- ‹ previous
- 2161 of 8922
- next ›
I Was Right to Worry About Black Homophobia
Dan Savage savages black homophobia:
Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop. 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53 percent of Latino voters, 49 percent of white voters, 49 percent of Asian voters.I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they're out there, and I think they're scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.Leaving aside the question of whether or not there are only a "handful of racist gay white men" (and what of racist lesbians and non-white gays?) Dan, as usual, has the biggest pair out there. He's right to demand that blacks explain themselves on this issue.
In a forthcoming essay for MoJo in print, I wrestle with the question of how Obama moves us into a harmonious racial future. One point my verbosity kept me from is the requirement that Obama force blacks to answer the question of whether "civil rights" means what it says or really just means "black rights". If we're gonna talk the talk, we gotta walk the walk and explain why homosexuals should have their civil rights abrogated and why we, "America's conscience," are leading the charge to deny them the right to marry.
I'm not saying the argument can't be made. I'm saying that blacks aren't being required to make it. So, here it is in simplest terms, black people: Why is discrimination against blacks based on skin color immoral, but discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation moral?
We're waiting...
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
The Queen of Spain remarked about the 2005 act legalising gay marriage. "The immense majority of families are normal," she said. "I can understand, accept and respect that there are people with other sexual tendencies ? but being proud to be gay, getting on to a float and joining a parade? If all of us who weren't gay went on a parade, the traffic would be chaos in every city."
I was just writing about the racist rhetoric about the passing of Prop 8 on my blog. This is such a painful article and my feelings about Mother Jones has just changed drastically. Dear Friends,
I am writing because I am disturbed by the string of articles, blog entries, and list serve threads that have come out in the last few days suggesting that the high turnout of African American and Latino voters for the presidential election was responsible for the passage of California's proposition 8, which dealt a heavy blow to LGBT families by banning gay marriage.
These articles mistakenly imply that the struggles for civil rights for LGBT people and communities of color are separate or even at odds with each other. They deny the work that LGBT people of color do to combat homophobia and transphobia in their families and communities, often while facing racism within the queer community as well. These articles deny homophobia among white people, and they displace blame away from those who actually have the power to consistently deny others civil and human rights, and instead, charge that when communities that have long been disenfranchised and alienated from political processes begin to participate, that the results with be negative for LGBT people.
I believe all communities need to be held accountable for their homophobia and transphobia. I want to acknowledge the suffering and hardship that the passage of Proposition 8 has caused for LGBT couples and families. But, while the media casts blame on communities of color for the failure of civil rights for LGBT people, it is imperative that we struggle against the logic that tells us that struggles for LGBT civil rights and racial justice are separate, and that we examine our strategies for advancing LGBT civil rights and gay marriage and, in particular, look at places where LGBT communities have failed to align our struggles for civil rights with ongoing struggles for racial justice.
In the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time in San Francisco to get people to vote no on 8. We live in a state that has one of the highest incarceration rates in a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Studies have estimated that at any time, 40 percent of black men in their 20's in California are under control of the correctional system. Criminalization affects many LGBT people, in particular, those that may be experiencing addiction or who, lacking familial support, move to expensive cities where they may have a hard time accessing affordable housing and living-wage work. Despite this, I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9, all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, alterations to sentencing for drug crimes, or the trying of minors as adults in this state.
In the last months, we have seen raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the state and in San Francisco. Many people immigrate here as a result of the US foreign policy of destabilizing foreign economies. Additionally, San Francisco is home to many LGBT immigrants who have come to the country seeking safety and asylum. While my inbox was flooded with emails pertaining to Prop 8, I heard from very few queer people who were seeking to mobilize around the October 31st demonstration to protest ICE raids, or other work pertaining to ICE raids, and San Francisco's establishment as a sanctuary city.
The November ballot contained several important city initiatives that could have affected the livability of our city both for low-income people of color and for many queer people. Proposition K, an initiative to decriminalize prostitution would have helped sex workers in this city to make major strides in their ability to organize for their rights and safety, allowing them to better protect themselves against violence and police harassment. Despite the fact that many, many young LGBT people in this city earn their livings as sex workers and daily face risks to their safety, and that two trans women working as sex workers lost their lives while working in San Francisco in 2007, I saw shockingly little effort among LGBT people to educate themselves on the realities facing sex workers or the background on Proposition K, let alone to spread any word about it.
Similarly, proposition B, which would have mandated that the city set aside part of its budget for affordable housing was defeated by SF voters. In a city with a history of racist schemes of redevelopment and displacement (SOMA in the 60's, Justin Herman's redevelopment of the Fillmore, illegal evictions in the Mission in the 90s, contemporary cuts to county welfare, and most recently, the gentrification of Bayview?to name a few), San Francisco voters have failed to stand up for working families' ability to live affordably in this city?a city with where remaining working class communities of color face major threats of displacement. Despite the fact that white LGBT people often play complicated roles in the gentrification of the city and displacement of communities of color, I saw no media reports released on November 5th scrutinizing the voting trends of white LGBT San Franciscans on Propositions B, N, K, 5, 6, or 9, as juxtaposed to the numerous articles scrutinizing the voting habits of Black and Latino voters on Prop 8. And despite the overwhelmingly negative outcome of several important local and state propositions, outcry among the wider LGBT community seems to have been reserved only for Prop 8.
As a young, queer, person living in San Francisco, I feel very strongly that affordably in this city is vital to the creativity and well being of the LGBT community of San Francisco. As a white person living in the Mission, I have to think and act critically in regards to the complicated role I play in the gentrification of this neighborhood and the larger schemes of displacement within this city. I love my queer life and love living in this city. I get to witness the ways of living and congregating, making new families, new cultures, and envisioning new worlds that are possible living in a city with so many other brilliant and creative queer people. While I would like to lend my support and compassion to the people who lost the right to marry this week, I also question the logic that tells me that my only struggle as an LGBT person centers around my right to marry, rather than my ability to live and create in many other ways within a city I love. Affordable housing is central to the vitality of the LGBT community in San Francisco, to all communities, and while I sign petitions to support marriage as a right, I would like to see LGBT Californians take a serious look at the fact that housing, healthcare, and freedom from incarceration are also civil and human rights.
I would like to see LGBT Californians talk not only about their right to receive their partners' health benefits but about universal healthcare. I would like to hear us talk not just about how many LGBT people's partners cannot receive citizenship rights because of a lack of marriage rights, but connect this to struggles for immigrant rights in this state. I would like to hear LGBT people not only talk about how their families are discriminated against, but think about how many families in California are living in alternative family structures because of the mass incarceration of parents with children.
The passing of Proposition 8 is a sad day and indicative of the work that lies ahead, however, as we heal from these blows, I would like to challenge us to consider how our struggles are bound up with struggles for racial and economic justice, and how our fight for civil rights, and the health of our communities could be strengthened by taking these connections more seriously. Above all, I would like to challenge us to resist racist media schemes that, during our moment of need and a moment of possibility, are attempting to pit LGBT people and supporters against communities of color in California.
I apologize for the hasty construction of this, but time is of the essence. I welcome your thoughts.
In struggle,
Adele Carpenter
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
The Queen of Spain remarked about the 2005 act legalising gay marriage. "The immense majority of families are normal," she said. "I can understand, accept and respect that there are people with other sexual tendencies ? but being proud to be gay, getting on to a float and joining a parade? If all of us who weren't gay went on a parade, the traffic would be chaos in every city."
I was just writing about the racist rhetoric about the passing of Prop 8 on my blog. This is such a painful article and my feelings about Mother Jones has just changed drastically. Dear Friends,
I am writing because I am disturbed by the string of articles, blog entries, and list serve threads that have come out in the last few days suggesting that the high turnout of African American and Latino voters for the presidential election was responsible for the passage of California's proposition 8, which dealt a heavy blow to LGBT families by banning gay marriage.
These articles mistakenly imply that the struggles for civil rights for LGBT people and communities of color are separate or even at odds with each other. They deny the work that LGBT people of color do to combat homophobia and transphobia in their families and communities, often while facing racism within the queer community as well. These articles deny homophobia among white people, and they displace blame away from those who actually have the power to consistently deny others civil and human rights, and instead, charge that when communities that have long been disenfranchised and alienated from political processes begin to participate, that the results with be negative for LGBT people.
I believe all communities need to be held accountable for their homophobia and transphobia. I want to acknowledge the suffering and hardship that the passage of Proposition 8 has caused for LGBT couples and families. But, while the media casts blame on communities of color for the failure of civil rights for LGBT people, it is imperative that we struggle against the logic that tells us that struggles for LGBT civil rights and racial justice are separate, and that we examine our strategies for advancing LGBT civil rights and gay marriage and, in particular, look at places where LGBT communities have failed to align our struggles for civil rights with ongoing struggles for racial justice.
In the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time in San Francisco to get people to vote no on 8. We live in a state that has one of the highest incarceration rates in a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Studies have estimated that at any time, 40 percent of black men in their 20's in California are under control of the correctional system. Criminalization affects many LGBT people, in particular, those that may be experiencing addiction or who, lacking familial support, move to expensive cities where they may have a hard time accessing affordable housing and living-wage work. Despite this, I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9, all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, alterations to sentencing for drug crimes, or the trying of minors as adults in this state.
In the last months, we have seen raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the state and in San Francisco. Many people immigrate here as a result of the US foreign policy of destabilizing foreign economies. Additionally, San Francisco is home to many LGBT immigrants who have come to the country seeking safety and asylum. While my inbox was flooded with emails pertaining to Prop 8, I heard from very few queer people who were seeking to mobilize around the October 31st demonstration to protest ICE raids, or other work pertaining to ICE raids, and San Francisco's establishment as a sanctuary city.
The November ballot contained several important city initiatives that could have affected the livability of our city both for low-income people of color and for many queer people. Proposition K, an initiative to decriminalize prostitution would have helped sex workers in this city to make major strides in their ability to organize for their rights and safety, allowing them to better protect themselves against violence and police harassment. Despite the fact that many, many young LGBT people in this city earn their livings as sex workers and daily face risks to their safety, and that two trans women working as sex workers lost their lives while working in San Francisco in 2007, I saw shockingly little effort among LGBT people to educate themselves on the realities facing sex workers or the background on Proposition K, let alone to spread any word about it.
Similarly, proposition B, which would have mandated that the city set aside part of its budget for affordable housing was defeated by SF voters. In a city with a history of racist schemes of redevelopment and displacement (SOMA in the 60's, Justin Herman's redevelopment of the Fillmore, illegal evictions in the Mission in the 90s, contemporary cuts to county welfare, and most recently, the gentrification of Bayview?to name a few), San Francisco voters have failed to stand up for working families' ability to live affordably in this city?a city with where remaining working class communities of color face major threats of displacement. Despite the fact that white LGBT people often play complicated roles in the gentrification of the city and displacement of communities of color, I saw no media reports released on November 5th scrutinizing the voting trends of white LGBT San Franciscans on Propositions B, N, K, 5, 6, or 9, as juxtaposed to the numerous articles scrutinizing the voting habits of Black and Latino voters on Prop 8. And despite the overwhelmingly negative outcome of several important local and state propositions, outcry among the wider LGBT community seems to have been reserved only for Prop 8.
As a young, queer, person living in San Francisco, I feel very strongly that affordably in this city is vital to the creativity and well being of the LGBT community of San Francisco. As a white person living in the Mission, I have to think and act critically in regards to the complicated role I play in the gentrification of this neighborhood and the larger schemes of displacement within this city. I love my queer life and love living in this city. I get to witness the ways of living and congregating, making new families, new cultures, and envisioning new worlds that are possible living in a city with so many other brilliant and creative queer people. While I would like to lend my support and compassion to the people who lost the right to marry this week, I also question the logic that tells me that my only struggle as an LGBT person centers around my right to marry, rather than my ability to live and create in many other ways within a city I love. Affordable housing is central to the vitality of the LGBT community in San Francisco, to all communities, and while I sign petitions to support marriage as a right, I would like to see LGBT Californians take a serious look at the fact that housing, healthcare, and freedom from incarceration are also civil and human rights.
I would like to see LGBT Californians talk not only about their right to receive their partners' health benefits but about universal healthcare. I would like to hear us talk not just about how many LGBT people's partners cannot receive citizenship rights because of a lack of marriage rights, but connect this to struggles for immigrant rights in this state. I would like to hear LGBT people not only talk about how their families are discriminated against, but think about how many families in California are living in alternative family structures because of the mass incarceration of parents with children.
The passing of Proposition 8 is a sad day and indicative of the work that lies ahead, however, as we heal from these blows, I would like to challenge us to consider how our struggles are bound up with struggles for racial and economic justice, and how our fight for civil rights, and the health of our communities could be strengthened by taking these connections more seriously. Above all, I would like to challenge us to resist racist media schemes that, during our moment of need and a moment of possibility, are attempting to pit LGBT people and supporters against communities of color in California.
I apologize for the hasty construction of this, but time is of the essence. I welcome your thoughts.
In struggle,
Adele Carpenter
It's unfair to point the finger solely on black people. The 53% latino vote # is misleading. The latino vote is very diverse. 2nd, 3rd generation voters and those with higher education were more likely to vote NO on 8. But more recent immigrants were more likely to by born again christians and vote YES on 8. I know, I see it every day. But the gripe shouldn't be against any one group. The real gripe is against the informercial called religion that airs everyday. I saw many a "Yes on 8" signs on church property. Time to end the religious BS - call a spade a spade - and lets tax religion. I wish leaders had the spine to call out religion. Let's end this hoax.
I can't marry my sister and get her pension when she dies, which will be considerably more than mine. My sister is a good looking woman, for her age. Society frowns on the idea of incest and will surely not let us be married . When the homosexuals help me fight for the right to marry my sister and have all of the priveledges thereof, I will fight for their civil rights too. The blacks are fighting for the homosexuals? WEll, the homosexuals aren't fighting for the incestuous. So there ye be.
This matter needs to be immediately reframed and done so correctly. This is not a matter of "granting" rights. Rights are never granted or they wouldn't be rights to begin with. This is a matter of simple justice. It is quite frankly gay emancipation and should be so stated. This is yet another case of America's denial of human rights to a specific social group and they must be emancipated. These people have been denied their civil rights and justice must be done. It is audacious for states to be voting on people's lives. It's like voting on whether or not people should turn on their automobile headlights at night. I'm not gay but since the Civil Rights Era I have been quite conscious that whenever any of my fellow citizens are denied their rights, I am denied mine. Frankly, I must ask myself, "What if I were gay?"
You can't be serious!?
Here here to Ralphie on separation of church and state. Why is gay marriage a religious issue? Why can't churches be taxed - especially now when we have state and federal deficits? I do agree with the author's opinion regarding the black vote, in particular. We all know that discrimination exists in all forms across the globe. We, as a people, seem to need someone (or a group of someone's) to pick on to elevate ourselves. We are class bullys allowed to get away with it. Gays should not have their rights taken away any more than women should lose the right to vote (or to choose whether to have a child) and blacks should not lose the right to be free. Our nation was crafted to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are neither and our fore fathers would be ashamed of us for our lack of ability to think and make decisions based on facts and fairness rather than personal prejudices and narrow mindedness. Let's be brave people!
Bud - in case you haven't heard, there are harmful, potentially life-threatening biological ramifications for brothers and sisters marrying. Why do you think royal lineages produced so many mentally and physically challenged offspring? Your argument is uninformed and simply ridiculous.
I do, however, totally agree with Ralphie. The real reason those propositions passed is religious zealotry, fanaticism and avarice for money and power. Religion has always found it easier to rally the emotions of their followers by giving them scapegoats to fear and revile. That's where we need to focus our attentions.
It is unfair to blame black people for the passing of Prop 8. And also to subscribe the reason as due to rampant homophobia. Firstly, the black community was not responsible for bringing this law to a vote. Plus, gay marriage activists did not really spend a great deal of time informing the black community about what Prop 8 was. How many people mistakenly voted for it thinking that they were voting for gay marriage? The fact is that the outreach was not what it could have been outside of the white communities. Had Gay activists had the kind of better outreach as Obama had they might have succeeded. Plus there were a slight majority of hispanics and it was extremely close amongst white voters. This is the same excuse that caused Nadar to be blamed for Gore's failure when the fact was that Gore's campaign had major failings and allowed the election to be close enough to lose by so few votes. Nadar ran again this year, but it did not stop Obama from winning. You can say that things were not so bad now as they were then, so Obama's victory was perhaps easier than Gore's - I couldn't disagree more as Obama's relative newness on national stage was a big concern as well as his ethnicity, his name and the awful lies spread about him. So that theory will not hold up. I support Gay marriage. Let's not be like the Republicans and hunt for someone to blame but rather let's take it upon ourselves to better inform all communities as to what Gay marriage is.
I think it's a mistake to point the finger at voters. Frankly, I think the No on 8 campaign, as well as the wider progressive community in California, should shoulder the blame for the passage of Prop 8.
We (being the progressive community) certainly weren't focused on Prop 8 until very late in the game. Our attention was (understandably) focused on other races, especially the Obama campaign. Anecdotal evidence suggests the No on 8 campaign leaned heavily on TV ads and did very little to encourage volunteer voter-to-voter contact. Face it: the Yes on 8 campaign just was better at delivering their message.
No on 8 should have (and I know hindsight is 20-20) focused more on the history of the expansion of marriage rights -- bringing in the ethnic groups that, fifty years ago, didn't have the marriage rights they do now.
They also could have tapped into the grassroots energy that existed here in California that was focused on, say, getting people out to vote for Obama in Nevada or Pennsylvania. Turnout in San Francisco and Alameda County (i.e. Oakland and Berkeley) appears to have been dreadful. Door-to-door No on 8 organizing in the most liberal areas of the state would have boosted that turnout and could very well have turned the tide.
Further, the way you've singled out specific ethnic groups for blame strikes me as unfair, counterproductive, and certainly not in the spirit of the fight for civil rights.
You would think that because black men having sex with black men on the "down Low" doesn't make them homosexual they would be OK with gay marriage. Obviously they do know that having sex with other black men makes them gay or bi.
Glad to see that this vote has once again exposed the hypocritical, yellow underbelly of the American voter. The Haves need not worry about social improvement and progress, or "class warfare" as John McSame would put it, as long as they can continue to drive the low classes apart with fake "moral" wedge issues. They also know that every "liberated" minority group will turn on their allies and stab them in the back in a heartbeat when given the implicit promise of reigning as king of the hill of dogsh!t known as the American middle class. The gays need not worry: they'll be given their shot once we come up with another minority to oppress and enslave. As divided and self-cannabilizing as they are, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be the blacks again.
Richard John Neuhaus prefers that this version be cited:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
If we take rights away from one group, who is to say which group will be next? In 1967, President-Elect Obama's parents would not have been allowed to marry in many states in this country. Prop 8 is not about special rights, or re-defining marriage. As we are not a Christian nation (and no matter how many times people say it, does not make it so) Christian theology should not rule us.
From the numbers that Whoppi Goldberg gave on THE VIEW, it was not the Black community that cast the most votes to fail the Prop.8. Although I am not Gay, I think that people need to stay out of other people's affairs. Cheating is the problem for today's marriage so I don't see why they feel that gay marriage is any kind of threat to Hetro marriage unless you know your mate is gay.
Um...I think you mean Dan Savage, Debra. In the Stranger? I'd check it for sure, but the link isn't working.
Bud: That is the stupidest leap of logic I've ever heard. Let me break it down for you in simple terms so you'll understand. Being gay is not immoral or deviant behavior. It is a sexual preference just like heterosexuality. Practicing incest is wrong. It's immoral and deviant no matter what society you live in. Get a clue.
In response to it being unfair to blame a certain population for the passing of prop 8, by saying that outreach was not well-balanced across communities : isn't it still the obligation of the individual voter to inform himself before voting? Voting is right, educating yourself is a responsibility.
I don't think this message will do anything for you stupid mother jones reading MORONS, but I have to write something, because every single one of you seems unable to think before you write. LOOK. This issue needs a compromise on both sides. I don't think many people understand that the issue is not with marriage necessarily but with the rights that are entailed with them. This issue is not going away. It probobly won't end with just straight up marriage for us, and it can't end denying us it completly. Blaming a particular group for proposition 8 passing is extemely counter productive. And blaming it on "religious zelotry" is somewhat moronic. I know that we all like to classify everything in order to understand the world, but it sometimes puts things in such vague terms that you end up understanding nothing, while giving yourself wet wood to put on the fire. Remember, when someone votes for something, all you can do is SPECULATE as to the reason why they voted the way the did, even if they tell you one way or another. The percentages that were given are based on exit polls, and could be innacurate, they have been in the past. Please consider what you guys are writing before you actualize it. Oh, and the incest argument is a horrible argument. I won't even respond to that one, except to say that BUD, you are scum!!
I was just writing about the racist rhetoric about the passing of Prop 8 on my blog. This is such a painful article and my feelings about Mother Jones has just changed drastically. Dear Friends,
I am writing because I am disturbed by the string of articles, blog entries, and list serve threads that have come out in the last few days suggesting that the high turnout of African American and Latino voters for the presidential election was responsible for the passage of California's proposition 8, which dealt a heavy blow to LGBT families by banning gay marriage.
These articles mistakenly imply that the struggles for civil rights for LGBT people and communities of color are separate or even at odds with each other. They deny the work that LGBT people of color do to combat homophobia and transphobia in their families and communities, often while facing racism within the queer community as well. These articles deny homophobia among white people, and they displace blame away from those who actually have the power to consistently deny others civil and human rights, and instead, charge that when communities that have long been disenfranchised and alienated from political processes begin to participate, that the results with be negative for LGBT people.
I believe all communities need to be held accountable for their homophobia and transphobia. I want to acknowledge the suffering and hardship that the passage of Proposition 8 has caused for LGBT couples and families. But, while the media casts blame on communities of color for the failure of civil rights for LGBT people, it is imperative that we struggle against the logic that tells us that struggles for LGBT civil rights and racial justice are separate, and that we examine our strategies for advancing LGBT civil rights and gay marriage and, in particular, look at places where LGBT communities have failed to align our struggles for civil rights with ongoing struggles for racial justice.
In the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time in San Francisco to get people to vote no on 8. We live in a state that has one of the highest incarceration rates in a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Studies have estimated that at any time, 40 percent of black men in their 20's in California are under control of the correctional system. Criminalization affects many LGBT people, in particular, those that may be experiencing addiction or who, lacking familial support, move to expensive cities where they may have a hard time accessing affordable housing and living-wage work. Despite this, I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9, all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, alterations to sentencing for drug crimes, or the trying of minors as adults in this state.
In the last months, we have seen raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the state and in San Francisco. Many people immigrate here as a result of the US foreign policy of destabilizing foreign economies. Additionally, San Francisco is home to many LGBT immigrants who have come to the country seeking safety and asylum. While my inbox was flooded with emails pertaining to Prop 8, I heard from very few queer people who were seeking to mobilize around the October 31st demonstration to protest ICE raids, or other work pertaining to ICE raids, and San Francisco's establishment as a sanctuary city.
The November ballot contained several important city initiatives that could have affected the livability of our city both for low-income people of color and for many queer people. Proposition K, an initiative to decriminalize prostitution would have helped sex workers in this city to make major strides in their ability to organize for their rights and safety, allowing them to better protect themselves against violence and police harassment. Despite the fact that many, many young LGBT people in this city earn their livings as sex workers and daily face risks to their safety, and that two trans women working as sex workers lost their lives while working in San Francisco in 2007, I saw shockingly little effort among LGBT people to educate themselves on the realities facing sex workers or the background on Proposition K, let alone to spread any word about it.
Similarly, proposition B, which would have mandated that the city set aside part of its budget for affordable housing was defeated by SF voters. In a city with a history of racist schemes of redevelopment and displacement (SOMA in the 60's, Justin Herman's redevelopment of the Fillmore, illegal evictions in the Mission in the 90s, contemporary cuts to county welfare, and most recently, the gentrification of Bayviewto name a few), San Francisco voters have failed to stand up for working families' ability to live affordably in this citya city with where remaining working class communities of color face major threats of displacement. Despite the fact that white LGBT people often play complicated roles in the gentrification of the city and displacement of communities of color, I saw no media reports released on November 5th scrutinizing the voting trends of white LGBT San Franciscans on Propositions B, N, K, 5, 6, or 9, as juxtaposed to the numerous articles scrutinizing the voting habits of Black and Latino voters on Prop 8. And despite the overwhelmingly negative outcome of several important local and state propositions, outcry among the wider LGBT community seems to have been reserved only for Prop 8.
As a young, queer, person living in San Francisco, I feel very strongly that affordably in this city is vital to the creativity and well being of the LGBT community of San Francisco. As a white person living in the Mission, I have to think and act critically in regards to the complicated role I play in the gentrification of this neighborhood and the larger schemes of displacement within this city. I love my queer life and love living in this city. I get to witness the ways of living and congregating, making new families, new cultures, and envisioning new worlds that are possible living in a city with so many other brilliant and creative queer people. While I would like to lend my support and compassion to the people who lost the right to marry this week, I also question the logic that tells me that my only struggle as an LGBT person centers around my right to marry, rather than my ability to live and create in many other ways within a city I love. Affordable housing is central to the vitality of the LGBT community in San Francisco, to all communities, and while I sign petitions to support marriage as a right, I would like to see LGBT Californians take a serious look at the fact that housing, healthcare, and freedom from incarceration are also civil and human rights.
I would like to see LGBT Californians talk not only about their right to receive their partners' health benefits but about universal healthcare. I would like to hear us talk not just about how many LGBT people's partners cannot receive citizenship rights because of a lack of marriage rights, but connect this to struggles for immigrant rights in this state. I would like to hear LGBT people not only talk about how their families are discriminated against, but think about how many families in California are living in alternative family structures because of the mass incarceration of parents with children.
The passing of Proposition 8 is a sad day and indicative of the work that lies ahead, however, as we heal from these blows, I would like to challenge us to consider how our struggles are bound up with struggles for racial and economic justice, and how our fight for civil rights, and the health of our communities could be strengthened by taking these connections more seriously. Above all, I would like to challenge us to resist racist media schemes that, during our moment of need and a moment of possibility, are attempting to pit LGBT people and supporters against communities of color in California.
I apologize for the hasty construction of this, but time is of the essence. I welcome your thoughts.
In struggle,
Adele Carpenter
Prop 8 passed because its proponents did a better job than the people who were against it. The opponents of Prop 8 should have tried harder.
To stand here now and cry 'foul' is reprehensible and silly. A majority voted in favor of the proposition and you're not happy. Well, that's how it goes sometimes.
If Prop 8 had failed, would you accept all the tears and rants from those who wanted it passed? Of course not.
It's really easy to be tolerant of the people you agree with, isn't it?
Again, I see the Left entirely missing the point behind the Prop 8 vote in California.
Both the religious right and the radical gays are trying to use the marriage issue to push a social agenda that goes beyond civil rights, by fighting over how marriage, fundamentally a spiritual institution, should be sanctioned by the government. Wrong argument.
If we still subscribe to the idea of the separation of church and state, then the government has no business being in the marriage business.
The best path for gays to gain truly equal protection under the law is to advocate the government sanction only civil unions. Period. This way straight and gay couples receive the exact same rights and protections under the law.
If a couple chooses to marry, that would be a separate ceremony, one that may be performed by a church or religious organization in line with its own tenets.
So long as both sides continue this fight over the sanctioning of a spiritual institution by a secular government, there will be neither justice or peace. However, by advocating the separation of civil unions and marriage, and advocating the government remove itself from the business of sanctioning spiritual unions, gays have the opportunity now to appeal to libertarians and others on the right who are opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives, and build a coalition that will cement the equal status under law they most certainly have a right to.
Perhaps what the LGBT community really needs is an entirely new strategy. Rather than fighting reflextively everytime an anti-gay proposition comes on the ballot, throwing money fighting the proposed homophobic ban is not always the answer. It is like putting out fire whenever it occurs. What is really needed is an effective "fire" prevention program. The largely discredited "Civil Rights Initiative" which was put on the ballot several years ago by Ward Connerlly should be replaced by a "Civil Rights Restoration" amendment to the California Constitution which will not only restore EEO programs at the state and local levels including publicly-funded universities and colleges but it would also include prohibition based on sexual orientation. This would include the right to marry. This way, this restoration will include all minorities that would otherwise would face discrimination in employment, education, housing, and marriage. Such an amendment may increase the likelihood of restoring the right to marriage for the LGBT Community. Also, the tax-exempt status of churches supporting the toxic Prop. 8 needs a closer look. It is against IRS regulations to politicize from the pulpit. Something is needed to prevent the reactionary forces in our society from threatening the civil rights of all Americans including our brothers and sisters in the LGBT Community ever again. Enough is enough! Thank you.
Jason - i guess from your post that "you" are one of those Mother Jones reading "morons" since you bothered to post here. We'll forgive you this one time.
I don't believe that anyone should be granted rights or be penalized based upon sexual behavior. That goes for homosexuals, heterosexuals, incestexuals. As a private citizen, what has the sexual behavior between two consenting adults got to do with ME? (rape and pedophilia are crimes, along with bestiality). But what is it about sexual relationships that we are so hot about? In the case of heterosexuals, obviously there is among those still young enough the possibility of children. This obviously concerns other people. Children must be supported. But that's IT... the State has no other reason to care whether two people are having sex , in love, or whatever. I don't care whether Joe and Sue are having sex, in love, or Joe and Joe or Sue and Sue. And I don't think people, based upon having sex together, with or without love, should have any special priviledges that other adults don't have, such as siblings or good friends or business partners.
A minoriy groups' rights should NEVER depend on a popular vote. The act of aa popular vote on such an issue should be unconstitutioal.
If subject to a popular vote, women would have no voting or any other rights, blacks would still be slaves, and only rich, white male property owners would have the right to vote.
A civilized society is subject to the rule of law, not the whims of the masses.
CHICAGO - Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'"
"I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery (and) Selma (Alabama), in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement," King said.
She said she saluted the contributions "of these courageous men and women" who fought "for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own."
this is why gay folk feel betrayed.
Oh please! How many of each sub class voted here? If 2 million whites/latinos voted and only 100 blacks, then 70% of the black vote does not make a hill of beans! Show me some numbers here before you make a claim so idiotic. Back up this gay/black assertion with some FACTS. Otherwise, this is just so much hot air and troll baiting only meant to inflame emotionally. 70% of HOW MANY? 53% of HOW MANY? 49% of HOW MANY?
Gah! This focus on the black vote is so frustrating. I have no doubt there is homophobia in the black community - just as there is homophobia in all communities!
This finger-pointing is frustrating and useless in every way. I do think there is something to this 70% number but why do we resort to calling entire communities homophobic right away?
Look at the maps of Los Angeles, for instance. You'd see wealthier, whiter communities (West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Malibu, Pasadena to an extent) tended to favor gay marriage. To me, it looks like the word never left these white, wealthy liberal enclaves. Does that mean wealthy, white liberals are the only ones who care about social justice/gay rights? I seriously doubt it.
The campaign never spoke to anyone who already understood the language. Gay marriage advocates loved comparing the struggle to the civil rights movement, but those comparisons clearly fell flat.
We need to do what every winning political campaign does. Stop blaming your loss on the moral failings of people who didn't agree with you and BUILD BRIDGES to the world outside your wealthy white liberal enclaves. I think there is a case to be made outside these communities. Stop whining and create a better movement! And definitely don't blame those selfish blacks for not supporting civil rights. I mean, REALLY? REALLY?
I see a lot of racist posts here. You just wait, with Obama in, we will make you pay for this racism by you homosexual supporters.
Al,yours (1:22pm)is one of the most cogent comments I've heard on the issue.
What i am puzzled about this that is when i dont have anything better to think about is how does anybody know if that person voted yes on 8 is religous. You dont put that on the ballot.
If we're gonna talk the talk, we gotta walk the walk and explain why homosexuals should have their civil rights abrogated and why we, "America's conscience," are leading the charge to deny them the right to marry.
So what you're saying is that the alarmist ads promulgated by the Yes on 8 campaign were funded primarily by the African-American community, and that the initiative for this hateful proposition originated in the African-American community? The mere fact that you're unquestioningly mouthing the same line as Fox News pinheads should be a clue right there that you've done exactly what they want you to do - stare at the shiny object so that you won't bother to look at who the real enemies are.
Let's stop for a reality check here. This is the same divisive BS that has been used by the moneyed classes throughout history to divide and conquer by encouraging groups who should be forming better alliances to work toward common goals tear one another's throats out. Instead of playing the blame game, the No on 8 supporters should be taking a long, hard look at why their message failed to get out to certain minority communities. To point fingers at African-Americans, whose struggles helped make the GLBT rights struggle possible, for this defeat is not only racist, it's suicidal. If there is to be any hope for the promulgation of GLBT rights, or any minority rights, each interest group needs to check its own privilege at the door and start looking at ways to build bridges rather than assign blame. And quite frankly, the fact that I have to school a MoJo writer on this first lesson in radical politics 101 is kind of pathetic.
What a pile of s_it. This is typical homophobic rhetoric. You can't come up with a valid argument so you trot out the old "incest", "pedophiles" and "beastiality" bug-a-boos. Why don't you just come out and say it: anything that you don't understand scares the hell out of you. You can't study the situation and come to a decision on your own, you listen to the hate mongers and whack jobs out there and accept the garbage that spews from their mouths without question. Notice that the polls indicate those that are better educated tended to vote against Proposition 8. That says a lot about why certain social legislation passes and some fail in America.
Robert: You say "What i am puzzled about this that is when i dont have anything better to think about is how does anybody know if that person voted yes on 8 is religous. You dont put that on the ballot." First of all, what other argument is there to support Prop 8 other than homosexuality is immoral and therefore a violation of some religious precept? Second, who funded the big push to get Prop. 8 passed? My understanding is that the Mormon Church poured buckets of money into it. So, while not every "yes" voter was necessarily religious, most were. What does someone who is merely homophobic have to gain by supporting Prop 8? Is the homophobe afraid that all these married gay people will start having gay babies?
The No on 8 campaign barely made a blip on my radar, and I'm generally privy to these things, having best friends and sisters who are gay. If I had any indication there was a chance it would pass (I totally dismissed that it would, and the campaign didn't inform me otherwise) I would have canvassed my sweet butt off in any neighborhood necessary. No one's gonna change the religious people's minds if they are fixed, but this *is* California, I think the religious zealotry is less here than most other states in the Union. Doubtless there were many who just didn't know what Prop 8 really was.
Who can't be serious? To which respondent are you referring?
Isn't this discrimination? race shouldn't be the issue. We are so primitive, we have to argue about if we are racist. We shouldn't be discriminative at all, that should be well in the past. I assume that the reason it didn't pass was because of social issues, we have let California be discriminative. Equal rights need to come into action, and church and state NEED to be separate. Come on guys.
It is my opinion that the GLBT community and their heterosexual supporters such as myself, did not reach out to the black community to express just why GLBT rights to equality in marriage was a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. We did not explain well enough why GLBT marriage equality did not pose a threat to heterosexual marriages.
The fact is that, as with the arguments over slavery in the mid-1800's, interracial marriage during the 1940's, and segregation in the 1960's, the real argument was not over equal treatment but over religious belief.
Those whose religious beliefs taught that slavery was acceptable, mixing of the races Biblically prohibited, and socially undesirable, fought to keep the institutions of slavery and segregation in place during their hay day. The same thinking caused the same kind of people to vote for Proposition 8.
Once again this is proof that if you can afford the media you can swing the vote. The Mormons and the Catholics put A LOT of money behind this to get it passed. Why are people so stupid that advertisements can sway them?
I don't think African Americans are any more homophobic than other Americans;however, many believe in an Old Testament type of Christianity. They take much of the bible literally, so they believe that homosexuality is immoral, but so is having babies out of wedlock. Like many Christians, they have a very eclectic religion. On the other hand, black churches have many gay ministers and choir directors and they look the other way.
Bud's incest analogy is certainly thought provoking. He didn't suggest screwing his sister, just marrying her for her considerable pension. He touches on the point that marriage is a legal contract despite religion's assertion that matrimony comes from God. Practically, the preacher is irrelevant and the only thing that counts is the county recorder's marriage license. Thus, the battle is really about who owns the word "marriage".
Robert said:
"What i am puzzled about this that is when i dont have anything better to think about is how does anybody know if that person voted yes on 8 is religious. You dont put that on the ballot."
No one really knows FOR SURE that blacks voted so overwhelmingly for Prop 8. The information indicating that, comes from exit interviews, and the vote counts from predominantly black precincts supports it (my understanding). Religion is one of the voluntary questions pollers ask, so there is a bit of indication there, as to the religious views of the polled persons.
BUT...
Exit-poll subjects are largely self-selecting, and the methodology is highly non-scientific, meaning that the margins of error are astronomical. They are much less reliable than even phone polls, which have their own problems.
And then there are people like me -- who purposely give false information to pollsters, for no other reason than to undermine our society's reliance on such anecdotal and misleading trend figures.
Polls don't even come up their own stated standards. They don't give reliable information about the real opinions of those surveyed, because the methodologies vary so dramatically from poll to poll. Many are actually formulated as policy-manipulation tools, rather than as honest opinion probes.
And polls' sway over our political process is so exaggerated that poll results often trump real information about the issues they address; even encouraging a certain laziness concerning access to REAL information.
rights should not be voted on. how many mixed race marriages would be invalidated if states put to a vote interracial marriage. rights are protection for minorities.
i think that the no campaign did not believe that the yes campaign could muster the late counter attack and win. having read many of their blog posts the no campaign was too smug by half. not nearly enough ground troops, the ads were poor and unfocused, they didn't get labor involved in protecting the rights of their members except for CTA. there is enough blame to go around for everyone including myself who did not get involved until i saw 9/10 houses nearby with yes lawn signs by then it was too late to try to change minds
To Eat His Own
The author of the piece asks why it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals (in regards to Prop 8) but not ok to discriminate against black people. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature should realize it. Black people had no choice about having highly-melaninated skin just as I had no choice about being the near opposite. It's in our genes. Black people, and I can salulte them for this, have not succumb to pro gay propaganda en masse. Yes, there are black gays. The homosexual agenda is something pushed by the New World Order-lies as a form of population control. All people have a mixture of homo and heterosexual leanings. It is not black and white. We are all somewhere on the continuum. And many people, like Anne Heche, have shown the ability to drift from one extreme to the other. Homosexuality is a way of thinking. And like the rest of your thinking, it is revised on occassion. But nothing is going to make a black man white, maybe with the exception of the drug regimen (and plastic surgery) Michael Jackson has used to lighten his appearance considerably. Homosexuals already had all the rights of marriage as stated in Calif. Domestic Parterships. And I'm cool with that. Just leave marriage for me and my girl. The real purpose of the Homo Marriage effort was to change what kids in school are taught about marriage. It appears they will not be abusing kids now, "educating" them and reading "Heather has 2 mommies" to 2nd graders. Parents in Massachusetts have to put up with this child abuse in schools and the school refuse to tell them when these "lessons" will take place. Homosexuals, I wish you well, but touch my kids and I'll open a can of whip ass!
You have stately very well precisely what I was trying to formulate for a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. Would you mind submitting it? Email to letters@sfchronicle.com. You will need to include your phone number. (You might want to omit the first sentence.)