This is particularly appealing to the Rove wing of the GOP, because they can use black homophobia as a wedge issue. DC is a perfect place to pit gays and straight, religious African-Americans, and we know that Republicanism as it has evolved under Rove is almost defined by finding groups of Americans to pit against each other.Hmm, not to minimize, but I don't think that's likely. Unlike, other municipalities, I don't think this is going to be a ballot initiative. Even if it were, the dynamics in a city like D.C. are unique. D.C. is a city that (with Congressional approval) passes it's own laws. Because of the relative size of the city, and it's history, I doubt a gay marriage initiative would play out like it would in, say, Alabama. You can be black and live in Alabama and never see anything like a Dupont Circle--or what Dupont Circle used to be, I guess.
It's not that there isn't any homophobia in black D.C.--there most certainly is--it's that the fight isn't exactly new in the city. There is no Phillip Pannell, for instance, in Alabama. State legislators don't have to deal with a Jim Graham, or a David Catania, in the way you have to in the District, given that there are only 13 members on the D.C. Council. Also, and I could be wrong about this, it seems like the politically active gay community in D.C. is as organized, and as powerful as they are anywhere else in the country.
The other thing is that homophobia--intense as it is--doesn't trump all. Black people don't like Republicans--but black people in D.C. hate Republicans. Part of it is the truly ugly history of putting Southern bigots in charge of D.C.'s affairs. But more presently, Republicans are seen as the main obstacle between the city and statehood. D.C. may be the only place where Karl Rove could actually help gay marriage activists.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I dunno if hatred for the GOP automatically trumps homophobia among Black people in DC. I see too many examples of organized, recalcitrant homophobia on the part of churches in DC to be optimistic.
I live in the District and think there are a few things Andrew misses. One is that DC has what seems to be me to be a fairly strong black gay community, I would guess one of the strongest in the country. I know Atlanta does too, but Georgia is a lot bigger than Atlanta. There are mostly black gay bars and clubs, and when I watch the high school kids in my neighborhood I frequently see openly queer kids hanging out in a way that would never have been cool in my largely-white high school.
Two is that I don't know how much attention he pays to city politics here, but in every election the politicians compete to be more pro-gay, even the Republicans. Fenty supports marriage and won every precinct in the city. The vote was unanimous yesterday, including all the black councilmembers. It clearly hasn't been a problem so far.
Three I guess isn't something he's missed, but man, why is he so focused on this idea of black homophobia? There's something about it that really doesn't feel right.
People have misjudged their constituents before, but you'd have to be completely off to vote unanimously for something your voters would toss you for, I think. That's part of it.
The other part is that Andrew's racist. I was trying to figure out a way to say that nicely, and I can't, and I'm not sure he deserves to have it phrased nicely anyway. He can't believe that black people could be as sophisticated and smart as the Nice White Folk who are usually the face of the gay rights movement.
I should point out that I read Andrew's column pretty regularly and I don't think he wears white sheets or anything. But his racial thinking is fucked up.
See I never called him out like you just did but I did stop reading his blog after his continued dumping on black Californians as the reason that Prop. 8 didn't pass. As if a group of people who make up 6% of a states population can determine the outcome of an election.
DC does not have rural, Bible belt so I think gay people will have full equality here by the end of 2009. I certainly am in support of their rights.
I read Sullivan on a regular basis, but he doesn't remotely understand Black people, period. I nearly stopped after he tried to scapegoat Black folk for the failure of Prop 8. I would no more listen to him on matters concerining the Black community than I would Shelby Steele.
Elw, you said it better than me. That's what I was getting at with the whole Phillip Pannell thing. There's no analogue to him anywhere--if only because of the size of D.C., relative to other places. Political power in D.C. is much more concentrated.
Thanks. Exactly -- the whole jurisdiction is a city. There's no need to negotiate with socially conservative rural areas, except when Congress starts messing with us. DC has a really high quotient of educated people, liberals, and gays -- including among African Americans.
And his thinking betrays lack of knowledge or curiosity about majority-black jurisdictions in general, I think. Detroit's politics too are extremely socially liberal -- one of the first sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, for example. And Wayne County (which includes Detroit and some low-income socially conservative white areas) was less likely to vote yes on banning gay marriage than the state as a whole, and if I had the time to separate out Detroit I bet it's an even stronger difference.
Philip with one "L". Phillip Pannell with two "Ls"? I'd bet there have been too many kids like him down south:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Pannell
Also, the ballot initiative thing...sheesh...we all know how effective those are in DC. What ever happened to our medical marijuana ballot initiative, anyway? Oh yeah! It passed back in 1998 with 70% of the vote, and Congress told us to go take a flying leap.
I'm a DC resident and agree with Andrew that there is a great deal of lingering gay-black tension in the city. I think it has a lot to do with gentrification. But that's a whole other story.
I agre w/ Ta-Nehisi and Elw that it will be difficult for Republicans to exploit these tensions to stop marriage in DC through a ballot initiative. To add to Elw's comments, DC law makes it fairly difficult to put up ballot initiatives in the District. Petitioners would have 180 days to collect signatures from roughly 1500 registered voters (5% of DC's registered voters), and of those signatures, 5% must come from each of the eight wards. Further, if the Council passes marriage legislation by amending DC's Human Rights Act, as they have been discussing, DC law would prohibit such an initiative.
Anyway, gay rights groups have already started reaching out to black people and faith communities in the city, and I hope they keep it up. The real issue will be keeping Congress out of it. Since DC residents don't get a vote, it will be important for marriage equality supporters across the country to reach out to their representatives to let them know that they do not support the Feds interfering with DC's move towards progress.
Isn't it more like 15,000 signatures, not 1,500? If you've got approximately 300,000 registered voters, 5% would be 15,000...and I know the medical marijuana initiative needed a bit more than 17,000 signatures. So yeah, really, really tough to do (just ask those guys who tried to get slot machines on the ballot here). And good luck getting 5% of those signatures from here in Ward 2.
As a native DCer and former resident, I agree that the politics in DC, racial and otherwise are very different from the rest of the nation, and I doubt that tactics that work elsewhere will translate directly to DC. However, Marc Fisher had an interesting piece in the Washington Post on April 2nd regarding how the bottling industry used race as a wedge issue to defeat the possibility of a bottle deposit in the late 1980s. I could only find the mobile version on the web.
As a Californian who was shocked, disturbed and embarrassed that Prop 8 managed to pass this past November, I was thrilled yesterday to see that Vermont finally did the right thing. Let's hope DC is next, and the rest of the country...
Question: is it wrong to think of Will & Grace as the gay Cosby show? It seems to simple and trite to give any credit to a sitcom for changing America's attitudes, but it's hard for me not to see it as somewhat of a turning point. But when I write it down, it does sound shallow...
No, it isn't shallow at all. Normative visibility is a large step to acceptance for any disadvantaged group. Will & Grace presented a very non-threatening view of gay life to a large portion of the population.
Funny, he says this considering the quote above is an accurate description of the hate filled posts he wrote about "black homophobia" in the days after Prop 8.
It's useful idiots like Andrew who give Rove and his strategies legitimacy and make it infinitely harder for black GLBT folk to make any progress.
How Andrew feels he has any credibility on this issue after the racist screeds he unleashed is amazing.
Isn't the bigger point that because DC's budget is contingent on congressional approval, it is unlikely that a gay marriage bill in the District could stand up to congressional power? Perhaps, even, like the Supreme Court gun case, creating a larger precedent against gay marriage. That being said, nationally, the wind seems to be changing.