[A. Serwer]
So like Ta-Nehisi, I've been pretty frustrated with the way that many on the left have simply embraced the idea that black people are standing in the way of marriage equality. The coverage in the fallout of proposition 8, which relied almost entirely on a CNN poll which had a sample of black men so small it couldn't be measured, but showed 70% of black folks voting for the measure, basically gave the entire press a pass to blame Prop 8's passage on black people. Nate Silver's analysis showed this interpretation of the results to be factually incorrect. Ironically, it was only a few months earlier that conservatives had latched onto the Community Investment Act to try and blame the financial crisis on black homeowners--an explanation liberals ridiculed--rightfully so--as racist. And yet this is pretty much the same thing.
I decided to cover the fight for marriage equality in DC partially out of sheer frustration with the way black voters had been portrayed as an anonymous, homophobic hive mind in the aftermath of Prop 8. It haven't attempted to sugarcoat homophobia in the black community--rather my intent was to make sure that there were names and histories attached to the people fighting on both sides, so at the very least, when we were talking about this issue, we would be talking about people, about individuals. They say journalism is the first draft of history--this time I wanted to make sure that the people involved in this fight had a history people could look to. I'm not the best reporter in the world, I'm really pretty new at this. I also don't have TNC's reach, but no one can say the information isn't out there.
Frank Rich though, is another story. Let's take a look at that statement again:
Some speculated that the president is fearful of crossing preachers, especially black preachers, who are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage.
"Some speculated"? This is--and I don't use this term lightly--a construction of Michael Goldfarb-like dishonesty. "Some speculated"? Rich isn't an investigative reporter, he's not talking to anonymous whistleblowers inside the government, but he can't put a name, let alone an argument, to this evaluation.
There's a reason for that--the argument doesn't even make sense on its own merits. Obama's two most high profile religious supporters in the black community are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom are on record supporting marriage equality. And you know what? I'd be surprised if either of them could get Obama on the phone--let alone the anonymous "black preachers" of Rich's fantasy. Understand though, the "black preachers" aren't people with individual opinions, they're part of the same anonymous mass of black homophobia that single-handedly passed Prop 8.
Rich's analysis also just completely ignores the prevailing political dynamic in the black community, really, in the country as a whole right now. Barack Obama is the most popular black political figure in history--there's a reason why black religious figures opposed to marriage equality evoke his personal religious statements against marriage equality rather than criticizing him for his promises to repeal DOMA or DADT. He's popular--and while he's popular throughout the country, he's still on another level when it comes to support from black voters. Obama isn't running for reelection this year--the people Frank Rich is talking about need Obama more than he needs them. Can anyone name a single "black preacher" Obama has appeared with since the election by name without googling it? There's a reason why, despite Obama's silence/dismissiveness to questions about the specific problems black folks are facing, you haven't seen any black civil rights organizations criticize him. Maybe they should. But there's a reason they aren't.
Is marriage equality just another bargaining chip for the administration to advance other elements of its agenda? Maybe, but there's no evidence black people are the reason for that--seriously, we can't even get Obama to answer a direct question about what he's doing to address problems in the black community, let alone dictate to him what he should do when. The downside of being this consistently loyal to the Democratic Party is that they don't have to care what you think--and that was true even before Obama. Politicians are beholden to the people whose support they are seeking, not those whose support they already have.
I've heard scientists complain about intelligent design because it's essentially anti-science: it substitutes superstition for scientific inquiry. The belief that black voters are the major obstacle to LGBT rights is essentially superstition; it fills the gaps in our knowledge with what we already want to believe. Superstition is no more forgivable for a journalist, or an opinion columnist--than it is for a scientist.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm on board with the larger argument here, but again I'm having some trouble with making Frank Rich the poster child for the black homophobia meme. Maybe I'm just a softy for Rich, who I think is generally dead-on politically and a beautiful writer to boot, but this much-quoted passage needs to be looked at in context. The paragraph begins "In conversations with gay activists on both coasts last week, I heard several theories..." Rich goes on to list three such theories, one of which is the aforementioned "black preachers" bit. Then he begins the next graph, "But the most prevalent theory is that Obama, surrounded by Clinton White House alumni with painful memories, doesn’t want to risk gay issues upending his presidency, as they did his predecessor’s in 1993." To my (possibly naive) eyes, it looks like Rich is giving very little weight to the black homophobia argument--it's certainly not the central claim of his piece.
I guess I'm not sure of the nature of the "journalistic malpractice" being committed here, to quote a commenter from a related thread yesterday. Is it that he didn't name his source more specifically? Is there any doubt that some gay activists do blame black homophobia? If Rich had cited "gay activist X" for this viewpoint, wouldn't he still be guilty of repeating the meme?
I'm still glad to have my attention drawn to this passage, though, even if I think some of the charges against Rich are overstated. Whether the black homophobia meme is being perpetuated by Rich or just by some of his sources, it is pervasive, and it's made me rethink another recent column on this issue. Hendrik Hertzberg, who is next to Rich in my pantheon of opinion-writers, writes about Obama's sluggishness on DOMA and DADT in the current New Yorker:
Our discussion here has me wondering about the rhetorical use here of "rallies aimed at Southern blacks"...
Fair enough. My view is you use the "some say" construction, you own whatever the "some said."
I can see what you're saying, Adam, about the "some say" construction, but I do think that the beginning of the paragraph makes it clearer that the "some" is "some of the activists I chatted with." The problem may be less Frank Rich than it is upper-class white gay activists.
I actually agree with both of you.
On the one hand there is no doubt that there are people out there blaming black folks for killing Prop 8 even to this day. I saw some right wing pundit on MSNBC last week use the same meme to argue pretty much what Frank Rich says "some say". So its not so much that its a strawman or that it isn't happening.
On the other hand "Some say" we never landed on the moon, and "Some say" aliens have abducted them.
Just because "Some say" something doesn't mean Rich has to include it in his column. And if he does then he should at least try to give some justification for "Some say/ing" that or put some caveats around what "Some say" wherein he examines the likelyhood of whether they are right or wrong.
Yeah, if he was referring to the activists he could've gone with 'some claim,' makes it clearer.
A little off-topic, a little more over-the-top.
What's incredibly painful to me is the memory of Clinton utterly folding. I cannot politely describe my anger and disappointment. Obama is the President. He's the President! Don't be like Clinton, Mr. President! Be President!
When Clinton pulled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" out of his ass, that was when I knew we had a loser for a President. Sure, his was not nearly as embarrassing (damaging, disgusting) a regime as #43 gave us, but, like my pal Sylvain says, 'that's comparing hot, wet dog feces with day-old, partially dry dog feces.' If I have to choose one kind to step in, well, I'll go with day-old Clinton rather than steaming hot, wet and fresh W.
Ultimately, I'd prefer not to step in dog mess.
I'm sorry. I'm seething. You are the President, and I just want you to do what you know in your heart is right, and to stick to your guns. This is for you, Barack Obama, because I hope you're a hell of a lot better than the last two.
My problem with this argument has always been the underlying assumption that black people are somehow monolithic. There's a pervaside idea that we all have the same thoughts, views and opinions on EVERY single issue. This is of course, ludicrous, but it seems to be the driving force behind statements like Rich's. Not even all "religious" black people are the same. Like in any other grouping of individuals, the issue of marriage equality often falls on generational lines as well as other socioeconomic factors. If I look at all of my black friends from college (we're all mid-20s), I can't name one that doesn't favor marriage equality and within that group there are varying professions, income-levels, marital statuses, general backgounds, etc. When I look at my family as a whole, I can't say that. Definitely the older individuals have some rather outdated view about marriage. I do know that the younger you go generation-wise those views change dramatically overall. It seems, to me at least, that this is pretty much true of America in general, rather than black people.
Equally as problematic is this assumption that Obama is the black president. Really? Since when? I don't remember him getting into office and immediately handing out reparation checks or granting a direct line to various "black leaders." We are only 13% of the population, important yes, but who realistically thought Obama would get into office and declare a year of thought about race and social policy in this country. He never even pretended to do so when he was campaigning. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that Obama does not have much to worry about concerning his standing in the black community. As long as I still see Obama T-shirts and buttons on the train here in NYC and on the street in Harlem months after the inaugaration, I think he's good to go on that front. To suggest that he's somehow worried about alienating "black preachers" shows a lack of insight about MANY things.
Great comments! I second everything you wrote. This notion that blacks are somehow an homogeneous block that uses group-think in everything from music to voting is utterly ridiculous.
Rich's comments were intellectually lazy.
I've said a number of times on this forum that I don't believe the "blacks are more homophobic" meme, despite my own anecdotal experience with homophobia that had mislead me to think otherwise. I won't go into specifics, but nearly every time I have been threatened or discriminated against, it has been from black people. I have stated earlier that this is probably due to where I live and work. But I also know a lot of black folks that are very gay friendly, so I hold no grudges against a particular group. I believe you can only judge people on a case-by-case basis. Anything else is stereotyping.
But allow me to play the devils advocate here. What if it turned out to be true - that as a group blacks are statistically more likely than non-blacks to be homophobic? Is that so bad? Its not like its something that can't be changed. If it is true, it wouldn't surprise me. This is why:
Biblical fundamentalists of all races are more likely to be homophobic.
The percentage of black fundamentalists is higher than the percentage of white fundamentalists.
Therefore, the percentage of homophobic blacks may exceed the percentage of homophobic whites.
I think polls show that blacks are more likely to oppose gay marriage, but more likely to support things like anti-discrimination laws against gay people. So it's complicated. But saying black people are more likely to oppose gay marriage is different from identifying them as the significant obstacle to marriage equality.
The percentage of black fundamentalists may be higher but the actual numbers aren't. Name a fundamentalist black church with 15,000 members because I can't think of a single one. But I can start with Rick Warren's church and go from there to name 20 white fundamentalist churches with that many members.
And as far as blaming religious fundamentalists goes, these same folks who blame religious black folks seem to forget how much time and money the Mormons (who didn't think black people were human beings until 1978) spent to deny marriage equality in California.
"The percentage of black fundamentalists may be higher but the actual numbers aren't."
OK that seems pretty obvious to me since blacks are a minority. That is why we use percentages instead of whole numbers.
"And as far as blaming religious fundamentalists goes, these same folks who blame religious black folks seem to forget how much time and money the Mormons (who didn't think black people were human beings until 1978) spent to deny marriage equality in California."
Where are you getting this? Who is blaming blacks but not Mormons? This is a straw man unless you have some evidence to back this up.
Not really. That basically was the initial reaction to Prop 8. I deeply respect Andrew, but the record is clear:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prince-is-anti.html
I love Dan Savage, but again, the record is clear:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/more_on_prop_8_1.php
I'm a huge fan of Caitlin Flanagan, but again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07flanagan.html
Upon reflection, Mormons were thrown into the mix. But it's no question blacks--a group that makes up a minuscule 7 percent of Cali's total pop--took the brunt of the load initially. Those links came from five minutes of googling. I didn't even look at the actual news coverage, but my recollection is that basically it was the same.
There was an ongoing discourse about both African American voters and Mormons. In addition to the commentary TNC pointed out, there were also organized calls for the boycott of Mormon business (see the El Coyote restaurant), threatened boycotts (LA film festival and an SF musical theatre) because of donations by LDS executives. There were also protests at some LDS temples.
All of this is legislation of cultural mores, which on it's face is the entire point of democracy, and which in practice is the most foolish thing a civilization can do to itself.
dc there really are huge numbers of fundamentalist AA churches just think of all the Baptist and Evangelical churches involved, last time I checked TD Jakes, who condemns his own gay son, was over 30,000 and he is on the phone list of preachers that Obama is said to pray with and may be part of why Obama said he was talking to the black churches about this issue. that said it is a simple matter of numbers to see that conservative white voters made the overwhelming difference in CA, the original speculation was that a higher than usual minority voter turn out for Obama would, ironically for his liberal supporters, also do in gay marriage rights and who knows exit polls aren't very good in these areas. but as I said a while ago when we 1st were on this topic I think that this story has captured the imagination of some leftist commentators whose mistaken logic, which they can't shake, was that having benefitted from their own civil rights victories that all black people would see gay rights as a like struggle and support them. which just goes to show that moral equivalences may only exist in the minds of those who are predisposed to see them.
"So like Ta-Nehisi, I've been pretty frustrated with the way that many on the left have simply embraced the idea that black people are standing in the way of marriage equality."
Who's standing in the way? Is it the Mormons?
It seems like gay marriage referendums tend to get rejected by voters, regardless of the demographics or political leanings of the state. Maybe with so much else in flux today -- e.g., companies once thought of as blue chips gone bankrupt, etc. -- more American voters are wary of changing a long-standing cultural tradition?
more American voters are wary of changing a long-standing cultural tradition?
More likely, the United States remains an anti-gay nation.
Actually, as a strong gay rights and gay marriage supporter, I am getting a bit tired of the whining about how Obama is not waving his magic wand to end DADT and DOMA.
The gay community on this issue seems to want Obama to do the work and take the political risks-- why aren't you out there protesting in the streets? I'll join you, but I'm not gonna organize protests for you. Where are the sit-ins at the Justice of the Peace or City Hall demanding to be married? I'll go to support you, but i can't get married for you. Where are the letter writing campaigns, the email campaigns? Haven't you heard of advertising what you want?
i will join the fight for marriage equality, but I won't fight this battle for you. lead the way-- I am behind you 100%.
I'm sorry, I have to respond, esp to this:
I am getting a bit tired of the whining about how Obama is not waving his magic wand to end DADT and DOMA. The gay community on this issue seems to want Obama to do the work and take the political risks--why aren't you out there protesting in the streets?
There have been protests, in case you missed the DNC fundraiser last week. Gay folks have been organizing, in case you missed the legislative sessions in NH, VT, ME, NY, OR, WI, NV, IL this year, all of which passed (or came damn close to passing) some kinds of relationship protections for same-sex couples this year. Have you seen knightsout.org? A new organization of gay West Point alum coming out and working to challenge the ban.
President Obama, and the Democratic leadership more generally, made a campaign issue of working to get rid of those policies. According to the WaPo today, they've made a collective decision to take no action on these issues for the foreseeable future (thanks, Rahm).
But we're whining.
I should probably add that there is planning going on for a march on Washington in October.
http://nationalequalitymarch.com/
thanks for the info on the march, MAJeff.
Maybe with so much else in flux today -- e.g., companies once thought of as blue chips gone bankrupt, etc. -- more American voters are wary of changing a long-standing cultural tradition?
Gay marriage is clearly more popular today than it has ever been. Admittedly, that still is not popular enough to win referendums in many states. But I don't think anyone has detected any reactionary trend against gay marriage due to the current economic crunch.
Additionally, Dave's "point" fails when you realize that the overwhelming majority of the anti-marriage referenda were passed before the economic meltdown.
This is the second time in two days I've seen a comment here to the effect of "pro]gay marriage referendums get rejected by voters". I am not aware of any referendums that have been on the ballot to legalize gay marriage. The laws being voted on are always to prevent gay marriage. Just wondering where this misconception is coming from.
As a "recovering" Catholic, I can state unequivocally that most homophobia, IMHO, begins and ends with The Church--and not just Catholic but Baptist, Mormon, et al. Then, too, there is certainly a double standard whereby men certainly snicker and don't mind lesbianism, but just not gay men.
An old acquaintance of mine (straight) plays for the LA Sparks,and I notice that there is often a higher majority of black men courtside than white men, maybe even white straight women. (No way to accurately assess or count, just a visual poll!) They certainly choose to overlook the understood belief that a preponderance of lesbianism or bisexuality exists in the WNBA,(where in which,like any business, one's sexuality is generally not openly discussed , of course.) I often wonder if the NBA were perceived equally gay as the WNBA is perceived,
would it attract the same fan base?
As for The Prez, he has nothing to worry about in the black community, the progressive community, the gay community, or most any other, (65% approval last I saw), because in the next three years enough CHANGE IS GONNA COME to eradicate all the whining that has commenced far too prematurely.
As a "recovering" Catholic, I can state unequivocally that most homophobia, IMHO, begins and ends with The Church--and not just Catholic but Baptist, Mormon, et al."
It is particularly sad when it effects children, too. I am friends with a Catholic gay couple who tried to enroll their adopted son into the Catholic school attached to their majority white church. Nope sorry. Can't go because the kid has 2 daddies.
"Then, too, there is certainly a double standard whereby men certainly snicker and don't mind lesbianism, but just not gay men."
This frustrates me a lot. Gay men are seen as disgusting aberrations of nature. Lesbians are seen as cute and non-threatening.
I think this is because straight men are afraid that gay men will "look" at them, perhaps with lust in their heart. Sorry, straight guys, no sympathy for you. When guys on the street stop staring and wolf-whistling at me and my girls, I'll start to feel bad for you. Until then, payback is a bitch.
I found that most guys, once their barriers are removed, really enjoy being objectified.
But anyway, I just love it when a straight guy goes, "Hey I'm OK with whatever you do behind closed doors, just don't hit on me."
I always laugh to myself then because usually the dude saying it is like the last person on earth I'd ever hit on!
Exactly.
"This frustrates me a lot. Gay men are seen as disgusting aberrations of nature. Lesbians are seen as cute and non-threatening."
I agree, but this lesbian can't help but note that there's something to be said for having your sexuality taken seriously, even if it's with serious hostility. I don't envy gay men the violence and hysterical wounded masculinity they have deal with every day from straight men, but I do envy your sexual agency being taken seriously, instead of being reduced to a porny joke and a fetish for straight men to appropriate as they see fit.
It's also worth noting that the "cute and non-threatening" image often only extends to women who are conventionally feminine and attractive-- if you're butch or old, or fat, or god forbid, all three, then the "awws" disappear pretty quickly and get replaced with some serious anger and disgust (even from gay men-- Perez, I'm looking at you.)
Yes, it certainly doesn't prompt the same level of violent hatred that male effeminancy does. As Quentin Crisp said, there's no crime like being a woman. But my hackles get raised every time someone seems to be moving towards a false "gay men have a hard time, lesbians have it easy" dichotomy, as though it's just peachy to be alternately reduced to sex dolls in a male fantasy and completely marginalized and invisible, even within the so-called gay and lesbian community.
It's also worth noting that the "cute and non-threatening" image often only extends to women who are conventionally feminine and attractive-- if you're butch or old, or fat, or god forbid, all three, then the "awws" disappear pretty quickly and get replaced with some serious anger and disgust
And violence.
Elise -
I agree with everything you said. I think Madonna says it best in "What it feels like for a girl."
Girls can wear jeans
And cut their hair short
Wear shirts and boots
cause its ok to be a boy
But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading
cause you think that being a girl is degrading
But secretly youd love to know what its like
Wouldnt you
What it feels like for a girl
Acromion -
Glad we agree. I like those lyrics.
Had to add that's not to say that either of you, Acromion and Bruins2Lakers, were trying to claim that lesbians have it easy, just that my hackles get up and I have to say something when it looks like the conversation might be moving in that direction.
No need to second guess yourself, Elise. I just didn't think I could describe lesbian sexuality coming from my experience, but you really made a lot of sense.
Yes, and the reason why is very simple.
The female form is seen as an ideal of beauty. Scantily clad women grace the pages of both men's and women's magazines, for example. The lesbian sex act is also performed by most straight couples. This removes most of that visceral "ewwww" reaction.
The male form is not universally beautiful. Add to that the fact that gay sex is highly unhygienic and that most straight couples do not perform that act. Net result: "Ewwww, yuck."
(Note: I suspect it isn't as unhygienic as most people think, but I really don't want more information on it.)
Further evidence for this hypothesis? In cultures where the male form was a beauty ideal and modern hygiene had not taken hold (e.g., ancient Greece), gay sex was accepted.
Darkrose, if stereotyping people who think differently from you makes you feel good, enjoy. But if you actually want to change views, it might help to understand the views you are changing.
The fact is, most sex is disgusting. Sharing bodily fluids, touching other people, yuck! The only exception is sex we want to participate in -- our brain has a mental override for that. Remember how you felt when you heard about sex at age 7? "You stick your what into where? Eeeewww!" That's how straight people feel about gay sex. That's how most people feel about sex they don't want to have.
You can't stop people from thinking that, just as you can't convince me that shrimp are not disgusting sea maggots. All you can do is stop people from making the leap from "eeewww, gross" to "the people doing that are bad."
Or you can just stereotype them and assume they want to have gay sex, but only being the top.
Incidentally, very few straight couples have anal sex.
Yeah, I don't want _anyone_ to tell me about their sex life. Yuck.
However, i think part of the problem is that gay people (as a group) tend to be defined _only_ through their sex lives. That's why when it's our brother or our co-worker who's gay, we get past the yuck sex part very quickly-- we know those people are more than just the sex they have.
It would be great if we could move this debate beyond sexual preferences, but I can't see quite how. Even when we bring in families, kids, health care, etc., the main thing does boil down to who someone wants to have sex with.
Ninja Zombie,
Please go post on digg - I think you will fit in better there.
Acromion,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this blog was devoted exclusively to cheerleading and preaching to the choir. I thought it was for actual discussions and differing ideas.
Acromion, I don't think asking people to go post elsewhere is your perogative. Since I don't always agree with you, should I tell you to go post on Michelle Bachman's website?
Adam,
This is interesting--its a matter I bat back and forth in my mind quite often.
But I still tend to think that a base who pushes the politician post-election will still find them suitably beholden if they think they risk losing the support of that base.
Example:
GOP politicians are beholden to Independents and right-leaning Dems (the people whose support they are seeking), not to the White Religious Right and social conservatives (those whose support they already have).
True or false? I say false because as much as the GOP is bleeding moderate and independent and cross-party support, they still find themselves handcuffed to their increasingly radical social conservative and religious right base, because they dont want to lose them.
Good point, but I actually think the GOP is a bad example right now, because their base is too angry to be satisfied these days. Part of the reasons Republicans sound so nuts these days is that they constantly need to shore up their base, and have no time to reach out. Obama, on the other hand, knows the liberal coalition won't be straying or staying home for now, so he's free to triangulate.
A better example would be Bush's first term, where he passed the prescription drug benefit and no child left behind--in other words, when his base was happy enough with him that he could afford to piss them off a bit.
There are two ways for a party to lose supporters: to the other party (most probable for swing voters) and to apathy and low turnout (sometimes a problem with the base as well). Neither party wants its base to stay home on election day. But plays made for the centrist voters sometimes alienate the base, and plays made to the base sometimes alienate centrist voters. It's a matter of balance, and whether or not a party has the smarts to keep its coalition together.
I've attacked ID as science because it is simply a rationalistic attempt to express a religious belief. To pass it off as science is intellectual grift. And this I put on the movements principal players who know better, some of whom are scientists (but are in some ways discredited). All that is well and good.
Superstition here seems pejorative. To equate religious belief or deride someone's faith as fantasy is in poor taste. Empiricism/objectivism is just as superstitious as any faith. It simply raises worships at different altars.
Wait, but isn't the superstition the black homophobia meme? In the same vein the superstition isn't the religious belief, it's the notion that it's science. I'm not sure where the poor taste lies. Unless one has to believe in intelligent design in order to be a person of faith.
I would second TNC, and also argue that ID is nominally agnostic--and therefore distinct from specific religious beliefs. Also, it's possible to believe literally in the bible and still not oppose the teaching of empirical scientific research, and ID is essentially an argument in favor of the latter.
The complaint from scientists is that in the words of the author, substitutes superstition for scientific inquiry. That is an attack on how ID operates not what ID is or isn't.
The poor taste lies in the fact that if someone of faith believes in ID they are superstitious. Superstition has a negative connotation. It's pejorative and condescending.
Perhaps I'm watching too much Bill Mayer! :-)
Ok, now I know Adam Serwer is the author. I catch on slow. But I do catch on! Good posts Adam! :-)
"Superstition here seems pejorative. To equate religious belief or deride someone's faith as fantasy is in poor taste. Empiricism/objectivism is just as superstitious as any faith. It simply raises worships at different altars."
Look I understand that atheists like me are not going to convince the world that it is wrong. But can we at least come together and acknowledge our differences without false equivalences?
The majority of the world believes in supernatural things. Even more of the world believes that there is an empirical reality. That there is a world outside of each of our minds and that it can be at least partially understood is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.
I ask you to please show enough respect to both the religious and the non-religious to recognize that our beliefs are not the same thing. They really are different. The thing that is the same is that we are all the same people. We are all human and share the same strengths and weaknesses.
You believe your beliefs are superior and right and everyone else is wrong. How is that different and not a false equivalency?
This is what cracks me up about objectivism. There is very little that can be said beyond what we can perceive in the world to claim any hold on objectivity. You say the word is wrong. That's an affirmative statement to a fact. Facts can be objectively proven. So go ahead and prove, say, that there is no God. It should be interesting to say the least.
The idea that Obama's afraid of crossing black preachers over gay rights issues is pretty stupid. The opposite is true. Of all of the groups for whom opposition to gay marriage is a serious issue, the one that Obama has the most influence on is clearly the black church. I'm sure he's aware of this, which is why he seems to be (unfairly) singling out the black church for criticism on this issue, becuase he might be able to change their minds. If he's going to make in-roads on this issue, he's not going to do with the folks who are circulating emails accusing him of being the Antichrist.
Well I stand corrected, DC Fem & TNC.
Thanks for the links. To be honest I had paid little attention to the Prop 8 / gay marriage debate until I started following this blog, but I have learned a lot. I had no idea how extensive this black homophobia meme was until now. You are doing the right thing to expose it and open it up for debate. It is hurtful and destructive to all parties involved.
Thank you, Adam and TNC for continuing to fight and offer evidence against this misconception. I knew when I read the Rich on Saturday night that that phrase would be jumped on here -- and I winced for Rich, who I do love as an editorialist.
HOWEVER -- I'd also like to advance that gays not be considered monolithic either. A lot of us burnt down the black people vs. Prop 8 straw horse along time ago. It may be that it's us actual Californians who have advanced beyond the knee-jerk reaction (Savage, Rich, and Sullivan are miles and miles away from here) or that we're maybe more alternative-minded (Sullivan and Savage are our pro-marriage, pro-normalization leaders, however weird they personally may be) and, indeed, gay (unlike Rich and Flanagan). But I think many of us alternaqueers and actual community activists have moved well beyond this. Tho it still needs to be fought against, alas.
I would say this, though -- I think some good things, however ill-gotten, came from the initial finger-pointing. For one thing, it woke much of the "normal gay" community up to how exclusive and lazy it was promoting itself (many were shocked, shocked!, that their assumptions about queers of color and people of color in general were challenged.) It also started a real dialogue about strategy -- rather than just puny ads -- to communicate with our entire state, to step up to the plate, to be brave enough to come out to people we assume will hate us -- and sometimes to be inspired and surprised by those people's acceptance and intelligence.
I wish it hadn't had to happen that way -- and apparently the poison of assumption is still spreading through the system (at least the NYTimes Opinion Page system). But, hell no, I'm gay and I'm not Frank Rich.
This bugged me when I saw Coates original post and again with this one, but I have been having a hard time putting my finger on what bugged me. But I think it is this, these analysis misdescribe what the Rich quote actually says. But what the Rich quote actually says is hard to disentangle in a way that is not at least as racist as the view being attributed to him.
The quote clearly does not say that the black voter is the biggest obstacle to LGBT rights since it says that preachers are the biggest obstacle. Or more accurately that it could be a fear of preachers.
But that leaves as curious why gay advocates would single out black preachers. It is true that Harry Jackson (I think that is his name) has been made the face of the anti movement in DC. But most of the ministers leading the fight are not black.
And the idea that Obama has anything to fear personally from black voters voting against him is accurately demolished in Serwer's discussion above. Even if Obama was afraid that black votes would defeat any national referendum on gay marriage (a silly idea given the numbers) he couldn't really believe that black voters would turn on him over the issue, or that even if they did that would be the factor that dooms him in future elections (his and congressional ones).
Instead the quote kind of makes sense mostly if one takes it as something like "Obama is black so naturally he cares what black preachers say" But it is hard to understand that without an implicit "you know how black people are" to it.
It is quite plausible that Obama is afraid of moving to quickly on gay rights issues because of a voter backlash. It is implausible that he expects to come from black voters. And for all of the reasons Serwer gives above, it is unsupported to suggest Obama has a specific fear of black preachers.
That said, the Rich quote does clearly focus on black preachers primarily as representatives of the preacher class rather than as representatives of black civil rights groups. But maybe with all of the other people who are blaming blacks generally, the Rich quote comes too close not to be lumped in.