This will be my third link post in a row on the “blame the blacks” meme, which may seem like overkill. To show that it’s not overkill, read Renee’s post, which in turn draws on Rod 2.0 (I think), showing how extreme and overtly racist the blame-the-blacks meme has become among some.
Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.
And a scene from a protest outside a Mormon church:
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
But, some readers may object, aren’t these folks just a few unrepresentative racist wackos? Maybe. But what worries me is that, presently, those racist wackos feel free to say these things, instead of being shut up by the sure knowledge that yelling “nigger” will lead to being universally shouted down and ostracized. If that’s what’s going on, then the community as a whole — not just a few whackos — is racist.
Racism, in other words, isn’t just yelling “nigger.” It’s also the failure to yell “shut the fuck up!,” and do it immediately, every single time an “ally” yells “nigger.”
Renee comments:
A gay black man or woman irregardless of race is still gay and some white members have turned this into a hostile movement for them. Where is the sense of community in this? What these organizers fail to realize is that they have precious little connection with POC to begin with, and if they begin with the racist taunts they will alienate the few supporters that they already have. This is a time when they need to be reaching out to POC to make a bridge that they never attempted to build in the first place, and yet descending into racial politics is the route that has been chosen. This is a myopic policy that will only serve to push gay rights even further back.
I agree with Renee that this is terrible strategy (although we shouldn’t forget that the “No on 8” organizers have explicitly argued against blaming demographic subgroups for the loss). ((From a mass email sent out by “No on 8”: “We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss. We know people of all faiths, races and backgrounds stand with us in our fight to end discrimination, and will continue to do so.”))
But I don’t even want to talk about how harmful this is to marriage equality, because who gives a damn? Even if this were somehow good for the cause of marriage equality, it would still be fucking disgusting racist bullshit.
Think about “if you call me a faggot, I will call you a nigger.” That’s not the voice of justified anger at Proposition 8 passing. That’s white racism that goes back decades, which nowadays is usually covered by a fig leaf of civility, but for the moment the fig leaf has been blown away by rage. That’s some white racist asshole thinking “Now, now, at long last, I finally get to tell the niggers what I really think of them.” That’s resentment and rage because so many white people find it such a crushing burden to have to treat non-whites as if they were human.
It’s always there, but it’s usually covered up. And “covered up” is not “absent.” “Covered up” just means that the racism is expressed in quieter, disguised ways — ways that white people overlook, but people of color are usually more attuned to. That’s what people of color are talking about when they say that racism in the LGBTQ community is a real problem that has to be addressed. And not just because it’s good strategy.
I disagree; I read it as, “Maybe using this hurtful word is what it takes to finally get through to you how hurtful ‘faggot’ is and what kind of pain the passing of prop8 caused and will cause.” It’s a statement made out of desperation, not hate. Your reading imparts a kind of malicious glee (like the kiddos who disingenuously toss ‘niggardly’ into their essays) to the speaker that I don’t at all see.
I find it difficult to hold people who are very much still in a kind of ‘grief state’ to the same standard I would in calmer times.
Which is not to say that I condone it; it IS still damaging to gay/black relations. Just because his pain keeps him from appreciating that damage doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I am also not disregarding the fact that a lot of gay people still have and still make use of their white privilege.
An irony of this is that the biggest source of money for Prop 8 was the Mormon Church, which is venomously racist.
The real lesson people should learn is to just say no to religion. Religion, not race, is the root cause of almost all heterosexism.
libhomo: I don’t think it does anyone any good to make a blanket condemnation of religion, either. There is no religious justification for homophobia or racism, despite the history of using the Bible in apologia for slavery and for the persecution of sexual minorities. The fundamental problem with constitutional amendments like that proposed by Prop 8 is that they write discrimination into documents that are meant to protect citizens from both the government and each other. They are no better than anti-miscegenation laws, or Jim Crow laws, or redlining or whatever. I have many criticisms of religion, but I recognize that people who belong to one are no more nor less prone to the various forms of ignorance and bigotry than any other kind of group identity.
MH: The desperation and pain are surely there, but they shouldn’t be turned into vengeful forms of expression that exacerbate the desperation and pain felt by others. There is no “parity” here, only poison.
“here is no religious justification for homophobia or racism, despite the history of using the Bible in apologia for slavery and for the persecution of sexual minorities”
How do you come to that conclusion?
I have many criticisms of religion, but I recognize that people who belong to one are no more nor less prone to the various forms of ignorance and bigotry than any other kind of group identity.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s true for all religions, at least not with regard to specific forms of ignorance and bigotry. For example, while there probably aren’t a lot of Unitarian Universalists who are bigoted toward homosexuality (though they may be ignorant or insensitive about it), there clearly is sufficient bigotry toward homosexuality in the Mormon and Catholic churches that the leadership will be supported by congregants in spending their money on Yes on 8. If someone stays in the Mormon Church and isn’t actively challenging what they did on 8, he is saying that that church community is a higher priority for him than the damage the Church has done to equality.
It doesn’t mean he’s a homophobe, just like people legitimately could have refused to vote No on 8 because they put a higher priority on keeping the courts in check than on ensuring marriage equality, but it is a sign of his priorities. I don’t count the people who think it’s more important to slap down the CA Supreme Court for “overreaching” than it is to preserve equality as allies for equality. Their priorities forfeit a claim to that title. They belong in the large grey area between those who are allies and those who are enemies.
And frankly, such people can be more difficult to convert than those who currently believe that same-sex marriage is bad. People who rate equality low on their list of priorities generally have thought through it and consider themselves not to be discriminatory. In contrast, someone who doesn’t think she knows any gay people and depends on stereotypes and misinformation for her pro-8 position can be changed by giving her accurate information.
MH,
While “If you keep calling me a f****t, I’ll call you a n****r!” might match your description, note that the quoted exchange is pre-emptive, using the idea that a black person might call the speaker a f*****t in order to call the black person a n****r first, which is particularly insane/vile because the black person being yelled at is a participant in no on 8 rally.
Anger and grief are one thing, but directing that anger and grief at people because of the color of their skin is racism pure and simple. No one who is not a racist would think to scream obscenities at passing (or rallying) black people because some black people voted yes on 8. And shame on the person standing next to the person screaming n*****r for not decking the racist asshole.
If a repeal 8 rally went door to door, asking people if they voted yes on 8, and dragging anyone who said they did out into the street and beating the crap out of them, that would be a (way over the top) expression of grief and rage at the people who did this. Going after black people in an explicitly racist way, because some black people voted for prop 8, is nothing but racism.
MH, here’s the thing, number one, that comment is stupid, number two, I agree with Charles S., and number three:
Why was it necessary for certain No on 8 folks to blame Black people for their loss and why did newspapers find it necessary to also blame Blacks on the victory for 8? There were so many other factors that lead to the victory for eight than the very small (6%) Black population in California; people could have looked at age groups (across the board people under 40 voted in larger numbers against 8 than people over 60, etc.), people could have looked at votes by counties, regional (coastal versus inland), etc. But no, the big thing everyone is looking at is how they can blame Blacks and Latinos for the passage of 8.
It says a lot about a movement and a society that immediately begins to blame people of color when they shouldn’t have been blamed in the first place. And of course all of this ignores that fact that homophobia and institutionalized heterosexism are all products of the white-male power structure in this society and yet no one seems to be attacking the white-male power structure, only people of color, quite telling.
Why is the prop 8 discussion on progressive blogs all about race? Why aren’t we talking about the big news of the week: millions and millions of homophobes of all races and religions just went out to the polls because they wanted to end my marriage. How is homophobia not the center of the discussion amongst progressives?
As a married person who was stripped of my legal rights by millions of voters on Tuesday, I’d appreciate a little bit of support from the progressive blogosphere. If there ever was a week to really focus on homophobia… this is the week. This is the time to open our eyes to the enormity of the problem. Thirty states have enshrined discrimination against gays into their laws. THIRTY… including California… gay mecca of the world. This should be a big wake-up call to straight people who so easily turn the other way. But the only think the progressive blogs are talking about in the aftermath of prop 8 is how it is unfair to blame African Americans for the propositions passages.
And, maybe it’s just the blogs that I read… but I actually haven’t seen anyone place the sole blame of prop 8’s passage on African Americans, say racist things, or otherwise do anything totally fucked up. I’ve read Pam’s post about some racist assholes who said some racist shit at a rally. Wow… those dudes suck… why is that all we’re talking about?
What I have seen from gay bloggers since the passage of prop 8 is a little bit of this: “wow… 70% of black voters voted for prop 8… that’s a much bigger percentage than other races… maybe this is something we should all be paying attention to”… that response seems reasonable to me. AND, I might add, that in EVERY post like that, the pro-8 black vote is always just a part of a longer list of groups who voted majority for the proposition (like religious people and older voters).
I feel really frustrated with the progressive blog community right now. Racist white gays are not the most important issue at the moment (not that they’re not an issue at all… but come one people… something much bigger just happened than a few racist guys at a rally saying totally fucked up things).
Why aren’t we talking about homophobia? Why is the discussion post-prop-8 all about race?
Sarah, I’m really sorry you’re feeling frustrated.
But with all due respect, I think you’re mistaken to think that “the discussion post-prop-8” has been “all about race.” On this blog alone there have been five post-prop-8 posts mourning the loss, decrying homophobia, and talking about future strategy — and it’s a safe bet that there will be many more to come.
(That’s just post-election posts. There were also lots of no-on-8 posts here before the election, and over 300 posts about same-sex marriage since this blog began.)
What’s going on right now is, imo, what should be going on — people recognize that there’s a problem, and they’re rallying to say that racism isn’t what the marriage equality movement is about. This kind of movement self-policing is important. It doesn’t mean that anyone’s forgotten what the movement is about, or that people aren’t also pissed at hell at the homophobia and bigotry that caused prop 8 to pass.
I’d like to talk about homophobia, too… especially the homophobia of demographic groups behind the passage of Proposition 8 other than race/ethnicity.
Can we take a look at the age breakdown in the CNN poll? People are citing the 65 and over demographic as being responsible for Tuesday’s horror but there’s a lot more blame to be shared than that. A majority of people 30 and older voted for Proposition 8. The only age group showing a majority against was the 29 and under group. That’s really pitiful and I’m saying that as a queer person who is 39 years old. I’m pretty pissed at my own generation right now. I’m also pissed at the older generations too.
I mean jeez. Even if black people did represented 10% of those who voted—and this statistic is questionable—the same poll indicates that people 30 and above represent 80% of those who voted. That’s a huge number of people.
I’ve always felt a little strange that I feel like I have more in common with 20-somethings than my own age group. Well, no longer. I feel pretty alienated by the conservative beliefs of my own generation and now I can thank my own generation’s f*****-up sense of morality for being treated like a second class citizen.
Sarah,
Because it’s not just homophobia that’s involved, IMO. There are cultural misunderstandings between communities at work too. I’m trying to make the case over at Angry Black Woman that something else is going on; there’s more to that 70% vote than just homophobia or religion. I think lots of people are trying to figure out what that something is, which is a productive way to deal with this whole mess. But some bloggers — e.g. Dan Savage — are doing more than analyzing; they’re pointing fingers. If they were pointing fingers in a way that made sense, I’d be fine with it, but they’re pointing at the smallest group of Yes on 8 voters and making it sound like it’s all their fault. Not only is this not true, but it hurts the cause, and — as you’ve noted — it sidetracks us all from the more important matter.
So please don’t get mad at the progressive blogs that are trying to stop the finger-pointing. I think they’re actually trying to get us all back on-message.
I will not participate in efforts to pluck our present and future allies away one by one. I will not. I will build alliances. And anybody who isn’t doing that is a sucker.
I disagree that the community is not anti-racist. Diverse a community as it is, that means there are pockets of the GLBT community who are racist, but I sincerely don’t believe the community is not anti-racist on the whole. There is plenty of shouting down—why these people feel brave is beyond me. I feel like a few incidents are being extrapolated here to say that the GLBT community isn’t friendly to POC.
I’d like to add that it’s telling when the beliefs and voting patterns of 10% of the electorate (African Americans) is strongly focussed upon when 80% of the electorate (30 years and older) is largely ignored. As other people have mentioned, there are other analyses of the electorate which have received far less attention than race (education level, income, degree of church attendance, etc.), all of which had a significant effect on the outcome of Proposition 8.
One effect of prejudice is that it makes us more likely to be critical of a group we hold prejudices against—regardless of whether we are raging bigots or simply limited to unconscious biases. People also have a tendency to be more forgiving of groups they belong too.
There’s a lot of homophobia to be shared out there.
“If that’s what’s going on, then the community as a whole — not just a few whackos — is racist.”
Uuhhhh… Dude…. Wow. Writing as a liberal gay white man, that ‘logic’ just really fucking sucks… Are you for real? Just change a few words, and the illogic shines through like the glow from a rotting dead cat.
How ’bout this alternate construction:
“If that’s what’s going on, then the community as a whole — not just a few whackos — is homophobic.”
Broad brushes paint with nothing more than hateful generalities, no matter what pigment the brush is loaded with.
You disgust me.
Tikihead, how about that alternate construction? Let’s try it.
I have no problem standing by the exact same statement, modified to be about homophobia instead of racism. I’m not sure why you think I’d feel otherwise.
If you think this is poor logic on my part, feel free to explain why. But please be civil, or if you can’t be civil, please go away. Thanks.
That said, I want to point out that I’m NOT saying that every single person in the LGBTQ community is racist; on the contrary, I know that there are a lot of dedicated antiracists there, both white and POC.
Also, I’m not sure what is happening. Maybe the other people in the crowd did object, and did shout the overt racists down. I hope so. But I do think reports like this are a legitimate concern, and I don’t think dismissing them as “probably a few wackos, nothing to worry about” is the correct response. (I’m not saying that’s your response, but that’s the vibe I’ve gotten from some people.)
Reminds me of this.
As you’re (rightfully) stuck on this one, there’s another excellent post on the subject here. Thank you for these posts.
It honestly bothers me how much I’ve seen the gay community being blamed for the way POC’s voted. There’s a lot of people saying its their fault for not “building alliances.” Fuck that. Its peoples fault for being homophobic
I certainly wouldn’t say that an oppressed group of people should be held responsible for the hateful acts of prejudiced people. Are queer people responsible for the negative attitudes of the the electorate—black, white, young, old, rich, poor, or otherwise? Absolutely not.
So, to blazes with all the rotters who voted for Proposition 8: white, black, old, young… everyone who pulled the yes lever with a hateful little smile of glee. They deserve every last drop of anger from queer people. The issue is that some people are expressing their anger in a way that is laced with racism. Anger is good but racism simply isn’t acceptable.
As far as race and political organizing is concerned, this is more a matter of pragmatism and strategy than blaming the queer community for its losses. Lets try to avoid blame and simply look at political reality. Certain powerful segments of the religious right, in spite of it’s narrow mindedness, are very effective at creating racially and ethnically diverse bodies of supporters.
A number of years ago, I was a counter demonstrator at a Promise Keeper rally in DC. It was an extremely diverse rally that extended from the Capitol Building all the way to the Washington Monument and it was packed. Men from all ethnicities were present at the rally. It stood in sad contrast with the small group of progressive white women I was demonstrating with. I’ve rarely been to a progressive rally that contained that degree of diversity and I’ve never been to a progressive rally that contained that degree of support. It was stunning and very frightening. As I stood there, I had the sinking feeling that the country was in for a very rough ride.
Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, I attended an evangelical mega-church in DC last spring and was surprised to see an extremely diverse group of people sitting in the pews. Ironically, the pastor was a conservative white guy… the kind of fellow that progressives envision sitting at a radio station’s microphone, saying harsh things about people of color. The queer church I attend here in the Twin Cities is pretty darned white. Yeah, we’re all about being inclusive and have lots of warm fuzzy language, but nevertheless, we are pretty darned white.
So, in my estimation, we have a problem. The religious right—even if it is largely run by a bunch of narrow minded white people—is quite skilled at creating a diverse body of followers.
As I said before, the queer community isn’t responsible for the homophobia of any segment of society, including people of color. However, from a purely pragmatic stand point, the way in which political organizing takes place in the queer community (and the larger progressive community) needs to change. If it doesn’t, we’re going to be far less effective than we could be. As we nurse our wounds and regroup, lets also try to figure out what went wrong and do our best to take a dispassionate look at hard political reality.
Lets also try to figure out how our own prejudices are getting in the way of being effective. Right now, there’s a nasty display of racism going on in some segments of the queer community. People are calling out those folks on their prejudice and that’s perfectly fine—just as criticizing the homophobic electorate is also fine.
Damn, Matt beat me to it! I love that song.
Well, I could be wrong, of course: see Lone Wolf’s post.
But I think that requires an extremely literalist interpretation of the Bible, a position advocated by fundamentalist sects that is not shared by the rest of either Judaism or Christianity, including Catholicism where there is a lot more debate than recent purges of the priesthood would lead one to believe.
Admittedly, as an atheist who has had too much exposure to the fundie approach, I am in a weird position to defend religion at all. But I have known far too many religious people who are not only “tolerant” but quite “gay-friendly” – and not in spite of their faith, but because of it; and I have worked in Episcopal and Presbyterian churches alongside folks who were not only openly gay but openly accepted and loved by everyone else in their religious community, including especially the clergy. There is a lot of debate within religious communities about homosexuality, so I think it is important to recognize our allies and respect the hard work they are doing.
Sorry, Barry, if this creates a tangent to the original discussion.
Kevin — your argument seems to presuppose a single “correct” interpretation of sacred literature, surrounded by a bunch of perversions. This seems, to me, to be an acceptance of religious framework. I’ve known lots of gay-friendly people, too, sure. But their stance within a religion doesn’t mean that the religion belongs to them, and that other people are misinterpreting it, any more than the bigots’ stance means that they own the religion.
Most sacred texts embrace many contradictory things, and various sects seem to use them as a rorshach test, to embrace whatever bits of the text support their values. I can respect my liberal religious allies without giving them an ‘ownership’ over the religion that means their interpretation of their sacred text is the only correct one.
Thanks for your post, Timberwraith.
Okay… because I have too much time on my hands, I just performed a completely unscientific analysis of the blog discussion around race and prop 8 over the past few days (based on the links that Amp provided earlier). Here is what I found: 2 posts that blame African Americans for prop 8’s loss – one written by two African American straight women and one written by Dan Savage (who has also written numerous posts blaming Mormons, the Christian right, and republicans). I also found four posts that discussed the high turnout of blacks who voted for prop 8 without blaming the proposition’s passage on the black vote (all of these posts were written by African Americans, some gay, some straight). And 15 posts decrying the “blaming of African Americans for the passing of prop 8” (the authors of these posts were all over the map in turns of race and sexual orientation).
Not to be outdone, I looked at the links in the 15 posts that discussed how folks were blaming African Americans for the proposition’s passage to try to find out where all this blaming was being done. Some link back to Dan Savage, some link to analyses in the mainstream media (which, upon inspection, were all very much more complete than just blaming African Americans), some link to comments on other people’s blogs (btw racist comments were few and far between), some link to Pam’s anecdote about racial epithets at a No on Prop 8 rally, but MOST link to nothing.
What I did find in abundance was discussion of LGBTQ lack of outreach to African Americans. While I think this is definitely something that LGBTQ activists should definitely be focusing on, I think it is an incomplete lesson.
Let’s turn it around. Why were the Yes on Prop 8 people so overwhelmingly successful in the African American community? Why’d they win a majority of Latino votes? What was so great about their outreach? Some of it is undoubtedly homophobia. There’s no getting around it. But a more thorough lesson is about the nature of allegiances. Allegiances don’t just happen – they form because of commonalities and shared senses of purpose. I submit that it was easier for Yes of Prop 8 to form religious alliances among people of color because of shared values and shared identities.
I think there are some promising ways for pro-queer activism to forge allegiances in communities of color, but these don’t include the church and are therefore more difficult to accomplish. There’s no built-in organizing vehicle. Some promising places to start 1) appealing to our common members, LGBTQ people of color, 2) HIV/AIDS activism, which affects gay communities and communities of color disproportionately. But I think we’ll be banging our head against a wall if queers (specifically white queers) march into churches thinking this is the way to galvanize support. Also, I think an important lesson here is that it’s counterproductive for queers to attempt to organize in communities of color by appealing to a shared history of being denied civil rights. For whatever reason, it doesn’t resonate. It does seem to resonate in white straight communities, so we can’t get rid of the tactic entirely, but we’ve got to come up with different entrees into communities of color.
Mandolin: I think our positions are closer than it may appear. In fact, it’s because I don’t believe there is a “single correct interpretation” of sacred texts that I don’t think we should condemn religion altogether, whether in general or in specific conversations such as this. Certainly religious groups were instrumental in passing Prop 8, but perhaps we need other religious groups to partake more visibly in opposition. Perhaps there were already; I’m not completely aware of all of the various groups supporting No on 8, so I don’t mean to neglect participation by anyone who was involved.
Wouldn’t it be better to have fact-based arguments? Once faith is brought into it, people can argue whatever they want, and no longer have any attachment to reality. It’s all made up, and logic has no effect.
I mean, I’m happy to have religious allies. Obviously, in this country, it’s vital to have religious allies. But it’s still playing with fire — faith can mean anything. So I’m wary of statements like “we can’t talk about religion’s role in passing this proposition because we need other religious people to step in and take our cause.”
While queer-friendly Christian churches may not form the majority of Christianity, there are a growing number of churches that are accepting. Here’s a world wide directory of queer-accepting churches. In California alone, there there are 668 queer friendly churches. In Minnesota, where I now live, there are 185 churches.
The religious right has certainly held center stage in framing what Christianity says about queer people. Perhaps it’s time to hear from the other side of Christianity. I’m not a theist, but I’ve started attending the local queer church to challenge my own prejudices about Christianity. The church I attend has many ties with non-queer churches in the Twin Cities. As I have traveled around the Twin Cities, I have noticed many churches advertising queer friendly environments. There’s more support out there than people realize.
One key issue is that progressive Christianity doesn’t have the media spotlight and hasn’t tried to position itself as a political force to be reckoned with. I’m not sure how to change that, but given the drubbing that Republicans received in the election, the presence of a progressive Christianity might be the kind of “red meat” that the media would take interest in.
Oops. The link in my previous post sends people to the listing of churches for California. This is the correct link for the world wide listing.
Well, sure, fact-based discussions are always welcome. They don’t always get very far. If you have ever had an argument over whether homosexuality is “a choice” or rooted in genetics – and knowing this blog, I think it has come up once or twice – you know how frustrating it can be to hear your debate opponent discount growing scientific evidence and counter with poorly designed studies about “the lifestyle.”
My point is that we don’t have one forum of debate. Some arguments, no matter how valid, will not penetrate certain defenses, so other tacks are necessary. I don’t feel comfortable arguing from scripture – cuz, hey, not my book, man – but I do feel that allies with a stronger stake in the spiritual integrity of their religion can at least have a more productive conversation with their co-religionists. And we should take care not to alienate our allies by bluntly blaming religion, especially when religion can have a constructive role to play.
Point taken, and I should be clear: That is not my position. Protesting outside the LDS and other religious groups who played a key role in passing the legislation is certainly appropriate, despite the crude portrayals by CNN, FOXNews, et al. that such protests are the kind of blanket condemnation of religion that concerns me. They aren’t. They are holding those groups responsible (because they are) and making it known that LGBTQ will not take this shit laying down. Perfectly appropriate – necessary – hellz yeah! But when we talk about religion as a force in homophobia, we should recognize that there is a counter-force within religion for love, acceptance, tolerance and even an historical understanding of scripture; and that as timberwraith notes above, there are plenty of religious people behind this counter-force that deserve not only acknowledgment but mobilization and greater visibility. And let’s not forget, many of the religious allies are not merely allies but queers themselves. They have a personal stake in matters of civil liberties and religion.
Pingback: Kristallnacht « Modern Mitzvot
I’m not sure how much sense it makes to get into religious doctrine about homosexuality or equality between the sexes, because frankly in the religions most common in the U.S., we’ll lose. I think we’re better off sticking to the point that forbidding same-sex marriage perpetuates discrimination between men and women, just as forbidding interracial marriage perpetuated discrimination between the races. (Fun fact: the California Supreme Court decision that struck down the state’s anti-miscegenation law 20 years before Loving actually involved a couple who were both people of color; however, California categorized Mexicans as “white” and therefore forbidden to marry blacks.)
Of course, the trouble with my preferred argument is that tons of people do think that men and women should be treated differently.
Wait, so Alas bloggers say we shouldn’t hate the blacks for Prop 8, and we shouldn’t hate the Mormons for Prop 8… so who should we hate?
….
ohhhhhhhhhhh.
Quoth Timberwraith: “So, to blazes with all the rotters who voted for Proposition 8: white, black, old, young… everyone who pulled the yes lever with a hateful little smile of glee.”
I hear you. The trouble is, there might be people who voted “yes” without a hateful little smile of glee. I don’t know what other reasons people may have had for voting in favor of Prop 8.
Speaking for myself, it’s going to be a while until I can calm down enough to ask “yes” voters what their motivations were. But eventually, if I want to be helpful, I’m going to need to ask “Why would anyone vote against marriage equality?” of people who aren’t declared supporters of LGBTQI marriage.
Misinformation was a big one, I think.
“Wait, so Alas bloggers say we shouldn’t hate the blacks for Prop 8, and we shouldn’t hate the Mormons for Prop 8… so who should we hate?”
On the other hand, hating the Mormon or Catholic *church*… IMO, is just fine.
You should hate no one. It is fine to be angry and disappointed but hate only builds upon the problems that caused this issue in the first place.
Interesting remark from the Gov:
Schwarzenegger, who said that the legislature’s bill to permit same-sex marriage couldn’t become law because it contradicted Prop. 22 and in a conflict between a voter referendum and a legislative statute, the referendum wins, is saying that he believes the courts will fix the amendment to the state constitution. I really wonder if his reference to Perez v. Sharpe (which overturned miscegenation laws as contrary to the U.S. Constitution, not the state constitution) is his way of saying to the CA supreme court, “If you overrule Prop. 8 by saying that same-sex marriage is a FEDERAL constitutional right, I will support you.”
Well, let’s go over the reasons we’ve already heard, shall we?
The biggest excuse, of course, is religion. “Gays are an abomination! It says so right here in the Bible!” Of course, it says a lot of other things in the Bible too. When you find me someone who opposes gay marriage who also opposes planting two crops in the same field, or who won’t wear fabrics of mixed materials, then I’ll buy their excuse that it’s religious. But if somebody regularly picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe, then their choice to oppose gay marriage falls entirely on THEIR head, not Jesus’. And if they choose to be a bigot, then they deserve to be called one.
Another excuse is that kids will be taught that queers can get married in school. But even if it were true, why is this such a bad thing in their eyes? They don’t object that interracial, or inter-religious marriage could be taught in schools. They don’t object that teachers could tell students that 48-hour marriages a la Britney Spears are okay. No, they reserve their objections for Teh Gay. Why? Because Religion Says that Teh Gay is Bad. And that’s choosing homophobia, see above.
And then there’s the excuse that their church will have to marry gays. Putting aside that this is ridiculous on its face, it’s also only bad if religion says it’s bad…anyone else see a pattern here?
And then there’s the other bigoted excuses: “Well, some gays offended me once.” or “I don’t like to watch them kiss.” Nobody needs me to explain those, do they?
I’m listening. I’ve been listening a long time. But all I hear is bigotry and hate.
Bjartmarr, I think part of the trouble is framing: we shouldn’t talk about “gay marriage” because that implies it is somehow different from non-gay marriage. Marriage as a legal institution is the same regardless of the gender of the participants. Once we refer to “gay marriage,” the image of “gay sex” gets called up into people’s minds. For whatever reason, opposite-sex marriage doesn’t have the same mental association with sex that “gay marriage” does.
Another excuse is that kids will be taught that queers can get married in school. But even if it were true, why is this such a bad thing in their eyes? They don’t object that interracial, or inter-religious marriage could be taught in schools.
They’re convinced that if you tell kindergarteners that their teacher just got married to another lady, the kindergarteners also will need to know how cunnilingus works. Why this isn’t true when their teacher got married to a guy, I don’t know. (Indeed, let’s all feel sorry for the kindergarten teacher whose marriage, regardless of whether opposite- or same-sex, doesn’t involve cunnilingus.) But something I have encountered a great deal when I hear from people who are opposed to same-sex marriage is the idea that homosexuals are just dying to tell other people’s kids about non-reproductive sex. I don’t know who is excited to tell anyone’s kids, including their own, about any kind of sex, but there it is.
That’s why the new buzz word is marriage equality and why most of the ads against Prop 8 didn’t mention gay people at all.
I don’t think that hiding the LBGT population of California was a wise move on No On 8’s part. It gave the impression that there was something to be ashamed of.
But you don’t have to certify your homosexuality to obtain a “gay marriage,” just as you don’t certify your heterosexuality to obtain a “traditional marriage.” If two people who don’t feel a sexual attraction to one another want to get married, it is legal for them to do so so long as they are not of the same sex. It should be just as legal if they are members of the same sex. To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to distinguish the marriage two people of the same sex have from the marriage that two people of opposite sexes have. Legally, there is no difference. Referring to “gay marriage” simply reinforces the idea that there is a difference.
The kind of ad that would make my point would feature a groom in a tuxedo standing alone in the frame. A woman in a cream suit (a la Carrie’s original dress in the SATC movie) walks up and stands next to him. He says, “We can get married.” Then another man in a tux stands on his other side, and another woman in a cream suit comes and stands on the woman’s other side.
The camera zooms in on the two men, and they say, “But we want to get married to each other”; camera zoom on the two women, who say, “But we want to get married to each other.” Camera zooms back out to encompass all four people in the frame. They link hands and say, “Please help us keep the right to marry the men and women we love. Vote no on Proposition 8.”
Does this “mention gay people”? It does in the sense that it shows people of the same sex wanting to marry each other; it doesn’t because sexual orientation isn’t really what they’re talking about. The question is more like “Why does it always have to be the black tux and white dress? What’s wrong with two tuxes, or two dresses?”
Bjartmarr, this may seem like mere semantics, but I’d call those things that you’re listing “misapprehensions” (in the case of the middle two reasons) or “excuses” (in the case of the outer two), as opposed to real reasons, especially since you mention the kind of biblical reading that involves cherry-picking some verses and ignoring the rest. In fact, I think your point is precisely that these reasons aren’t real reasons.
So the misapprehensions can be addressed by running ads that specifically target them, for instance, by getting a preacher to say, “There are no legal consequences when I refuse to marry nonmembers or partners of different faiths. Likewise, there are no legal consequences when I refuse to marry same-sex partners.”
I just hope that as grief is turned toward more productive goals, we won’t see so much of stuff like Ron Zacchi’s Facebook group, “1,000,000 Gays for REAL Change,” which “was created to get the word out that our community was ignored on the President Elect’s, Barack Obama, website.” Fortunately, someone has pointed out that Obama’s website had a whole section under “People” for LGBT, and in the Civil Rights section referred repeatedly to LGBT folks’ right to be free of discrimination.
I was about to say that I only know one person who didn’t fit into at least one of Obama’s People categories — he’s a straight, thirty-something, non-veteran, non-environmentalist, non-hunting, non-religious, white Gentile lawyer (who complained about this to me, and I pointed out that he’s a Republican so it kind of makes sense that he doesn’t fit into an Obama demographic) — but now I find that they recently added a “Republicans for Obama” category as well.
I’m of two minds about Wednesday evening’s protest at the Manhattan Mormon Temple. On the one hand, we should highlight that it wasn’t just California Mormons who donated to Yes on 8, but in fact Mormons all over the country who were encouraged by their religious leadership to help take away the rights of Californians. On the other hand, I’m worried about being associated with some of the folks who aren’t distinguishing between the bigotry of the church institution and the sentiments of individual members. I would feel incredibly bad if someone I recognized came out of the temple and saw me next to a person with a sign about polygamy or something.
No, because the misapprehensions (or whatever you want to call them) aren’t the real reason: they’re the excuse. The real reason is that they think Teh Gay Is Icky, and ads with preachers talking about how they don’t have to marry anybody they don’t want to won’t change that.
Why? Because he might inappropriately jump to the conclusion that you share the belief of the person standing next to you, who has inappropriately jumped to the conclusion that the person you recognize shares the belief of the person standing next to him?
I’m not sure if you’re being too critical of yourself or too forgiving of this hypothetical person you recognize, but clearly you’re doing one or the other. ;)
@Renee
Yeah, that was kinda my point. Sarcasm doesn’t carry over the internet.
“You should hate no one. It is fine to be angry and disappointed but hate only builds upon the problems that caused this issue in the first place.”
feh. Why not? Hating people doesn’t build upon the problems taht caused the issue, because I’m not them, and part of the reason I hate them is that they don’t do what i do… i can hate KKKers (i do) but still vote to grant them civil rights (I do). part of why i hate them is that the reverse isn’t true.
Bjartmarr,
I don’t think it’s just about the Gays being icky, because if that were true then Californians ought to be able to pass much more far-reaching referenda, like removing sexual orientation from the list of bases on which one cannot discriminate or commit hate crimes. If a majority of Californians bore simple animus toward gays, I don’t think the state legislature would have been able to pass domestic partnership legislation that does give same-sex (and elderly pensioner) couples every state-level legal right that opposite-sex married couples have. There is something about the word marriage that touched a nerve in folks who otherwise don’t seem to feel much overt ill-will toward homosexuals.
Why? Because he might inappropriately jump to the conclusion that you share the belief of the person standing next to you, who has inappropriately jumped to the conclusion that the person you recognize shares the belief of the person standing next to him? I’m not sure if you’re being too critical of yourself or too forgiving of this hypothetical person you recognize, but clearly you’re doing one or the other. ;)
Yes. I think when I go to a protest, I am to some extent saying that the sentiments expressed by others on this occasion are sentiments I share. It’s one reason I’m picky about the protests I attend. Freedom of association is part of a First Amendment expressive activity, and I want to be careful about what I express.
PG,
I’ve been hearing that the Christian Right in Oregon has been drumming up sentiment to get rid of same sex civil unions. I don’t believe it’s so much that they’re only out to get marriage rights so much as marriage rights are where they’re the most successful. The Christian Right is picking fights like this constantly.
Lisa,
I agree that the people who lead and fund these campaigns against same-sex marriage probably are motivated by some degree of animus toward homosexuals (the amusing protestations of the LDS church to the contrary). However, it isn’t logical, in the context of all the democratically enacted protections for homosexuals in the contexts of employment, hate crimes, and domestic partnerships, that the 52% of Californians who voted for Prop. 8 just hate gay people. It is noteworthy that the LDS people in California felt compelled to disclaim animus toward homosexuals, to say the church “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights,” and does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.”
There’s a Facebook group discussing civil mariage. Without the m-word and constitutional proection, LGBT people could find themselves in the position pre-Brown v Topeka where equality in education was left to the tender mercies of segregationists.
The Facebook group is also discussing bewbs, but that’s Facebook.
Yeah, I choose to believe that the LDS people in California are lying. They campaigned to add inequality into the California state constitution. Whatever they choose to say is eclipsed by what they did.
Once they’re sure they have marriage out of the way, they’ll attack civil unions and domestic partnerships. They won’t be satisfied until LGBT people are forced back into the closet.
And, seriously, if you’re voting to remove civil rights for a group, you believe that group doesn’t deserve equality. It doesn’t matter how you explain that they don’t deserve equality, the stark fact is that you do not believe they deserve equality. I believe that is hate. That is the acceptance of the belief that the people in question are less than you.
Bob, do you have a link to that group? :)
What’s telling, I think, is that civil unions are now relatively accepted — but really only as an alternative to marriage. Ten years ago, this was absolutely not the case. Marriage has really pushed the envelope in favor of gay acceptance, and, in that respect, has been successful.
Lisa,
Yeah, I choose to believe that the LDS people in California are lying. They campaigned to add inequality into the California state constitution. Whatever they choose to say is eclipsed by what they did.
You miss my point. As I said, I agree that the leaders and funders were driven by animus. However, the fact that they felt the need to pretend that they WEREN’T driven by animus, in order to be politically acceptable to the electorate, is telling.
In other words, in the 1970s it was acceptable to say that gay people shouldn’t have a particular civil right because there was something wrong with being gay. Now, someone who wants to take the one major civil right that was left for gay Californians to achieve (now that they have protection from employment and housing discrimination, sexual orientation is a classification under hate crimes laws, and they have domestic partnership that grant all the state-level rights of marriage — all of which they got legislatively, not through the courts) has to pretend that he doesn’t want to take away all of those democratically-achieved rights they already have.
Yes, but the reasoning they give in the ads and the rallies and so on boil down to hate.
They just make it acceptable to people to believe they’re not hating. Like “hate the sin, not the sinner” bullshit.
Like “hate the sin, not the sinner” bullshit.
Personally, I think that’s a good way to organize your judgments about people and their actions; it’s just that if you’re going to judge, be sure you’ve thought through why something is a sin. I think adultery (in the sense of being dishonest with your spouse about sex outside the marriage) is morally wrong and if I were a Christian I’d call it a “sin.” That doesn’t mean I hate John Edwards. Because I don’t assign moral content to gender, I don’t think having sex with a man instead of a woman, or vice versa, is a sin.
The problem is not “love the sinner, hate the sin”; the problem is a stupid, thoughtless and indefensible categorization of what constitutes “sin.”
Pingback: Obama’s Black/Gay Conundrum | Black & Right