«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
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...
Comments
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.
Posted by: Bud on 11/12/08 at 12:37 PM Respond
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?"
Posted by: Richard Hudson on 11/12/08 at 12:45 PM Respond
You can't be serious!?
Posted by: P. Esh on 11/12/08 at 12:47 PM Respond
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!
Posted by: Dixie on 11/12/08 at 12:51 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Gandolf2u on 11/12/08 at 1:03 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Al on 11/12/08 at 1:22 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Jason on 11/12/08 at 1:31 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: andy on 11/12/08 at 1:31 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Truthier on 11/12/08 at 1:34 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Kyra on 11/12/08 at 1:38 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Khrish on 11/12/08 at 1:38 PM Respond
Um...I think you mean Dan Savage, Debra. In the Stranger? I'd check it for sure, but the link isn't working.
Posted by: Anonymous on 11/12/08 at 1:46 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Jane on 11/12/08 at 1:53 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Lauren on 11/12/08 at 1:55 PM Respond
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!!
Posted by: Jason on 11/12/08 at 2:15 PM Respond
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 CarpenterPosted by: Ruby-Beth Buitekant on 11/12/08 at 2:18 PM Respond
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?
Posted by: Danny on 11/12/08 at 2:34 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Mheister on 11/12/08 at 2:34 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: oilthepoil on 11/12/08 at 2:39 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: JOHN COPELAND on 11/12/08 at 2:39 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Bud on 11/12/08 at 2:43 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: allen on 11/12/08 at 2:50 PM Respond
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.Posted by: hjpowell on 11/12/08 at 2:55 PM Respond
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?
Posted by: xyzzy on 11/12/08 at 3:55 PM Respond
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?
Posted by: apaperbackwriter on 11/12/08 at 4:07 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Pastor Leroy Jackson on 11/12/08 at 4:14 PM Respond
Al,yours (1:22pm)is one of the most cogent comments I've heard on the issue.
Posted by: Bob Bergschneider on 11/12/08 at 4:14 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Robert on 11/12/08 at 4:34 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: S Tremblay on 11/12/08 at 4:42 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: JoB on 11/12/08 at 5:10 PM Respond
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?
Posted by: lawyerfan on 11/12/08 at 5:11 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Anonymous on 11/12/08 at 5:15 PM Respond
Who can't be serious? To which respondent are you referring?
Posted by: Stevie Bee on 11/12/08 at 5:33 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: mariah on 11/12/08 at 5:47 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill on 11/12/08 at 6:10 PM Respond
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?
Posted by: G2 G2 G2 on 11/12/08 at 7:04 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: gent258 on 11/12/08 at 8:19 PM Respond
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".
Posted by: B Dub on 11/12/08 at 9:21 PM Respond
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.
Posted by: Dan Mortenson on 11/12/08 at 9:38 PM Respond
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 mindsPosted by: kevin mcnamara on 11/12/08 at 9:41 PM Respond
To Eat His Own
Posted by: g on 11/12/08 at 9:50 PM Respond
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!
Posted by: john king on 11/12/08 at 9:52 PM Respond
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.)
Posted by: Lucy Cole on 11/12/08 at 10:57 PM Respond
The "you" that I was referring to was Mheister posted on 11/12/08 at 2:34 PM.
Posted by: Lucy Cole on 11/12/08 at 11:03 PM Respond
John King posted comments on 11/12/08 at 9:52. John, I can ignore the obvious silliness of all but your last line, which must be corrected. Do not confuse homosexuals with pedophiles. The vast majority of gays have no sexual interest in your children whatsoever.
Posted by: Lucy Cole on 11/12/08 at 11:15 PM Respond
So much hypocrisy - so-called "Christians" (and Old Testament is NOT Christian, yet so many rightwing religionists follow its bigoted, backward precepts and still call themselves Christian), blacks who have complained for so long about their exclusion, as well as Hispanics et. al.
It is interesting how the Mormon church rallied its members on supporting Prop 8 and sending money and volunteers for this Prop to exclude another minority from full civil rights and inclusion in society. The Republican party (of course) in the 1800s passed a constitutional amendment in Idaho to strip Mormons of their citizenship because the majority of people found Mormonism to be repugnant. That was not rescinded officialy until the 1980s. Now they are supporting doing basically the same thing to another maligned minority. And 70% of black voters did it too. Such short memories and such bigotry.
I hope the next time you hear a black, or a Mormon, or any other of the groups who voted as a majority for Prop 8, complaining about their treatment in Mythical USAmerica that you remind them about this vote on this proposition.
Mormons are resigning from the church at a rapid rate. If you are one then go to http://www.signingforsomething.org/blog
to sign in so a count can be taken so the church cannot hide the facts, as usual.Religion is a choice, not sexual orientation. Stop special rights for religion! Tax the mosques, churches, synagogues, temples. It's unfair that their victims must pay taxes to give them (the religious properties)government services.
Posted by: FreeThinker on 11/13/08 at 1:15 AM Respond
I think a way out of this impasse could be achieved by re-examining the basics. Relegate the concept of marriage to the voluntary religious sacralization of a relationship from whence it originated. Gay churches can perform ceremonies for gay couples seeking a divine blessing on their union. Churches that oppose gay marriage can remain secure in their (bigotted) disdain of gays if that's what they want, and refuse to marry same sex couples.
But let there be a legally required civil union in addition to a voluntary religious union. This civil union of homo or hetero-sexual unions would accord all couples equal rights and protections under the law.
In this way no religion need take offence (I am sure the fundies still will, but tough!)
As to Bud's appallingly specious argument, this is just a modified version of the religious right's slippery slope argument: gay marriages will lead to incest, pedophilia and even bestiality. All of which is errant nonsense. Bud's ignorance of human sexuality is an embarassment only to himself.Posted by: PastorJennifer on 11/13/08 at 1:39 AM Respond
Are we talking about our 21st century Uncle Toms?
Are we hearing that blacks have finally joined the dark side of morality as preached by George W and consorts? I dare not answer...Posted by: Pierre on 11/13/08 at 3:07 AM Respond
Elton John hit it on the money when he said in a recent interview that it's a matter of semantics. I've been partnered for 31 years and don't give a fig about the word "marriage". That word has so much religious baggage that it's best to leave it to a Church. Any secular ceremony uniting two people - say on the steps of a "City Hall" - is a civil union, carrying with it all the rights and privileges of "marriage". What we need is a Federal Civil Union Law and leave that lead-ball word alone. I wouldn't want to be a member of a group that resented my lifestyle anyway.
Posted by: Carl on 11/13/08 at 4:12 AM Respond
I find the stats for non-whites voting on Prop. 8 disturbing. And amazing. For people who have been the focus of a hard, on-going struggle for equality to popularly think another group of citizens do not deserve equality is sad as it is incredible. But all too human. But that doesn't make is excusable.
Frankly I'm ashamed as an American that so many of my fellow citizens think that any of their fellow citizens deserve to be second class citizens. To deny the rights of others based only upon religious beliefs.
Should we start a ballot that would block people who vote upon religious beliefs to be banned from voting? Why not? They vote in contradiction to the Constitution. So why should they be honored and protected under the Constitution. This is nothing more than using the Constitution as a device to undermine the Constitution. Just like the Bush administration does. Just as the Nazis used democracy to undermine democracy. It's no better. Come on people. Let's more forward. Let's take America one step closer to the ideal of the Constitution. I live in Massachusetts. We uphold the Constitution and what it stands for.Posted by: nakis on 11/13/08 at 5:09 AM Respond
The main argument for the passage of prop 8 was the sanctity of marriage. I wonder if all those who voted for prop 8 based on this premise would also vote for a ban on divorce. After all, let's not be hypocrites. If you promise before God to "love and honor" each other till "death do you part", and "What God has joined, let no man put asunder", then put your vote where your morals are, and I'll believe you really do support the sanctity of marriage. I'll believe you really are not just voting to make yourself feel superior to another group of citizens. Are you planning any time soon to propose a ban on divorce?
Posted by: Mary Hansen on 11/13/08 at 11:03 AM Respond
It's the all the Christian Rights' Fault, Gay Friends (by the way, I'm Not Gay - but I am a Buddhist, and I DO Support Your rights); as many Black People are just that - Right-leaning (at least as far as their Religous beliefs are concerned) Christians.
Try this Strategy; remind them that 'Civil Rights are Civil Rights; and we've been fighting for yours, Black Folk, now it's time to return the favor.'
If that doesn't work, remind them that the same religion that teachs being 'Gay' is 'Bad' also once taught that being 'Black' is to be 'Part Monkey'.
If reason doesn't do it; maybe SHAME will!!!Posted by: James Staples on 11/13/08 at 2:23 PM Respond
How dare any white gay compare his or her oppression to what blacks have been through. Blacks had absoultly no choice. What you do "is" your choice. I personally don't care what you do, and doubt whether most do but, this in your face movement is offensive.
Back on topic: It is an obnoxious comparisn and everyone knows it.Posted by: Phil on 11/13/08 at 5:47 PM Respond
Okay. I'll gay in on this, too. One of the greatest ironies is that Christianity plays a large role in how many black Americans negatively view homosexuality. Yet slave owners used biblical text to validate their practices of slave owning. Religion is a tool for some and a weapon for others. I am thankful that it never felt right in my hands for either purpose. And for those who protest with outrage the comparison of ethnicity and sexual orientation in terms of civil rights: You don't know what you don't know. I am convinced that my homosexuality is as intrinsic a part of my make up as the pigment of your skin is part of yours. So talk to me about the day you told your mother at the age of twelve that you were dodging school because all the kids were calling you a nigger and she responded with, "Well, you're not one, are you?" That's right. That never happened to you. Yet this kind of thing happens for gay youths all of the time. Not only are we having to fight for our rights within our legal system, many of us have to fight for a place within our families.
Still, I will never diminish your experiences with racism; as a white person, I'm sure I wouldn't know where to begin. In turn, I ask you to realize that you cannot hope to conceive of my experiences with bigotry as a gay man. Can we get past, "Who has it worse?" and get to "How can we help one another make it better?"
Also, waiting for a little gay in from some black gay and lesbian people. Y'all want to pile on?Posted by: Paul Miller on 11/13/08 at 6:35 PM Respond
Over time laws have accumulated governing the specifics of marriage between a man and a woman. The application of those laws to gay couples would be like applying the rules of baseball to football. Therefore, a well worded civil contract would better address those needs. But, that isn't what its really about is it? If you [collectively] were honest, isn't what you really want a cultural shift, that will legislate your approval? I'm sorry but, none of us has the "right" to anothers approval.
By the way, I'm a black christian, inactive bi.
Phil
Posted by: Phil on 11/13/08 at 8:07 PM Respond
hey Mheister. YOu said the left is missig the point. First off, you as well as some other comments here are trying to label The religious right and put an explanation next to them. Again, this logic does not explain anything, as it does not point out who these people are you are referring to, as "religious right" is put in such a vague way that you can interpret it to your liking. Second, marriage may be a religious issue, but the state still recognizes a union as a "marriage, not a civil union. If you want the civil union argument to hold it has to be applied to both gay AND straight couples. Then, the marriage aspect can be separarated from the religious aspect, of which if a couple wanted a marriage per se, they would have to go through their chuch.
Posted by: jason on 11/14/08 at 1:49 AM Respond
Jason and many others who've made a similar point are right. Civil unions for all and marriage for those who choose it as sanctioned through their religious facility.
Phil, your input here is about as easy to swallow as a big cup of poop soup. Most gay and lesbian people fighting for the right to marry aren't doing so to garner cultural approval. They are looking for equality, period. Would you have argued to blacks in the fifties that the water coming out of both fountains was equally cold and refreshing, and that their protest against separate white and 'colored' fountains was really just an attempt to gain 'white love' or 'white compassion'?Posted by: Paul Miller on 11/14/08 at 4:37 AM Respond
You are right Phil, these white homosexuals just don't get it.
Posted by: William III on 11/14/08 at 11:44 AM Respond
It is the Dragon Yang that the Taoist doctors consider to be a treatable condition.
Posted by: Dr. Lee on 11/14/08 at 1:58 PM Respond
This site is full of ascerbic commentary and hate crime, but let someone post contrary....well? What did you do delete me? Tolerant are you? No, not at all. Who isn't tolerant of those who believe just like them.
Posted by: Phil on 11/14/08 at 6:53 PM Respond
This was my first ever time to vote. I was so excited and so proud of my country that it could elect a man as good and promising as Barack Obama. We had moved from one place to another and I was glad to be a part of this history. Then my roommate walked in and asked if Proposition 8 had passed in California. I didn't even know what Proposition 8 was and I think at that point the vote was 51% to 48% with most of the state reporting in. She said, "At least one good thing came out of this election," and I realized that while we had moved forward, it was only a baby step and we have much further to go. Being an optimist, I hope that our new political leaders will have the courage to do what is right, and they will have the literacy to understand what is right, and not focus on the negative attitude that I read in this blog.
I am appalled at the claim that it was the minority vote that passed Proposition 8. I don't even want to hear that baloney. I agree with the post by Ruby-Beth Buitekant on 11/12 at 2:18 that any finger pointing will just cause dissent between groups of people. This does no good.
I would like to talk about the spirit of our country. I am fairly fresh out of high school form northern Minnesota. I took a wonderful American Government class my senior year and became enamored with our country. The founding fathers may have been racist, sexist, homophobic, white, land-owning men (I respect them greatly, it's just a fact) but they were aware that this attitude was typical of the time and they knew that the country's opinion of what was right and good would change. This is why they allowed for amending of the constitution in article V of the federal constitution. This is also why Alexander Hamilton wrote in his Federalist Paper #84 that "common law and statute" are not part of the constitution, because they can be changed "by the ordinary legislative power" i.e. the people.The unchanging spirit of our country, instead, is that we the people are protected from the tyranny of our government. We have an opinion and we want change, and the government cannot stand in our way. Hamilton said that "bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince," the prince being our government. We wanted change, which is why we elected the man that we did. But we didn't fight to hold on to our rights. For this I am sad for the people but hopeful that it will soon change.
We, the people, cannot take away rights of the people, just as the constitution protects us from the government taking away our rights. I agree with Allen who posted 11/12 at 2:50 pm. He is wrong in stating that a popular vote should never depend on the people because it MUST depend on the people. However, the people can never TAKE AWAY the rights of the people. The difficulty lies in the enumeration of a right. Alexander Hamilton says enumeration "would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?". The government was granted the power clearly defined by the constitution. The rest was a right. By adding the Bill of Rights the founding fathers made the error of allowing the government to think that it had the power to limit the rights of the people by enumerating the rights of the few. This is why amendment 9 and 10 were added to the end of the Bill of Rights. They state: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (9)" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (10)." Now the 10th amendment can be read to say that the States actually have the power to decide to limit the rights of the GLBT community to marry, but the 9th amendment clearly says that is not the case. Now if there is any confusion, I think a clear reading of the 14th amendment, the first article saying "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," would solve any issues. I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background but I believe the constitution is a very accessible document and I don't understand why people have gotten away with abusing it.
Now I would like to chastise Nakis who wrote on 11/13 at 5:09 am. You should be ashamed for yourself for even suggesting such a thing. People are allowed to use whatever set of moral codes they know to make the best decision that they know how. You propose to limit a person’s right to vote on religious grounds. You don’t understand the spirit of our country any more than the people who support the passing of Proposition 8. According to Freethinker who posted on 11/13 at 1:15 we should tax the churches. While I do not know enough about this topic I do know that the only reason my unfortunately limited roommate knew about proposition 8 was through her church. If there is indeed a law that says preachers cannot politicize than maybe we should enforce it. It only seems to breed hatred and ignorance in all the (limited) experience I have with it. However, we cannot censor churches. They do teach morality and while we may not agree with that morality, I think there are better, more positive and constructive ways of affecting change without trying to limit a religious institution. If we change things in the secular world the other people will follow.
I think B Dub, writing in on 11/12 at 9:21 made the comment on the next important issue. Who does own the word “marriage”? Is it a sacred ceremony or is it a secular contract. My State defines marriage between a man and a woman. I have the privilege here. I never have to worry that when I want to get married I will be denied, embarrassed, shamed and made to feel that I am not a whole human being. I will not be made to feel that I must not understand love or commitment enough to show the world that I am capable of getting married. People say who cares about a paper document? Pastor Jennifer posted on 11/13 1:39: “let there be a legally required civil union in addition to a voluntary religious union. This civil union of homo or hetero-sexual unions would accord all couples equal rights and protections under the law.” I don’t think this solves it. It would be a step, but at the same time it would lead people to complacency. There’s an alternative, they would say. I don’t really need to go to rallies and write opinions to my local paper for my neighbors and friends because, through a language compromise, the same benefits are rewarded. This is not the point. The point is, as a citizen under the Unites States of America, whether you are Gay Straight or Whatever, you have an un-enumerated right to marry. We need to stand up for our people. I wouldn’t have ridden a bus in Montgomery during the boycott if I had been alive at the time (f.y.i. I am white). Is it sacred or secular? I say is it secular. People without religion can get married in our country. There is no limitation on that. Just think what would happen if someone tried to pass a law that required a religious test in order to get a marriage license. That would never fly. It may have originated in a religious culture, a culture that had no division between its laws and its religious creed. We are not that type of country. So yes, we could all partake in civil unions, but we are attached to the word “marriage”. It is symbolic of love, commitment, fidelity, family and trust, in a personal and public display. The language shouldn’t be watered down. We as a country should symbolically recognize that two people of the same sex are capable of all of these things.
I have heard arguments that allowing same sex marriage would destroy the fabric of the institution. More baloney. I have heard this from divorced people. I have heard this from people who have been unfaithful in their own marriages. Hypocrites all. “Marriage is about procreation.” This I unfortunately read in an opinion page from the Star Tribune last week regarding Proposition 8. I don’t have the article in front of me but the author also said something to the effect of marriage being the best way to insure procreation. Well, I don’t remember all of Bio125, but the gist of it was that the more genetic variation the better for the species, but that’s beside the point. Again, try limiting the right to marry to persons who are fertile. Amend a state constitution so that there is a fertility test before a marriage license can be had. That would never happen. It isn’t about procreation at all.
So then what? Why do we want to limit people from marriage if, assuming I am right, it isn’t about religious sanctity, the fabric of the institution, or the ability of procreation? Is it to protect our children. Looking back through my public education, I don’t know if I had a person who was GLB or T as a teacher. Thinking harder, I don’t know if any of my teachers in elementary school were straight. Why not? Because it didn’t matter. It never came up. I knew whether or not some of them had children, and because of the family I grew up in and the community I grew up in, that meant they were married, and so I assume now that they were straight. However, I don’t know if all of them were married because it never came up. Some of them may have adopted, may have been divorced, or may have never been married and still had children. I don’t know because it never came up. I hope readers of this are getting my point. It doesn’t come up. Until a child is exploring their (yes this pronoun is proper English) own sexuality, this will never come up, no matter a teacher’s orientation. John King, writing on 11/12 at 9:52, I pity you and your limited life. What if Heather in that classroom has two mommies? When one of the other students in her class asks the little Heather if her parents are married and she has to respond “no”, that is weird and different. If she could respond “yes”, then it would be less different. She would still have a different family composition than most of the class, but at least the other children would understand that Heather’s parents are just like other parents, Heather just happens to have two moms. The assumption that supporting gay marriage will affect the elementary classroom is bogus.
That brings up my last point that no one mentioned in the blog. Not only does gay marriage NOT negatively impact the institution of marriage, I would argue that it strengthens it. As a country we could say that we value the love and commitment that marriage stands for, no matter the sex of the married. We could stand up for families, no matter the composition, and show that we value the impact of having a family on each person. More people would be involved, making it stronger. It would even shake up our traditions (and I don’t even want to go into how not all traditions are healthy or good so don’t use that argument on sticking with them) and make people think about their own marriages. People get married because that’s the thing to do, not because they are really ready for it. Also, gay marriage would create more positive influences and role models for my generation’s GLBT community. In my (limited) experience, my GLBT friends are not as healthy in their relationships and sexual activities as my straight friends. They tend to be in an “out crowd” because they are different. If we as a country supported gay marriage, we would be saying to all of those children that they don’t have to be different. They are unique, just like everybody else.
I hope in President Obama. I hope that he will do good things. I also hope in the people who came out en masse and voted this month. We can change things, “yes we can” but we need to change them together. Let us not blame anyone for what has happened, let it only fuel our fire in making things better. I have decided that I will no longer excuse someone’s homophobic comments buy justifying them in my head, saying “we all have different opinions and we are all entitled to them.” While we are all allowed our opinions, I will no longer let an ignorant opinion go unchallenged. I will go word by word, conversation by conversation and person by person to fix my beloved country and stand up for my friends and neighbors.Posted by: EK on 11/15/08 at 1:35 PM Respond
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.Posted by: Steinberg on 11/15/08 at 3:21 PM Respond
A simple answer to your question "Why is discrimination against blacks based on skin color immoral, but discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation moral?" Skin color is not a choice. Sexual orientation is.
Posted by: JS on 11/15/08 at 4:18 PM Respond
Well said, JS. My four theories of homosexuality:
Homosexuality arises as an outcome of the Oedipus conflict and the boy's discovery that his mother is castrated. This induces an intense castration anxiety that causes the boy to turn from his castrated mother to a "woman with a penis," i.e., a boy with a feminine appearance.
In the Three Essays, Freud developed the theory that the future homosexual child is so overattached to his mother that he identifies with her and narcissistically seeks love objects like himself so he can love them like his mother loved him.
If a "negative" or "inverted" Oedipus complex occurs, a boy seeks his father's love and msaculine identification by taking on a feminine identification and reverting to anal eroticism.
Finally, homosexuality could result from reaction formation: sadistic jealousy of brothers and father is safely converted into love of other men.Posted by: Dr, Freud on 11/15/08 at 9:52 PM Respond
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.”
Posted by: Isabella on 11/16/08 at 7:01 AM Respond
There are two kinds of marriage, the legal kind and the religious kind. Just make the legal kind equal to all, and the religious groups can marry whoever they choose. Why is this so complex?
Posted by: Deborah Masser on 11/17/08 at 10:41 AM Respond
What no one seems to want to see
is the simple point that religion is politics. I just checked"politics" on Webster and
what I found there was " the art and practice of government".
This means control. Control means power. Religion wants to control the lives of people. Therefore, religion is actually politics. QEDPosted by: FericJaggar on 11/19/08 at 5:49 PM Respond
Stop Blaming and Start Including
It is unnecessary for any member of any community to explain her or his vote. The right of privacy in voting may be outside the scope of the Constitution but it is still a right that keeps elections free and fair. Besides, I doubt that readers are concerned with why at least one person voted for California Proposition 8 just to prevent police from dragging ministers from the pulpit in the middle of Worship Services and hauling them to jail for in the name of pastoral duty speaking out against what the Holy Scriptures decries in both the Old and New Testaments. Nobody’s interested in hearing me or anyone else try to prove un-homophobic credentials by stating what acquaintances they have in the GLBT community or how many times a person has risked life, limb and incarceration to use his hand-to-hand combat training against hate criminals to save the lives of members of said community.
I agree with Al: “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.”
You’re right, Al. I attribute this to you with all honor and respect.
I also agree with the blogger that admonished opponents of California Proposition 8 to stop crying foul and pointing fingers, calling names like "religious zealot" and looking for scapegoats outside their own community, especially those whom the author calls “America’s conscience” and start taking a long, cold, hard look at their own ineptitude that caused their cause's defeat.
Stop blaming the Mormons. Quit pointing fingers at the “Christians.”
We’re well into the 21st century, not the 1980s when any negative occurrence from rock cocaine’s increased sales to which the CIA has finally taken responsibility to Susan Smith the “Killer Mom’s” children going missing. Everybody back then blamed those whom the author calls “America’s conscience,” black men. And why not blame them? “Hell, blame the coloreds! There are more of them of college age under the control of the correctional system than the university or the community college system, even in military service, they have more fatherless households than anyone else and they are the most feared and hated group on the planet.”
The time for blaming African Americans or any other group for the failings of an inept campaign and for all the rest of the ails of this country are long over. Some believe that we “lost” the Vietnam Conflict because the military was integrated and that the U.S. never lost a war when the military was segregated. Perhaps some want to blame African Americans for global warming and the current economic crisis, too?
We who the author calls “America’s conscience” are still the most feared and hated group on the planet and Mr. Obama’s victory doesn’t change that. “America’s conscience” is also the group likely used to take the blame for everything and the most taken for granted. Opponents of California Proposition 8just assumed that the “African American” community will vote liberally in all instances that there is no real need to campaign for an issue among them. Those opponents of California Proposition 8 learned the hard way that taking any group for granted in an election cycle is tantamount to asking for one’s cause or candidate to be defeated. That was a mistake the Democrats made for so many years since Franklin Delano Roosevelt from which Mr. Obama learned when he paid attention to detail in his campaign that those in campaign for California Proposition 8 should’ve learned.
I hope and pray that veterans advocates and the environmental and conservation movement will learn from this comedy of errors of California Proposition 8. The 11th Hour DVD is one of many excellent videos that shows how deeply our planet is in peril but environmental activists must not make the same blunder by excluding any community and clinging to the far-outmoded thinking that resource conservation and preservation of the environment is an activity only for middle-class or rich whites. That kind of idiocy is just asking for oil wells in Yosemite and nuclear plants in the Everglades or privatization of the VA. Just like the days of blaming and marginalizing any community are over, the time for taking them for granted is also over.
Mister Obama will be president because he included groups that didn’t necessarily like him. I thought I saw a bumper-sticker that says “Klansmen for Obama!” So now activists have to learn to look outside their traditional spheres to gains support for their causes. The message of change is not just a change of policies of the past eight years but a complete re-evaluation of the whole political dynamic.Posted by: p.s.gary on 11/20/08 at 10:37 AM Respond
You people need to understand our position for voting yes on Prop. 8. Rom. 1:27: This is speaking of the emotional and physical consequences of homosexuality.
This implies that these consequences (such as disease) are prescribed payment for such acts. Add to this the use of the word "recompense" (meaning "payment or compensation for an act") in this same verse and it clearly looks as if physical and emotional scars are God's judgment upon this sin.
These natural consequences of sin are not necessarily God's direct punishment on the individuals who commit these acts. Anyone who participates in homosexuality, which is expressly forbidden by God, is bringing punishment on himself. It's like the law of gravity. Many people are killed when they violate this God-given law but it is not accurate to say God killed them. They killed themselves. There was no malice on God's part.
Likewise, God established natural laws governing sexual behavior. Marriage was given while man was still in a perfect state (Gen. 2) and it is very possible that God never imagined man perverting such a beautiful gift (Jer. 7:31). When someone violates God's sexual order, he is destroying himself just as surely as someone who tries to breathe under water or walk off a cliff.
This verse is saying that the devastation that many homosexuals experience in their bodies is an appropriate payment for someone who has willfully perverted the perfect gift of marriage that God gave to us before the Fall. But this does not mean that God hates all homosexuals and is personally punishing them. If that were so, some of the diseases we see would not be selective. All homosexuals would contract these diseases.
No, these maladies occur naturally when God's perfect order is perverted. God hates homosexuality, but loves the individuals who are homosexuals. If homosexuals will turn to God and put faith in Jesus as their Savior, they can be saved just the same as anyone else. I have many former and current homosexuals that attend my mission. God loves them, but he hates their sin, just like the sin of gluttony that is so rampant in our community. But that is another subject.Posted by: Pastor Leroy Jones on 11/20/08 at 5:17 PM Respond
"President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks." It looks like Obama really did favor Prop 8.
Posted by: William on 11/21/08 at 6:59 AM Respond
ARCHIVE
December 14, 2008 - December 20, 2008
December 7, 2008 - December 13, 2008
November 30, 2008 - December 6, 2008
November 23, 2008 - November 29, 2008
November 16, 2008 - November 22, 2008
November 9, 2008 - November 15, 2008
November 2, 2008 - November 8, 2008
October 26, 2008 - November 1, 2008
October 19, 2008 - October 25, 2008
October 12, 2008 - October 18, 2008
October 5, 2008 - October 11, 2008
September 28, 2008 - October 4, 2008
September 21, 2008 - September 27, 2008
September 14, 2008 - September 20, 2008
September 7, 2008 - September 13, 2008
August 31, 2008 - September 6, 2008
August 24, 2008 - August 30, 2008
August 17, 2008 - August 23, 2008
August 10, 2008 - August 16, 2008
August 3, 2008 - August 9, 2008
July 27, 2008 - August 2, 2008
April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008
RECENT COMMENTS
More on the Rick Warren Wrangle: It's Not About Gay Marriage (4)
Marie Burns wrote: Warren's repulsive views are not just limited to discrimin... [more]
Rick Warren?? (43)
TadCF wrote: I think it's important to bring the right wing an the left... [more]
Should We Get Hot and Bothered By Obama's Personnel Choices? (10)
dan wrote: "Dan, I think that you are missing an important reason for... [more]
Poll: American Public Opinion Deeply at Odds With Rest of the World (14)
fred t wrote: Yeah, replacing the Shah with the Ayatollah - that worked ... [more]
MOJO VIDEO: Rallying to Unelect Obama (72)
sa wrote: how do you explain the black man then? i think social cons... [more]
Hillary Clinton Talks Withdrawal (11)
pack wrote: I saw your headline: "Hillary Clinton Talks Withdrawal"-- ... [more]
Hilda Solis: A Nominee To Get Excited About (4)
The View From Out Left wrote: ["The Economist notes that with the Solis pick, the white-... [more]
Clinton Foundation Donor Info: Playing Hard To Get? (2)
Strictly Speaking... wrote: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "disclosure" ... [more]
Obama Wins and Redefines Real America (63)
A Little History wrote: Dr. Basu observes: Of course, Gandhi was a lawyer. ... [more]
Palin Will Indeed Bring The Breast Pump (17)
Ameda wrote: Well, that's probably the only positive thing Palin did du... [more]
RSS Feed
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33
Posted by: Ralphie on 11/12/08 at 12:33 PM Respond