Proposition 8 and the Black Community - Are We At Fault?

I found the results of Prop 8 to be morbidly disgusting! Although I am a Black heterosexual female, nevertheless I have always supported gay marriages, same-sex adoptions, as well as upholding the Supreme Court decision of Roe V Wade. Unfortunately, Christianity has a played a vital role in many Black communities. Many African Americans are physically liberal, but socially conservative. What went wrong with Prop 8 and the Black vote? A.S.S.U.M.P.T.I.O.N and BAD MARKETING! There is a smaller percentage of Blacks living in California than any other ethnicity group. There are more faith-based televised sermons advertised on BET, than MTV or VH1. There were no grassroots campaign pushing the opposition agenda of Prop 8 in Black and Hispanic urban/suburban areas. Kanye West, a rapper who has openly expressed his support for gay marriages would have been a great spokesperson for the Black community. Politics is a game of chess, and Prop 8 is just one of the 16 pieces! The Mormans understood their religious constituents. If you want to forward a faith based agenda among minorities, then target the Black churches. President Bush did this during his Presidential campaign. Trying to push Prop 8 right after the Presidential victory of President Obama {without gaining a favorable amount of attention to this subject from Blacks and Hispanics} was infantile. You want Prop 8 eradicated? Then reach out to the Black community. It's NEVER too late! I still support same sex marriages.
  Here is a great chess move.  According to DADI, 69% of births among Black women were to unwed mothers. Black women are  the least likely to be married (more than any other women of any different ethnicity). Call the Black churches out on their hypocrisy. The older pre-Civil Rights generation do not believe that Gay-Marriage is a civil rights issue, so don't make it one!  It's a losing battle! Instead create this argument, "Why are so many African-Americans concerned about respecting the institution of marriage, when so many children in Black communities are being born out of wedlock?" This would be a great debate to take on with Black pastors. A widely publicized debate on BET with pastors {like Creflo A. Dollar and TD Jakes}, would push the issue among many young voters in HBCUs (historically Black Colleges and Universities).  Target the  Black Gay Elite in Atlanta, Georgia to pull further resources. They are well connected to many other Black organizations and learning institutions. I hate to admit this, but the failure of Prop 8 did not lie with the Mormans or religious Blacks. The failure lied with the upper-middle class gay elite who refused to form allies with the Black and Hispanic communities.  The Morman churches CAME PREPARED!

One very important thing most people here are not talking about (well Bill touched on it) is that Black people are extremely conservative and traditional. Even those that are unchurched and/or not religious. I don't know why America and white people in general do not recognize and understand this very fundamental "thing" about Black people. We have shown this side of ourselves time and time again. It goes across generations and lifestyles! We cling to our traditions !! Why do you (LGBTQ) assume that Black people will go along with anything. Do you think we are sheep? I find that assumption offensive and possibly racist.

And then come threats that since we didn't help you get your way then our 'ball' should be taken away !!

I think someone definitely has some work to do but it is not the African-American community. Sounds like we know where we stand.

hmm... Thelea has some good points there.  I don't live in California, so I don't know the answers to them.

Even if we assume (which we shouldn't) that 70% of blacks believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, how many blacks ARE THERE in the entire zone where the votes were counted?  What percentage do they make up?  Would losing 100% of the black vote in this situation make a difference if the non-blacks wanted something different?

And then... How many of the 70% actually flipped the lever to vote on the issue?  How much of an issue is this within the so-called "black community"?  Does anybody know?

For example... Here in NYC, there was some extra thing off to the side when I went to vote.  It was way off to the right, and the voting choices start from the left.  The only reason I even looked over there is that I know a lot of people that were talking and blogging about propositions about marriage and parental notification for abortion, so I decided to see what we had on the table.

There was this questions about war veterans this and that... The wording wasn't clear as far as what a "yes" would mean and what a "no" would mean.  Knowing nothing about the situation AT ALL, I just read it, thought about it, and then didn't vote on it at all, because it doesn't make sense to vote blindly on something that doesn't affect you at all.  Personally, I think that war veterans have sacrificed for our country, so I'd like them to get all the help they can get with PTSD or whatever's wrong with them when they come back.  Since I couldn't figure out on the spot whether I would be helping them or not, I didn't vote at all.

Similarly, what would be (and this doesn't really have to do with "the black community", but rather everyone, in general) the motivation for someone to vote on this proposition one way or the other, if they see it as a complete non-issue?  The "who cares?" non-vote is as important as the "yes" or "no" vote.  This is one of the reasons why Barack Obama trounced John McCain in the election.  So many people from the "who cares?" camp decided to make their voices heard and made sure they voted, even if that meant standing on lines for three hours.

So, the key, getting back to Lainad's friend's dilemma isn't to get upset and throw temper tantrums.  What he needs to do is start campaigning, not only to pull the people that voted "yes" over to the "no" side, but to convince the people (and there were probably a lot of them) that just.don't.give.a.damn because it has nothing to do with their lives at all, to see things his way and joing him in the next voting opportunity.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com )

I am upset about this erroneous finger pointing at African-Americans regarding Proposition 8.  Why are you so quick to believe whatever you hear?  If someone told me 70 percent of gay people voted against Obama my first thought would be, I don't believe it!   This political year was fraught with right wing lies. Bear that in mind.

"Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California's largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state.

Still, even though gays were fighting to preserve a basic right, it was the anti-equality side in California that seemed to have the most fervor. A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means - he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys - who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. "It was a decision we made very prayerfully," Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee's Jennifer Garza. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”

This is the real enemy. Don't trust exit polls. I think they are pitting one group against the other. African-Americans are less than 7% of the state population, do the math.  Many more Whites voted and they put this over, not Blacks. What are the total numbers of each group that voted. Someone dug into the data and found that we're just now learning is that the exit poll was based on less than 2,300 people. If you take into account that blacks in California only make up about 6.2%, we get roughly 224 blacks who were polled. 224 blacks to blame an entire race! The original percentage of black voters who were expected to say yes to Prop 8 was only around 52-58%. Anytime you get a vote that much higher over the projected vote, something went wrong. 

I know someone who watches C-Span and they said most Blacks did not even address the question at all. And they do not have the money to fund a tens of millions of dollars Proposition 8 campaign. Note that they also targeted affirmative action for eradication in another state.

Rather than be upset at the phantom African-American menace, fight like hell. I cannot believe that these larger groups who came out in droves to craft and fund this legislation  get a pass and Blacks are being targeted for the blame game. There is no right wing black conspiracy against gay Americans.  When they tried to align your struggle with that of Blacks they inherited their enemies. These same enemies are now trying to pit one against the other because they fear the combined numbers of both.How many gay activists supported the civil rights movement in the 1960’s?  Then how do you automatically expect support in return?  Have they asked Blacks to support them or did they just assume? 
No one gave Obama anything and they will not give gays anything either.  Obama stands on the shoulders of a lot of brave people who gave their lives for him to stand on that podium last night.

Never trust exits polls because in all my years of life, no one has ever been seen at a polling place asking anyone anything when they left.

 Don't fall for the lies. 
And the people have spoken. They have as much right not to want this as we did to want President Elect Obama.  Fight this in the court of appeals and not the court of opinion by targeting Blacks for hatred and enmity.

 Your comments are greatly appreciated.

Bill, you are right, life is reality but everyone's reality seems so vastly different and most of the time, they clash. I think one of the main issues is that there is this assumption that one's reality trumps other's and then the others fight back. We cannot accept sometimes that one person's life experiences are so vastly different from ours, but instead of accepting it, we lash out, I guess ( geez, I feel like I am talking in circles!)

TOQ, I hope you don't think that the premise of this post was to pit one 'group' against the other, but by not addressing Savage's article would not be a good thing, either. You probably know that in our society, it seems like blacks are not supposed to defend themselves or their percived triflin' behaviour. We are supposed to suck it up and take it.

I take offense to Savage's lump assumption that 'all' Black Americans are responsible for the overturning of Prop 8. I take offense that he has done what is commonly done whenever one person or a group of people do something that is offensive, which is to blame the entire population. More importantly, I know that people who are looking to add onto their reasons to hate and more importantly, discriminate against black folks love that shit. "See. See? I told you so." It justifies their beliefs and their behavour. We do not have the luxury to do that openly and get away with that. Sorry. That is my reality I guess!

Of course we should all look out for each other's civil rights, and maybe Obama is pissed, I dunno. but that is the reality we are all living in right now. A shared reality - maybe the only one we share. Maybe Obama's presidency will change that but you know what? I highly doubt it.

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

Let me add, in the end, you are only bothered by gay marriage if you are bothered by gays!

As a queer person of color (multi-racial), I am a bit dismayed by some of the language here. 

First, this is NOT an "either/or" situation.   Most queer people are people of color, and many people of color are queer in some way or another.

Second, I do not think that President Elect Barack Obama would actually approve of the vitriolic nature of some of the statements here. 

Third, we all can only succeed by looking out for EVERYONE'S civil rights, and it is not the African-American community's fault that LGBTQ people lack certain rights and access, nor is it gay white males' fault that people of color lack certain rights and access.  This is playing into the hands of those who would divide and conquer, and is counter-productive to the goal of freedom and equal rights for all!

Thank you and peace,

T.O.Q.

Excellent article, Lainad... However, life is reality.  Everybody can't win every time.

There are lots of Americans that wanted John McCain to be the next President.  Unfortunately for them, they live in states with ZERO electoral votes while Barack Obama was picking up 20 and 30 at a time.  That's Life.

Same thing with this particular vote.  Just because someone thinks that "no" should get the most votes doesn't mean that's going to happen.  That's the system.  The whole idea is that the people that live in an area get to vote for what THEY think is right.  If that's opposed to what YOU think is right, that's just too bad, and better luck next time.

Your friend happens to be an idiot.  Just because he's upset that this vote didn't go his way, that doesn't mean he gets to remove any black rights.  He doesn't get to lower the drinking age.  He doesn't get to raise the age for consensual sex.  He doesn't get his team another chance to win the World Series.

What he needs to do is state his case to people that live in that area so that he convinces them NEXT TIME to vote the way he wants them to vote.  If he can't do that, he's going to lose again, and he needs to not bitch and moan about other people's rights that he has nothing to do with and no say over.

As far as the black community, everybody knows that the vote is going to be HEAVILY skewed towards marriage being between a man and a woman.  No reason to cry about it... Find ways to convince black people otherwise, and the next time, the result might be different.  Your friend certainly isn't going to GAIN support for his ideas by coming up with wacko premises about what should happen if he doesn't get his way.  All he's doing is alienating people who might have carried the banner for him into their communities and spoken up for what he's trying to achieve in his lifetime.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com )

Wouldn't that be easier than trying to drag people kicking and screaming to change the marriage definition?  I am certain that the people in defense of the current definition of marriage would happily endorse the changing of the DP laws.  Even if not all of them come on board for that, you will certainly get a majority vote on it.  In addition to that, you could certainly hold a marriage ceremony with your family and friends, after all that is what heterosexual couples do.  The point of a ceremony is to witness the committment of a couple so that can not only celebrate that couple, but to say that they witnessed the committment and will do what they can to help hold that couple accountable to keep their committment.  Admittedly, not many people realize this and if they did, they are not inclined to accept that responsibilty.

As for the other countries, I am certain that you are more informed on which countries have same-sex marriages more than I am, which is why I made the statement that I did.  Thank you for the information, I will check it out.

All true, but no one can deny the church has influenced positive change as well as negative.
How does anyone get rid of the bad without also getting rid of the good?

An entertainment & culture blog for women of color
http://GreyDaySoul.blogspot.com

My Celebrity blog - http://RoseRollinsFanBlog.blogspot.com

I am about twenty minutes South of San Francisco. A lot of people around here are blaming the "Newsom Effect" for the ban passing. I don't know how far the commercials reached but there is a clip from a speech he gave about gay marriage and made a bonehead declaration that people have to accept gay marriage "whether they like it or not" and if anyone was on he fence about it, that would have pushed them against gay marriage. You don't win support by rubbing people's noses in crap. The commercial also includes clips of first grade students at a lesbian wedding and I think that didn't help either. Hopefully in the future the topic will be addressed with a more gentle attitude instead of ramming it down people's throats.

 Whatever the reason, it's all pretty sad. Homosexuals should have every right to be happy.

-Tiff

The reasoning that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Christian minister and the Civil Rights movement, which worked largely through the black church, encroached the separation of church and state is the same logic some politically active white fundamentalists have used, in part, to justify their motivating their members to get involved and push a Christian agenda on the nation. What they ignore is that southern churches were active as well during the Civil Rights movement speaking against Dr. King and integration, declaring the mixing of the races to be an abomination. So, many traditional churches were on the wrong side of civil rights.

It's probable today that some black ministers think that urging their members to vote against a specific proposition that will result in stripping another group's right to marry in the name of God is proper too because they believe to be gay is a choice and not a state from birth. It's hard to convince them otherwise just as some Catholic priests died after Columbus sailed to America still believing the earth is flat, some Christian pastors will die believing it's impossible that anyone is born gay.

If they were to accept that people may be born gay, then they would have to consider the possibility that God cursed something God created. I don't see a conflict because from what I can see there are quite a few natural states that God in the Bible calls sin, and most of us commit these sins each day and there's no worldly law against them. So, if I err, then let it be on the side mercy and the humility that says I do not know humans' hearts as God does. I will chose to reflect mercy and not the mask of the Pharisee. It's not my job to tell someone else how he or she is supposed to live. It's my job to be an example of how to love, an area in which most of us fall short.

But is being gay a choice or not? Is it a sin or not? Is any of this even important to the Prop 8 discussion? It seems to me the root of this discusssion is the right to choose how to live one's own life with the same opportunities as others and some churches seek to prevent that choice. Many Christians who adhere to the literal interpretation of scripture can't see that this is another choice issue, but even if they did, they'd probably still be against it the same way they are against a woman's right to choose abortion.

They strongly believe that to be gay is wrong and can't see that even if you believe that something is wrong or "against God" that if it is a personal matter, a deed that should be that person's decision alone, then Christians don't have the right as Americans or Christians to take away the opportunities and choices of others. But what they shout is that God's law is higher than man's law and tune out any suggestion that God has not given them the the right to force other people to live by whatever laws they believe God requires. Short of an Israelite theocracy, Christians may not push their beliefs, lifestyles, and practices upon other citizens.

To further make my point, I look at the example of Jesus. He didn't force himself on anyone. As I heard one pastor's wife say, "Jesus was very polite," when it came to asking people to follow him. He said behold I stand at the door and knock and left the choice up to the person to open the door. He did not say behold I stand at the door with a battering ram. So, however long Christians may wish to argue about whether anyone is born gay or chooses to be gay, or wheter to be gay is an abomination, their discourse has nothing to do with Proposition 8. Christians, if they are being Christlike, will allow their fellow citizens to make their own choices about lifestyle when that lifestyle does not injure others or force others to act against their own will.

The difference between what Martin Luther King, Jr., did and what some churches are doing today is that King called America to live up the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence in a way that was already compatible with Christian belief that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, that in the eyes of God all humans are equal. He wanted Americans to stop lying and start behaving like Americans. If that behavior ends up similar to how Christians should behave it's conincidental.

So, I don't see a conflict between church and state when churches work to help the nation live up to what its own constitution requires and what its own documents profess as ideals. The problem comes when the church's goal is to force the nation to live according to what the church requires.

SOME Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians follow Dominion Theology, the belief that Christians should take dominion over the world, and others go a step further and declare the founders of America were all Christians and so they aspired to see this nation "under God." These teachings are in direct opposition to the separation of church and state, which is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," because Dominion Theology promotes seeing a Judeo-Christian theocracy manifest in this nation. Unfortunately, it's this type of doctrine that frequently spurs churches to political action. (Here is a link to one Christian's writing who has some insights ( http://theopenword.org/topics/chursoc/chursoc.pdf ) into what I've just said, but I don't know what else he believes.)

Whew! I'm weary and worn out from discussing politics, sex, and religion, all topics my mother warned me never too discuss. Yet, as bloggers, we do it all the time. :-)

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Some churches fully supported segregation, in the name of faith and found justification in the Bible to do so. Some Black churches teach the subjugation of women is the only path to being right with God.

Faith, to me, is my connection to Spirit. And I don't think I can ask to be delivered from one form of oppression to wish a similar form on another person.

If a law cannot be applied equally then it is an unjust law. No amount of money or fear can change that. Only when people stand to do the right thing is an unjust law corrected.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

I'm torn about the issue of separation of church and state. Without the black church there would have never been a Civil Rights movement, Never a Rev. Martin Luther king, we wouldn't have an Obama now.
Even Malcom X came out of religion. Yes, I disagree with the Mormons, BUT where would black people be without our churches being involved in politics?

I don't know.

An entertainment & culture blog for women of color
http://GreyDaySoul.blogspot.com

My Celebrity blog - http://RoseRollinsFanBlog.blogspot.com

Something that has been pounding in my head and will not let me alone with Prop 8. I will only speak for myself here. Yell at me and not the millions of other CA Black Voters. I voted no and nobody asked me anything about it.

I want to state upfront that I am trying to write a post about the history of marriage. It ain't what everyone think it is but not sure if I can pull it off effectively anytime soon.

Point 1. Marriage is a legal construction not a religious one. Yes, folks may have a ceremony in a church, temple or mosque but you need a legal license to get married and become married.

There are qualification: such as you don't marry a close relative that has to do with genetics and malformed children and that you understand what you are about to step into because it is a legal contract.

So when religious organization interfere in a legal process I get concerned.

You see, the Yes on 8 people don't give a rat's ass if an Atheist straight couple gets married. Well, they do but there are no law to prevent it. Why? It is not a church matter.

It is a decision between two consenting adults that are about to sign a legal document. It is not a gay right issue. It is an issue of prohibiting legal adults from exercising the right to obtain a license and deny the rights, privileges and perks that married people enjoy that I as a single women do not have access.

If you take tax dollars from gay people, if you market goods and services to those same people but you are prohibited from being married then it becomes a civil rights issue.

We have instituted a sexual Jim Crow law. Yes, I said "Jim Crow." I will equate this like not being able to drink or sit where you want. I equate this as it is "ok for you provide me goods, services and entertainment but I really don't want to know that exist in the society." Segregation protected white folks from too much contact with black folks.

How is this not segregation?

I am not deliberately trying to be simplistic but I do want be clear. I would submit that many of the Yes on 8 votes did not know what they were "protecting." That transcends race.

The fear of sex, sexual identity and fear based sex politics fuel by religion is noxious. It was a successful toxic presentation.

Point 2. Money was poured into California by religious organizations especially during the last three weeks of the election. The messages presented on television and were out and out lies, distortions and misleading.

The No on 8 campaign did not effectively counter those lies or perhaps did not have the funding to do so, I don't know.

Let's not leave out conservative talk radio as an agitating participant. The one local radio station that did speak about this KPFK, a Pacifica station, is not listened to in the Black community.

We forget that an effective ad campaign that simplifies a complicated issue using fear i.e. teach our children about gay marriage, will trump measured thought 7 out of 10 times.

The TV ads No On 8 had early in the campaign were too subtle. We needed to see gay men and lesbian women tell their stories on M$M. That happened on YouTube but the people that needed to hear the other side never saw them.

3. It does seem to me that when something does not go a certain groups way there needs someone to be blame for an issue. It does seem that it is so easy to look toward African-Americans.

It maybe true that a good percentage of black folks voted yes. Hells bells we were not the only people at the polls. Anybody pointing fingers at Orange county voters in affluent households?

I got photos of white people in Pasadena holding up signs with pride. Want to blame them? Anybody want to blame the Evangelicals, the Catholics, the Baptists or the Church of Latter Day Saints or any other group that pumped in money?

I have something I want to submit as a reason it failed. To this day we do not understand that there is a spectrum of healthy adult sexual identities and expressions. America is puritanical and sex information deprived.

It always comes back to the ongoing war between ignorance and education. Dan Savage, of all people should know that.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

You said:

Except, in a way, I was assigning a preferentiality to a people: I was
according the black people, as a community, a higher degree of empathy
about discrimination, based on my perceptions that black people have
suffered discrimination more than any other "group" as a whole in this
country. It was actually meant to be a compliment, but I now realize
that it could also be taken to mean that blacks were _more_ wrong to
have voted for Proposition 8 than whites who did the same. Now that was
_not_ my intention, but the effect would be the same, and for that, I
do most sincerely apologize. 

And that's it.  Thank you for engaging in the discussion and recognizing this.  Prejudice that pays a compliment is still prejudice, and it is ultimately damaging.  

I agree that civil rights should be supported unequivocally by everyone.  This would be a reasonable expectation if everyone shared the same belief system and the same understanding of what is right and wrong and why.  Unfortunately it's never been that way and there was no reason to expect it to be that way with Prop 8.  People have always had to lobby members of their own communities and reach out beyond their own communities for support in civil rights issues, because there are always some people don't want to take the risk of drawing attention to themselves, or they feel they have more to lose.  Or they don't agree with the priorities set forth.  

We can't assume that anyone's hearts and minds are aligned with our own, especially if we don't build relationships with them.  In relationships, we have opportunities to appreciate different perspectives and possibly change minds.  That's why relationships, coalitions, outreach, whatever you call it will always be the way to do successful activist work.

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

"Further, as to the statement that "the 70% numbers speak for
themselves," I ask: what exactly do they "speak for"? The exit poll
numbers are based on fewer than 250 Black CA voters who voted one way
or another on the ballot measure. (Many, many more folks did not vote
at all on it.) The number is so small that no statistically valid
information could be provided for African American men. Thus, further
breakdowns on the basis of these Black respondents' age, church
attendance, education/income levels,  marital status, and other
demographic variables would have created a chart full of empty cells,
rendering any insight into this 70% figure completely meaningless."

Thank you for getting it.  There is no "overwhelming majority."  It's actually pretty underwhelming when you think about it for a few minutes.

People's capacity to look past this (or not see it at all) has been overwhelming and very saddening to me.

 -Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

Shelleyp, I will not put words in Laina's mouth because she is capable of speaking for herself. I took your comments to be coming from a place of hurt and frustration, mixed with feelings of ambiguity given the "good news-bad news" nature of the day after election day. But I know that folks who write a lot on the issue of racism--folks such as Laina--have to deal regularly with this attitude that we Blacks are some type of multi-headed single organism. I am sure it gets old to have to keep reminding folks of our basic humanity in this regard.

I hope that you and others continue in this conversation. This is a conversation that we need to have. I hope that we can all find a way to move forward and make progress on this and other progressive issues. I know that Presient-elect Obama has not been the beacon of progress for  issues facing LGBT communities that we would have hoped. In all honesty, he has not particularly been a bright beacon for issues specific to many Black communities. (Many have argued that he never would have been elected otherwise.) But I sincerely believe that the next 4-8 years will be the best window of opportunity for coming to a more enlightened national consensus on this marriage and other equality issues. But that can only happen if folks continue to be engaged.

Anyway, I appreciate your contributions. (And sorry Laina for my long comments on your very well-done post!)

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

When I talked about "soft racism" above, I was talking about a form of well-intentioned and/or implicit/covert bias. Further, I was not calling anyone "racist," but pointing out that I believed a certain idea was illustrative of soft racism.

Feeling that Blacks all think alike, feeling that Blacks should automatically and magically "get" the oppression of others, and especially feeling that Black folks "owe" support to other progressive political initiatives because of the election of one man who is Black/self-identifies as Black are, IMO, examples of soft racism in action.

Further, as to the statement that "the 70% numbers speak for themselves," I ask: what exactly do they "speak for"? The exit poll numbers are based on fewer than 250 Black CA voters who voted one way or another on the ballot measure. (Many, many more folks did not vote at all on it.) The number is so small that no statistically valid information could be provided for African American men. Thus, further breakdowns on the basis of these Black respondents' age, church attendance, education/income levels,  marital status, and other demographic variables would have created a chart full of empty cells, rendering any insight into this 70% figure completely meaningless.

Heteronormativity, homophobia and hetero-privilege is something that needs to be worked on in most communities, including Black communities (not "The Black Community"). I would not be so condescending to tell activists in other communities what strategies they should employ, but I can guarantee that alienating Black people, religious people, or any other group of people is not the way to go.

Marriage equality represents a specific social and political movement for broader civil rights for all Americans. It will have to be addressed as any other movement: by building coalitions, reaching out, raising funds, tweaking a public image, etc. (And I recognize that there are many organizations and individuals who are already doing this and have been for a long time.)

Finally, in hopes of illustrating why I and many other people are reacting negatively to this blame game consider this:

According to another exit poll, about 27% of self-identified lesbians and gay men voted for the McCain/Palin ticket. This is an improvement over President Bush's numbers. What are we to make of this? That "you would think that after all the prejudice the LGBT community has experienced they wouldn't vote against a Black man"? That "This is a slap in the face to the Black community"? Assuming that some of these McCain/Palin supporters also voted for other down ballot Republicans, should they be held accountable for some Democratic losses at local, state and national levels--especially given the closeness of some of them? IMO: No, No, and No. LGBTQ folks are individuals, and vote as such.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

I have to disagree with you, Atena.

My comment may have been an over-generalization, but it wasn't negative or condemning in nature, which is what the definition of "racist" implies. It might be considered discriminatory, because I was referencing the black people, generally, but even "discrimination", as a popular term, is typically only used in cases where one applies an action that is meant to assign preferentiality to one group over another.

Except, in a way, I was assigning a preferentiality to a people: I was according the black people, as a community, a higher degree of empathy about discrimination, based on my perceptions that black people have suffered discrimination more than any other "group" as a whole in this country. It was actually meant to be a compliment, but I now realize that it could also be taken to mean that blacks were _more_ wrong to have voted for Proposition 8 than whites who did the same. Now that was _not_ my intention, but the effect would be the same, and for that, I do most sincerely apologize. 

Unfortunately, though, my ill-thought over-generalization has also side tracked this discussion, which is really focused at the fact that, in California, the black voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And I still stand by my belief that one shouldn't need to form a "coalition" in order to support civil rights. All civil rights.

That really doesn't strike me as a compeling argument all around.  The results of Florida 2 were essentialy the same.  The exit polls for Props 4 and 8, and the presidential election in both California and Florida were very accurate.  It's a stretch to insist that this one figure was faulty.

 The flipside of that is, OK, the gay community feels hurt and the black community, I think, feels somewhat defensive.  For reconciliation, both sides have to do some work, but I think the gay community isn't going to be willing to make the first move unless they're sure the black community is going to make a substantial effort and work for real results.  The reports that the numbers of AA voters wasn't enough to change the election won't help either, because working with limited resource, the gay community isn't going to be eager to invest more time into a community that already largely voted in favor of the Proposition that end up being irrelevant at the polls.

"I cannot marry my mother.  Domestic Partnerships were set up to
specifically give homosexual couples the exact same rights as
heterosexual married couples while leaving the definition of marriage
intact."

No, sorry, the argument that Domestic Partnerships provide equal rights is false.  Setting aside the federal angle, that no federal tax benefits are provided and I am unable to have my boyfriend of eight years immigrate here, DP law also requires that the two people cohabitate, which a marriage does not require.  So if I have a Domestic Partnership. and I get placed in Los Angeles on a long-term contract, if my boyfriend stays in San Francisco, our partnership is dissolved.  Marriages can actually be confidential: the only public record is that an individual got married on a certain day.  The public record doesn't even have to mention your spouse or location.  Domestic partnerships are public record - who your partner is and where you live, all public.  And DOMA aside, a gay marriage recognized by the state would have to be recognized by all stats under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Supreme Court.

"I will agree that changing the laws to allow interracial weddings
needed to happen because it still fit the definition of marriage. 
Changing the law to accomodate homosexual marriage is changing the
definition of marriage.  I don't know of any other country who is
changing their definitions of marriage, yet we are the only ones who
are discriminatory??"

You don't?  OK, there''s the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain.  Oh, and the United States.  If you go back hundreds of years, same-sex unions existed in Japan and same-sex marriage - named as such - existed in the Roman Empire up until about 360AD.  The idea that this is something new and radical is false.

 mistaken. Just as any other "model minority" stereotype is damaging to the indiivduals it supposedly compliments, this idea that the experience of past and current racism is an innoculation against bias in all its forms is harmful.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

 The idea is racist. Not you, but the idea that you have expressed.

Obviously whenever anyone thinks they are being judged as 'a racist,' that's the end of the conversation.

Please consider this: The idea that a race of people would behave ANY particular way based on their shared racial experience is prejudicial.  No matter who says it.  Whether the purported trait is positive or negative (e.g.: blacks are so hard-working is as problematic as blacks are so lazy.)  It's also inaccurate, because not every black person has experienced the same level of prejudice or for the same reasons.  There is priviledge within black communities.  Black people are prejudiced toward each others and other groups as well.  Just like poor people, and queer people, and women, and immigrants and anyone who has experienced any identity-based oppression and hardship.  

Black people have become a kind of poster child for oppression, and people forget that there is as much range in our experiences as any other group.  So that brings us back to the fact that this:

I thought that blacks, being targets of racism for so long, and still
targets of racism to this day, would be that much more sensitive to the
damage that discrimination causes.

 ...is an idea that is racially prejudicial.  It's not about you as a person but the idea you (and many, many other well-meaning people) have expressed.  That idea is... well, I won't use the ugly 'R' word. But it means the same thing.

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

PamHouseBlend.com. Sorry, but yes. There are those blaming blacks. Actually, quite a few people.

An entertainment & culture blog for women of color
http://GreyDaySoul.blogspot.com

My Celebrity blog - http://RoseRollinsFanBlog.blogspot.com

Smart and insightful.

Whatever your thoughts about Blacks and Prop 8 two things are for sure. There is a problem regarding gays and the black community, and it's a problem that should be addressed.

An entertainment & culture blog for women of color
http://GreyDaySoul.blogspot.com

My Celebrity blog - http://RoseRollinsFanBlog.blogspot.com

"As Yvette says, blacks are not a monolitic group. I really wish people would get that through their thick, ignorant heads"

My apologies for bringing my thick, ignorant head into your comments.

Shelleyp, I think I understand what you are saying, but not every black person is the same - thinks the same, acts the same and has the same value system. 

All human beings can be racist, sexist, classist, ageist and homophobic, regardless of color. I assume you are being a bit sarcastic with your response so I don't really think I need to tell you that this is pretty much common sense.

Some PEOPLE are able to learn from the hurt that they have experienced and do not want to judge others the way how they have been negatively judged. Some do not, as it makes people feel better about themselves to hurt others.

I've been reading a number of blogs since I wrote this post that leads me to beleive that based on statistical evidence the assumption that African-American voters in California were not the cause of the demise of Proposition 8. Yes, an uncomfortable amount of people did, and we need to look at that very seriously.

As Yvette says, blacks are not a monolitic group. I really wish people would get that through their thick, ignorant heads. However, many have shared life experiences, but so do whites. Latinos, Asians and other cultural / ethnic people. Plus, many of the racist incidences that myself and many of my black friends and aquaintences have had have been perpetrated by white people.

Does that give me the justification to make sweeping generalizations about every white person I come across? No. It's not logical and it's lazy. Sometimes when I feel fustrated might think that (LOL) but I would never write an article for a national publication like Savage, knowing that it would be read by hundreds of thousands of people. 

I could go on and on but I'll stop here.

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

I thought that blacks, being targets of racism for so long, and still targets of racism to this day, would be that much more sensitive to the damage that discrimination causes.

Evidently, I was mistaken, and you're right blacks can be just as biased, as racist, and as bigoted as whites. 

If you want to say that I, and others, who thought that blacks would be more sensitive about discrimination, are racists, soft or otherwise, then there is nothing more to discuss.

The idea that Black folks, by nature of being the objects of discrimination, would automatically have some sort of "second sight" to the bias faced by others is the ultimate in "soft racism." It denies Black people their humanity, as individuals, who are subject tothe same human emotions, fears, and privilege blindness as anyone else. We are not "Noble Savages" who rise above the phobias faced by everyone else. Dan Savage and others who feel especially "betrayed" by Blacks are objectifying Blacks as a monolith. And there are, in fact, plenty of bloggers and commenters to blogs who are implicitly and explicitly "blaming" Blacks for the passage of these initiatives.

Building coalitions and being more politically savvy is not blaming the victim: It is simple pragmatic reality. 

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

Marriage has been defined in every major culture around the world as between 1 man and 1 woman.  Prop 8 was not about denying rights to marry.  It was about keeping the definition of marriage intact.  Everyone who wants to marry under this definition has the same rights.  It is not about marrying the one you love.  I cannot marry someone who is already married, I cannot marry someone who is a child (pedophiles have been blogging that they hoped Prop. 8 would be defeated so they could start their campaign), I cannot marry my brother or my sister, I cannot marry my dog, I cannot marry my father.  I cannot marry my mother.  Domestic Partnerships were set up to specifically give homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual married couples while leaving the definition of marriage intact.

I grew up with a lesbian couple as good family friends for over 30 years.  Both "A" and "C" served proudly in the US Armed Forces.  Everyone knew they were lesbians, it was never a secret, but they didn't ram it in everyone's face either.  They lived their lives with dignity and respect from people because they acted dignified and respectable.  When "C" died, "A" was at her bedside. "A" also received all the rights of survivorship and they did not live in a state that had domestic partnership laws to protect them.  "A" did not receive "C"'s social security benefits, but that was because "A"'s social security benefits were larger than "C"'s and you are able to collect only the larger amount, which is exactly the same for heterosexual married couples.

I still have gay and lesbian friends and have lost some of them to AIDS.  I still voted for Prop 8.  If there is anyone to blame for the defeat of Prop 8, it is the judges who overturned Prop 22 after 4 million majority voters expressed their desire to keep the definition of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.  It can be blamed on Mayor Newsom who proclaimed from the steps of City Hall, "It's gonna happen whether you like it or not!"  Taking first graders to a lesbian wedding under the guise of a "teachable moment" didn't help either.  I was never taken in school to an interracial wedding, an interfaith wedding, a traditional wedding or any other kind of wedding. 

I will agree that changing the laws to allow interracial weddings needed to happen because it still fit the definition of marriage.  Changing the law to accomodate homosexual marriage is changing the definition of marriage.  I don't know of any other country who is changing their definitions of marriage, yet we are the only ones who are discriminatory??

it was a great choice....a victory for all christians...to Rosy, ellen D, and the rest of gay community....GOD made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.....one day every knee shall bow and toung confess that JESUS IS LORD....read sodom and gamora..........the LORD will not put up with homosexuallity much longer....and realize he is not my GOD, AS people put it...he is OUR GOD AND HEAVENLY FATHER.......AMEN

Maria, the blame for a bill passing or failing ultimately rests on the voter. It's sad that we allow ourselves to be lied to, or misled, but ultimately it is our duty to find out the truth and vote accordingly.

I blame the people for starting the bill, but I can't blame them for the vote. No matter how much I want to.

I couldn't find the one quote, but Coretta Scott King once said that a constitutional amendment should only be used to enhance liberty, not to deny it. Ultimately, I cannot understand how a people who could vote for Obama in one space turn around and vote to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution the next. Regardless of the race of the voter. 

I found it particularly difficult that any black person would vote for a discriminatory amendment. I've always been horrified and ashamed when people of my race practice discrimination, but unfortunately am not surprised. I guess I wasn't expecting the resistence to gay marriage from the black community. Perhaps that's unfair of me. Such is life.

But I still believe that we should never need to form coalitions in order to fight for civil rights. All right thinking people should support civil rights. 

Shelly,

I want to respond to your comment because, though you are responding to Atena, I want to be clear that though I suggest up thread in discussion that going forward the LGBT community seek to work more closely with communities of color I was not saying that passage of Prop 8 should be blamed on the gay community nor that they deserved it. I appreciate and share your desire to not play a divisive, non-productive blame game with fingers pointed at either the black or gay community. Especially since they are not mutually exclusive.

Both my sisters are gay and black. I am heartsick beyond belief that Prop 8 passed. But I am heartened by the fact that many are immediately working towards the continued fight for equality. But I know that as an African American voter the Yes on 8 campaign asked for my vote and No on 8 did not. That has to change going forward.

I think this statement ( http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issu... ) (via Pam Spaulding ( http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId... ) H/T CE Jill Miller Zimon) is excellent in putting the issue in perspective - any blame for passage of Prop 8 should be placed on those who supported it, raised money for it and campaigned for it.

Atena, there will always be people who blame someone for everything. But you're right, I should have said, most of the people I know and read don't blame the blacks for Proposition 8 winning. There are also blacks who are saying, this is all the gays fault, implying they deserve this bill, because after all, they didn't work with the minority communities enough.

Can we not agree both extremes are not helpful? 

I don't have anything more to say, other than I want to point you all to a post ( http://coralnotesfromthefield.blogspot.com/2008/11... ) in a weblog I read all the time, by a marine biologist who lives in California and who is gay.

 This "70%" business has been driving me nuts for 2 days!

 It is not true that 70% of African Americans in California voted for Prop 8.  Not true.

 It is true that 70% of the African American people who voted and responded to the exit polls voted for Prop 8.  I recommend reading the Daily Kos post that Kim referenced - it does the math in great detail.  This is a very important distinction that is being glossed over everywhere I look.

 Poorly stated statistics can be extremely divisive.  And I've been reading a lot about this, shellyp - quite a lot of people are blaming The Blacks for Prop 8.  Probably because they think 70% of them voted for it.  Because that's what people keep saying over and over again.  It's pretty disheartening.

 - Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

Maria, I can understand what you're saying. The point, does it really require a "coalition" to understand equality, and vote accordingly? I had thought, I had really thought, our country was beyond that and we, the people, are the only coalition that needs to exist.

I think what needs to happen is a discussion in all communities about what equality really is, and that the fight for equality isn't just for the blacks, or hispanics, or women, or any one group or another. 

I won't speak for Liza but the reason why I quoted her post is because voting coalitions have to be actively built, they do not form naturally based on shared interests.

So it is not a matter of "earning" support for equality but rather, as I know from my graduate research, effectively working across communities to build awareness of shared interests and goals to build working coalitions. This is a mistake that social justice activists often make - assuming that a common history of discrimination and a shared desire for equality will translate in to voting coalitions. It just does not happen no matter how logical it might seem.

Many black civil rights leaders and organizations opposed Prop 8 but, at least anecdotally (there is research to be done and lessons to learn), it looks like the Yes on 8 forces did a better job at reaching out (even if they sadly resorted to lies and distortions).

Ultimately it is not a matter of placing blame on any group but recognizing that there are lessons that can be learned about how to better achieve goals. Let's figure out how we can more effectively organize and build a working voting coalition.

As counterintuitive as it might seem, yes, a coalition is needed because there are competing interests. But I agree, it is frustrating to recognize that but what I learned in my work is that recognizing that reality and the work that is required leads to more successful outcomes.

And, yes, those are exactly the type of discussions we need to have. I think once people discuss and grok the fact that much of the propaganda and fears are unfounded, that taking away rights from anyone diminishes the rights of everyone and the next time powerful special interests might come after your rights, most folks get it.

Kim, I don't think anyone is blaming the blacks for Proposition 8. I know, though, that many of us, straight and gay, are disappointed that 70% of the black community voted in favor of the bill.

Something was broken in this election. We need to work on fixing what is broken.

A friend sent me a link to a DKos diary entry that demonstrates that is is mathematically impossible ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235... ) for black voters to have supplied the margin of defeat on Prop 8.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I almost always agree with Liza, but I disagree with her on this one.

I don't think that the gay community necessarily has to reach out to the black or hispanic community, in order to "earn" some form of support for equality.

That's little different than saying, well you know, our community is all white. The blacks and hispanics aren't reaching out to us here, so we shouldn't support blacks or hispanics.

Do we believe in equality? Do we believe that Muslims deserve to be treated the same as Christians? Do we believe that blacks deserve to be treated the same as whites? Do we believe that women should have the same opportunies as men? Do we believe that gays have the same rights as straights? 

You can't say that you're for "equality" if you answer no to _any_ of these.  Equality, freedom, they aren't race specific, or gender specific, and so on. The blacks can't say that really, civil rights are only for black people--or have we forgotten what Coretta Scott King said, about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and
discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very
strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally
wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere.
Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a
fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from
racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

How about John Lewis:

"This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay
and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."

And  this page lists many more reminders ( http://www.soulforce.org/article/766 ) of what's really at stake: decency and equality for all people, not just the minority of the moment.

 Deb, I do not know what it is like to feel 'closeted' but I don't think that I was being dismissive. However (and excuse me if I am playing the 'oppression oneupmanship') but there is clearly a lack of understanding about what it feels like to be stereotyped because of the colour of your skin. The are clear differences there. White LGBT, despite of their sexuality do benefit from white privledge. That is all I am saying and if I offended you by my lack of understanding I apologize.

This post was simply reacting to Savage's post. If you have an issue with oppression onupmanship (which I find offensive) take it up with him.

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

Cultural oppression is at fault, and none of the groups mentioned benefit at all from pitting ourselves against each other. 

I hope you reconsider falling in the trap of the oppression oneupmanship game that you are ironically railing against.  For example, it stings when you are so dismissive of closeting.  You said, for example, that you can't hide "when it is suitable for me," which is very offensive and not how queer people feel about closeting, nor is an option for many, nor is not easy, nor is it palatable to ask children to be closeted for their mothers.

Please know that most proponents of gay rights don't blame black voters, although the 70% numbers speak for themselves.  We know the problem is pulpit politics in black, white, minority, majority, traditional and immigrant communities, and that those impacted by the homophobia and fear that some preachers and believers link to one interpretation of a part of the Bible is the barrier.  Gay rights is a combination of old skool oppression mixed with symbolic state v. church issues.  It's bigger than all of us right now, but we will chip away at it.

I am thrilled Obama will be our president.  For me and my children. AND for the healing it offers to my country's racial pain.  And most certainly for the leadership he offers to rise above and keep our eyes on change, justice and hope.

Deb
www.debontherocks.com ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ )blog
www.3smartgirlz.com ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ )

Stupid mistake. I'ts fixed!

Thanks Maria for that perspective- I should have checked Liza - I know she is the go-to girl......... 

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

70% of African Americans and a majority of Latinos ( http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source=most... ) voted for Proposition 8 so unfortunately it is true that we contributed to the success. Organizers of the Yes on 8 campaign also did a good job of insinuating that Obama supported the proposition which he did not.

However, Liza Sabater has a good post ( http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/vivir_latino_b... ) (which also quotes La Macha at Vivir Latino) ( http://vivirlatino.com/2008/11/06/more-prop-8-blac... ) pointing out the flip side of the coin which is that the GLBT community (much like the feminist community) has had a history of predominantly white leadership and has not always succeeded in efforts to reach out to communities of color and build working coalitions.

From the Mercury News article linked above:

"I think, to be quite candid, some people feel white gay and lesbian people have not been with them on the issue of race," he said. "So (African-Americans) said, 'Why should we be concerned about them when they were not concerned about us?' "

Oscar Dace, senior pastor of the Bible Way Christian Center in San Jose, said it may have rankled some African-Americans to hear civil rights for gay and lesbian people compared to the civil rights struggles of blacks in the 20th century....

"The LGBT community has not done a good job of having relations with people outside of a white middle-class group," said Nieto. Among the leadership of the No on 8 campaign, "I could not find any evidence of any African-Americans or Latinos that were on the steering group. Even if it was one or two, that's not good representation."

Liza writes:

So let me repeat this because it's important : White men and women, whether gay or straight, will be seen as always having the upper-hand in communities of color. The gay communities needs to make themselves part of our communities to gain our respect and our vote; just like any other political movement.

Progressive activists on both sides of the gender and color spectrum need to take a hard look at what happened in California and Florida and re-evaluate the ways we form coalitions.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Line 3, Prop 8 was in California, not Florida.

Otherwise, great post and set of links.

;o)

Black Phoebe :: Ms. Jen ( http://www.blackphoebe.com/msjen )
Barflies.net ( http://www.barflies.net/ )
Around Ireland ( http://www.aroundireland.com )
The Happy Tastebud ( http://www.thehappytastebud.com )