliefs.
ECL:
you write:
"Coming of age in the seventies and eighties, in a city like mine, any white kid gets used to singing "We Shall Overcome" at school assemblies. The movement led by Dr. King becomes paradigmatic of all civil rights movements. It's practically mythic. The phrase "ur-text" comes to mind. So anyone working in a civil rights capacity is bound to feel (at least at times) like a spiritual descendant of the King era.
For white GLBTs to be rejected by black people, therefore, can be particularly painful. Because black people get assumed by white people to be the arbiters of whether something's authentically part of the King legacy. My gay white friends thought, consciously or subconsciously, that the liberation history of black civil rights was in some way part of their own history of liberation."
I appreciate you mapping this out in this discussion, I hear what you're saying. I think that there's got to be some space other than the two options of romanticizing Black folks as the bridge to the liberation of everyone and demonizing Black folks as the ones who, if it weren't for them, gays would be liberated, there would be no housing crisis, and everyone would generally be happier.
Both strategies objectify Black people. I feel like when Ta-Nehisi writes "when it comes to blacks, we believe the worse and ask questions, uhm, like never," reveals that many white folks (and others) have a habit of thinking of Black people as a monolithic symbol instead of a complex group of people. I think this applies to your description of how some white LGBT folks of a certain era consume King, the Civil Rights Movement, and, as a consequence, Black folks as a kind of unified whole.
What I find striking is that chicagoreg isn't saying that he's not going to separate himself from white folks. Half of white voters in California voted for 8, but he's apparently cool with white people. 42% of Black voters in Cali (not that much less than half) voted against 8, but he's DONE with Black people. DONE!!!
Okay, so where does that leave me, a Black queer woman in Cali that voted against 8, successfully rallied Black folks to be against 8, and was sad to see it passed. Sad to see that so many Black folks, white folks, Latino folks, Asian folks, and the mysterious Other folks voted for it. Seems like the passage of 8 was a multiracial project. But the Black vote, because of the way in which we're objectified, stands out in particular. And the white queers are SO OVER BLACK PEOPLE. Not Black straight people. Not Black people who are anti-SSM. ALL OF US. We are OUT of jimmy's syllabus! lol
This objectification is deeply problematic, even if it seems positive (Civil Rights liberators of all!). Why is it that white folks can be complicated individuals, but Black people have to be a symbol of hope or a symbol of failure? How does racism drive that?
Thanks, andthenshebithim, and I believe I hear what you're saying, too. You've written a meaty comment here with more stuff than I can unpack right now, but I hear you.
I tried and mostly failed to word that comment to imply the objectification -- "assume" is too weak a word, and I knew it. I fussed at it and lost. But I recognize that your point is on target.
I think I've had a taste of how that dynamic might feel from another side, too. I don't want to be all White Person Drags Up The Class Issues Oh Christ Not That Again, but it reminds me of being working class (it's complicated, but we can call it that) at Reed. All these kids in Guatemalan peasant costumes wanted a piece of me. They didn't care who I was or what I was about, but they were damn well going to make sure that Little Miss Poverty Line was going to speak on behalf of all poor people and say that the choice to give up Perrier is deeply meaningful to the impoverished peoples of the world. Not King, then, but Marx. I was gobsmacked. No woman is entirely a stranger to forms of objectification, but this had me thinking, "Hello, people! No cookie for you! I am not your validation vending machine!" (Alas, I was polite. I was young.) Sure, I was a working class hero, or something, but ew. They romanticized the downtrodden proletariat masses and they were bound and determined to treat me as a representative mass -- no more, no less. "Consume" is precisely the right word for it.
Those were some kids who needed to grow up, too. A lot. Preferably far away from me.
Anyhow, I'm definitely not saying it's fine with me; thanks for drawing out that theme. I think it's less "symbol of hope" here than "symbol of greatness" or "symbol of historical inevitability", but it's still *symbol*. A representative mass isn't supposed to talk out of turn.
I feel like I've been tapping my watch and thinking, "Okay, guys, you've had your moment of grief, and you've had your freakout. I get that. It's very human. I get that it hits you where you live on so many levels in so many ways. I get that you needed some time before you could get your head back on. But now you have to pull it together." This whole BLACK PEOPLE IZ DED TO ME thing has got to go.
Those two options you speak of are tired, and they are stupid, and foolish, and they harm people, and they keep people from getting good things done, and they are just... gah. They are embarrassing to me. God, I hope there's some other space. If there isn't, let's go make one.
I don't know about chicagogreg, but I look at a particular set of white gay men of my acquaintance who've flipped between those options (don't know about your circle, but in my neck of the woods, it's the gay white cisgendered guys who've been notably losing it) and I feel like they are letting down the team. I'm not sure when exactly I'm going to stop wincing and start telling them to knock it off. After Rick Warren says his piece, I expect. But then, nobody I know personally is likely to be rearranging his life in a fury; no hurry there. So I'll start here instead:
Jimmy, dude, if you're reading this, I know you probably don't want to hear this from me, but I'm asking you, random crank on the internet though I am, to consider chilling a little. Teach the class that makes the most sense from an academic perspective, whatever that may be. As much as teaching can really stink from day to day, and students can be incredibly annoying, it's still an honor for you and a responsibility. Identity politics is one thing, but you're bound to do right by your students. You can't let your anger drive you here. It's not right. Don't let this thing eat your brain.
I'm saying this as a queer white woman who grew up on the poverty line and has had a disability -- your class is dandy by my identity politics. It sounds like it could be a class in how to not piss off ECL on a personal level. (Throw in a little Nerd Rage and miffed atheism and you've got the whole set.) Even so, my strong suspicion is that spending a lot of time on race and ethnicity made the soundest pedagogical sense.
Re: "The hilarious part about this is. If there was a gay marriage bill in say, uhm, Idaho. We all know it would fail, but who would they blame then? I guess we just blame whoever voted for the bill in the highest majority in whatever state it happened to be on the ballot in."
When the gay marriage bill is in a place like Idaho, or Kentucky or West Virginia we are quick to label the voters bigots. We rarely take a critical look at why they voted that way, how church attendance influenced their attitudes or talk about how to build coalitions with them.
The LA Times posted the headline "70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds" on November 5. This number was derived from flimsy data collected as voters left the ballot box. Anti-black racist backlash ensues. From November 6th to November 16th more data is collected that shows 58% of blacks voted for prop 8. Is it possible that some respondents changed their mind - that is, felt regret for their vote - in the weeks that followed prop 8?
ECL,
Thanks so much for your response, again, very much appreciated. Your experience that it's mostly the "gay white cisgendered guys who've been notably losing it" rings true in my community as well. I have ideas about that, but your response is making me feel all "let's not fight, we can do this" so I won't go there.
Thanks again.
@Aloysius:
People like Rick Warren are allowed to believe and practice what they believe in, and so should all of us. When he called for mutual respect and that we should be able to agree to disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Catholics believe that marriage should be between people who have never married, and anything other than that is adultery and a sin. While many of us don't agree with them, I don't think we put them on the same level as white supremists.
I think that people need to be reminded that if they believe in mutual respect and that we can disapprove of each others beliefs and agree to disagree, then they should also consider the diference between DISAPPROVE and DISALLOW. Disapproving of other people's religious and moral values is gravely different than disallowing those people to live their own lives as they see fit, per their own religious and moral beliefs that are shared by millions of other people who just want to live their own lives and not bother anyone else. At that point, it can no longer be called respect.
Tammie,
There is a huge problem with someone like Rick Warren calling for "mutual respect": it's completely disingenuous. He and the people like him don't just want to be allowed to practice their faith in peace and go about their business unhindered. You must have noticed that anti-gay religious groups typically have huge persecution complexes--the LDS, the Catholic Church, so many evangelical churches--where any criticism of their beliefs is taken as an attack on their whole faith. Look at all the claims that criticism of the role of the LDS in Prop 8 amounts to "hate speech"! The only kind of respect that they'll accept is asymmetrical. They want to be able to denounce gays in public, and they want to be immune to any public criticism for it.
Now obviously when I say "they" I should be a little careful. The problems here are the socially conservative leaders of these churches, many of whom it should be pointed out profit enormously from their congregations. I think experience shows us that they will act very aggressively to protect their power and influence, and have given no indications that they're willing to actually talk to people like us in good faith.
There is a stigma attached to being disapproved of by a large segment of society, no matter how much of a distinction we make between disappoving and disallowing. This is especially the case when religion is in the picture. Religious groups are especially sensitive to disapproval because their teachings are often logically absurd and tend to fall apart if people start looking too closely at them. Look at the decline of Christianity across much of western Europe; look at the state of the Anglican Church in England especially. Look at how unstinting the Scientologists and the Mormons are at attacking any mockery (and often just plain old exposure: they work hard to keep their magic underwear to themselves) of their beliefs in the media!
Tolerance for dissent will over time undermine social conservatives' influence in society, and social conservatives know this. Their leaders will work tirelessly to protect their own power bases, and to do that they will demonise anyone who threatens their absolutist moral order in even measured and concilatory tones. I'm certainly not happy about it, but I don't see any way to avoid it either.
I think that, if we want to make meaningful progress, we have to prepare not just for outreach and education but for an aggressive public relations campaign to undermine and marginalise socially conservative groups and leaders, and paint them as hypocrites and liars. Isolate them from their followers. Carrot and the stick, you know?
@Aloysius
I agree with you, especially about the persecution complexes. My friend was up in arms today about the Prop 8 proponents filing with a federal court to overturn the campaign disclosure law that was voted by the people, so they can hide all of their campaign donations, citing the public backlash that people received for donating to Prop 8. Ironically, they used that same information to threaten businesses that donated to the No campaign with "outing" them so their supporters would know which companies did not "support traditional marriage." And now they want to overturn the "will of the people" in some other self-serving issue, after crying foul at being boycotted. We had our fair share of vandalism, hate speech, and Yes supporters physically attacking No supporters at rallies, and why wasn't any of this all over the media? Anyone would be able to see their hypocrisy if some news outlet, not just bloggers, would just report on it.
So who is going to lead this type of public relations campaign? The problem with our side is that everyone is so concerned about doing the right thing and being good and fair, so no one seems to be able to do what it takes to expose them for what they are. Do you have any ideas on how to do this without stooping to their level? I still believe that some religious leaders, like Rick Warren, were not directly involved with Protect Marriage, the folks who brought us Prop H8, and because of his power and influence and fact that he gets criticism from the right for not being "conservative" enough, it would be better for us to offer him an olive branch.
@statsman The new report which shows that 57-59% of Blacks (7% of the electorate) voted for Prop 8 gets to that number from analyzing the 5 Counties in California which together hold 2/3rd of all Black voters in the state. It is NOT poll data, but an analysis of actual voting data. Doing so, they provide a racial profile of the electorate in Prop 8 which estimates 51.6% support for Prop 8, which is pretty darn close to the actual 52.3% vote.
What I find fascinating is that they estimate the Latino vote as 59% for Prop 8, but all anyone wants to talk about is the Black voting pattern. Why is that?
@ Mad Professah
Thanks for the heads up. The new report uses several sets of data. One was polling data gathered in mid-November and is displayed in Figure 1. That gives us the 58% figure.
After reading your post I went back to the squiggly line in Figure 3 that uses actual returns. It seems to me like most of the black voters (7%) of the total would be found in precincts that are predominantly black. With that in mind, is it not more useful to look at only precincts with a high percentage of black voters? If we do the trend line would be a bit higher.