So 70% of blacks who voted on Prop. 8 in California voted for it. They voted to rescind the right for gays and lesbians to marry. Is that sad and trifling? Yes. Is it surprising? No.
The black gay community is a silent one, not because they want to be silent but because in the black community they have no choice. This vote was a vote of religion to many, and as I have said before, the black church is very conservative, and the black church is the cornerstone of politics for many black americans. To be black and gay on par with being republican and gay, most black people just don't get it. There are still folks walking around slapping their kids for no reason so they don't become "soft" or "sissies". They are still using the term "sissies" to describe effeminate men. My dad won't even say the word "gay" or "homosexual", he just does the Fred G. Sanford signal for "gay", which can be seen in this clip around the 2:37 mark:
Just an off topic FYI, Rippa did a phenomenal analysis of Lamont Sanford over at his blog. It was insightful, poignant, and gave truth a brand new light. Bravo, Rippa. Bravo.
The stereotypes that many whites have for gays and lesbians, blacks have for gays and lesbians. That being gay is a choice. That other gay people recruit or "can turn you gay". That gay people are pedophiles and predators looking to "turn out" innocent children and those down on their luck who can be easily swayed. That being gay is a mental illness.
Then let's talk about the "down low" phenomenon. This has been a major discussion for years, and I do not know the reality of how big this issue is within the black community, as I don't see it being an overwhelming issue, as I don't think MOST black men are gay, but I think with the attention it has received, it has fueled the discrimination against homosexuals within the black community.
I find it disheartening and somewhat insulting that we as black people have the audacity to be hateful and judgmental to another group of people, when we have had this done to ourselves for centuries. In the same breathe, I am not going to pretend gays and lesbians are innocent lambs.
One of my first posts on this blog was about a white lesbian who asked me why black people can't get over slavery. The one lonely response I got from that post was from a man who basically said black people aren't the only people of the world to suffer. Better known as the good old "get the hell over it" diatribe that is so often used by angry people mad when I discuss race or the concept of white privilege. He identified himself as a gay man in Kentucky. The days following the vote on Prop. 8, some black gays and lesbians felt threatened by their white counterparts when the news stories came out showing the black support. The n-word was thrown around liberally by some, and the stereotypes about blacks flew. Was the anger rightfully directed? The black vote wasn't the largest portion of the support, it was the white vote, but only about half of the white vote supported it, only about half of the asian, and a little over half of the hispanic vote supported Prop. 8, but the racial slurs and nasty diatribes were directed towards blacks, and why when this does happen do all blacks get painted with the same ugly brush? Why must our whole race get the rath of your anger and frustration? That is like me using Chuck Knipp as my example of why I can't like ALL gay people. I would hope not all gay people support this moron. Do all gays and lesbians enjoy white men in black face and drag as great entertaining comedy? Apparently so, since this guy seems to sell out his show on a regular basis and has a strong gay and lesbian following. Is that a fair assessment for me to make? Over at the Huffington Post, Raymond Leon Roker felt the LGBT communities backlash to the black community was unfounded. The comments there were disheartening. Most from people identifying themselves as gay or lesbian throwing around stereotypes and generalizations towards black people. Many people of color in the LGBT community have stated that racism has been and will be an issue, and as with all things in America, in "mainstream" gay culture, the focus is on white men and women in the community. It seems for the most part, the need for diversity and representation within the LGBT community seems to have fallen on deaf ears within that community.
Lack of empathy and compassion is a big issue in this country. The lack of understanding between the LGBT community and the black community is a perfect example of this.
60 comments:
70% may not be accurate. Out of the 2,240 people who were polled. Only 224 were AA and out of that amount 156 voted for prop 8.
70% seems to be reflective of the sample who were polled but not reflective of the actual population.
Can 224 people speak for 6.7% or 2.3 million black people in California or all black people in America? What people are doing blaming black folks is scapegoating, pure and simple.
Think about it this way, Since when have statistics in general ever been in black people's favor?
Really, I've never liked how the LGBT community has likened it's struggle with that of blacks. I'm not saying they don't have a struggle -- they do. But their consequences differ greatly from that of blacks in this country. One is not worse than the other, but they are different.
I think it's sad that they are not only blaming the black community, but feel comfortable doing so blatantly. It really makes me feel for the black members of the gay community. Whose "side" do you go to when neither side wants to accept you whole?
This is just like the feminist movement which many black women have said was racist even while it sought gender equality. It's amazing how that happens.
Religion is to blame here. It just so happens there allot of religious black folks. If you are a Christian, as most Americans are and you believe in the Bible as word of God, you have to be against homosexuality, Just read Leviticus 18:22
Sid,
I am incensed over this backlash toward the African American community over the outcome of Prop 8, and have been contributing to blog posts about it ad infinitum over the weekend, mostly at Racialicious but also at The Advocate, The Mad Priest, Bilerico, and other sites. Let me preface this by saying I am adsolutely in favor of gay marriage, and had I lived in California I would have not only voted No on Prop 8, but would have worked within the community to see if defeated, just as I did on the unfortunate amendment that was passed here in Texas a couple of years ago (we lost too). I am in no way excusing or absolving the homophobia in the black community, which emerges from sports, hip-hop, reggae and dancehall, the religious pulpits and other aspects of African American culture.
However, I will add one important caveat to your post: the 70% number being thrown around is an inaccurate red herring. This number is based on an exit poll, which included an aggregate sample of somewhere between 2240 and 2400 respondents (sources differ). This means at most pollsters spoke to 224-240 black people, and this is supposed to be representative of the African American sentiment on Prop 8? This is where what has become a meme of "70% of blacks voted Yes on Prop 8" is coming from?
Blacks comprise only 6.2% of the population in California overall, and when you weed out those under 18, not registered to vote, and those disenfranchised due to incarceration or conviction, this leaves a miniscule possible African American turnout in relation to the overall eligible voter population, even if it was larger than expected due to Obama's name on the ticket. The CNN poll from which this 70% claptrap derives estimates African Americans composed nearly 10% of the voter turnout in California, which is pretty much mathematically impossible. How do they represent a larger percent of the vote than they do in the population as a whole, especially since turnout was up across the demographic board? There is an indepth analysis of this statistical data in a diary posted on the Daily Kos, which shows the emperor is wearing no clothes when it comes to this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272
Sid you touched on many other problems with this blame-game, and there are many more, including issues of masculinity and sexuality w/in the AA community, especially with regard to males, the often virulent racism in the mainstream gay community, especially toward GLBTQs of color, and the whitewashing of the gay movement in gneneral and the marriage movement in particular, so that it by default becomes a white, male, affluent movement. There is also the coopting of language, symbols and tactics of the civil rights movement by the gay rights movement, which sees their oppression as analogous to ours, and just can't understand why many blacks don't agree, and in fact are quite angered by the comparison. This ignorance of white privilege while complaining about heterosexual privilege is one of the reasons the No on Prop 8 campaign failed to make inroads into ethnic religious communities like the conservative religious organizations pushing Prop 8 did.
You know I am a Pagan, and even I am insulted by the dismissive and disrespectful attitude many in the mainstream gay movement have toward the religious beliefs of many African Americans, and against the black church as a whole. Has there been much anti-gay hate that has been grounded in religion and emerged from black pulpits? Definitely. But disregarding those beliefs and dismissing them as simpleminded and bigoted is why the California LDS, Knights of Columbus, Family Research Council, and other white conservative religious organizations could reach across ecumenical lines and garner the support of black evangelicals, as well as Latino Catholics, Korean and Chinese conservative Christians, and of course the white evangelicals and Mormon faithful who comprise their base. They did outreach, including buying ad time on foreign language radio stations and space in community newspapers, to spread their message. The message was one of lies and disinformation, like homosexuality would be taught in schools, churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages or they would lose their tax-exempt status, and other such crap. But with no effective counter campaign, a lot of people fell for this hateful junk. Why haven't these angry people blaming blacks for the passage of Prop 8 gone after the conservative Christians who launched this ballot initiative, financed it across state lines, and spread this ugly, homophobic propaganda to garner support? Why not target other groups who the CNN exit poll noted voted disproportionately for Proposition 8, like seniors (61%). Republicans (82%), and Conservatives (85%)? What about the simple fact that if the No on 8 campaign had garnered more support in their own white community, which was the majority of the electorate in California and split at 49% Yes/51% No. A few more white voters on the No side and gay marriage would be legal in California today. Why no questions about religiousity, which other polls have shown was the single determinative factor in affirming or denying gay marriage bans, irrespective of race? This is the usual B.S., blaming a scapegoat instead of looking at internal failures and calling upon natural allies, GLBTQs of color, to see how to engage with the communities the marriage advocates ignored and marginalized this time, to their detriment.
WOW as usual Siditty you blow me away with your post. I am probably one of those conservative leaning Black Americans but you have given me food for thought. I do find it difficult to reconcile my religious beliefs and the homosexual lifestyle.
I do believe that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be hidden to the detriment of others.
Hilarious
I meant to say that the Obama post was Hilarious. I posted in the wrong post.
Thanks for the link to Rippa. I am added it to my newsreader.
I have to comment on this...
First of all, the racism within the gay community is just as prevalent, sometimes even worse, than outside of the community. Even I/R within the gay community is "taboo"...what?! They are showing their true colors.
The black community being homophobic is nothing new. But they are not the only ones who voted. Especially as someone on another board pointed out, the BC is not that huge to make such an impact on this. If we were only 39% of the presidential vote, how is it that we are 70% of the Prop 8 vote??? Is every black person living in Cali???? Please, tell me, but those numbers do not resound correctly or make sense. Maybe it needs to be broken down until I understand better... :shrugs:
On another note, I voted in FL, I'm black, I voted No to the same type of Amendment as I voted four years ago when it was put forth again. It was passed on both times!!!!
When I checked the website on the percentage of votes, the amount of Yes votes was ridiculous. Now tell me was the "black" community to blame in FL, too???? How about the other states that passed this same Amendment? GTFOHWTBS
Although I believe in the right of every American to love, sleep, marry, "be with", whatever..., who they want, you are not going to make me the scapegoat just because you didn't get your way.
Keep fighting, keep challenging legislature, keep pushing, keep the movement going, eventually your voice will be heard.
I don't understand how they can sit and blame a race of people, when you look at history, these same race of people didn't get their rights overnight! It took decades and we still are fighting for certain rights, because some of us are gay too!!!!!
Don't get me started...
@ Tigasinamon
I believe the statistics are that 70% of the black community in California voted for Prop 8, while the white, asian and latino communities basically split. It's not fair to blame an entire group of people, but my understanding is that the 'black vote' was the deciding factor here, though I don't know about the other two states that passed their own version of Prop 8...
I don't believe Blacks are to blame...we make up a small percentage of the population.
Even though I believe a marriage should be defined as a spiritual bond between a man and a woman, I don't think proposition 8 was fair. To have a right given then taken away is harsh.
These people are scapegoating black people. They are showing their racist selves. Have they come out with the stats on how other groups voted to show whether its a reflection of the general population? I have Asian and Persian workmates that voted yes on prop 8 and they are proud of it. The two whites in my area voted neither. Myself I can't vote but if those gays came to our floor, they would attack me.
There is an LA times Oped by a black Lesbian who argues that the gay community didn't do enough communicating their message to black people. She herself though active in the campaign but didn't make it her priority.
Also that prop was confusing, many people thought Yes meant Yes to gay marriage. The people that sponsored it were very smart. I still have difficulty differentiating which one was which and if you did a quick study I bet you that many people would vote the way they don't intend to.
Homosexuality is forbidden in almost all major religions. There is no clear information on what the implications are if that prop was defeated. Would it be illegal for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple? It may be so. This then becomes an issue of separation of church and state. I am all for equal rights, but forcing people to practise their religion a certain way is crossing a line and taking away their rights too. No one ever clearly addressed the legal implications of defeating that prop. Gay people know this but they are simply scapegoating black people. In Switzeland a pastor was reprimanded for preaching against homosexuality. Is that where we are heading.
I wouldn't equate this to the struggle of blacks at all. There are religions that preached the inferiority of blacks but no one went over and forced them to change their doctrine. The debate then was sorrounding humanity. This debate is sorrounding sexuality. The two are not equal.
Gay people should marry in whatever form that does not attempt to change people's religious beliefs. People's beliefs are their rights too. If I think in my religious beliefs that its wrong, I am entitled to my beliefs. What they are attempting to do is to make my beliefs illegal. We still have racists. Is it illegal to be racist? No. Its when one acts on it in an illegal way that it becomes a problem. I may questipon the moral nature of homosexuality but it doesn't mean that I hate gays. I just question its nature and won't be convinced that its okay but also I have no right to take away their right to happiness as long as they don't cross the boundaries of my beliefs.
They will for ever hit a brick way if they think they can change minds steeped in religion. They should make a case for their rights and equality with heterosexuals out of the churches. Once they enter the church, its a dead end. And by the way I am upfront with gay people. And they accept, though grudgingly, my opinion.
I have found that in fighting for their cause, gay people are all or nothing. There seems to be no middle ground. They find it hard to accept that some people will never accept their lifestyle. Just because I find one's sexuality questionable doesn't mean I see them as less human. I just find their sexuality questionable.
"If you are a Christian, as most Americans are and you believe in the Bible as word of God, you have to be against homosexuality, Just read Leviticus 18:22"
Exactly!
The Mormons had that whole "blacks are meant to be slaves" or are inferior stuff in their doctrine. Along the way, they got rid of it (atleast I hope so) on their own. Christians will not be sold homosexuality. The sooner these people realize it the better and continue to fight for equal legal rights with heterosexual couples.
I am glad this has blown up so that this issue of equating blacks and gays gets settled once and for all. The two circumstances are not the same.
Blacks fought for disegregation but racism that is in the minds of people still exists and in more damaging ways than homophobia. Gays are not filing into jails as a consequence of their sexuality. They don't get followed around stores because of their sexuality, discriminated against by banks or landlords because of their sexuality ( And if such discrimination existed at least there is a way to hide it).
Its very silly and insulting to think the two are the same. Equal rights with heterosexuals, yes by all means but attempting to tamper with people's belief systems, in this case religious beliefs, is crossing the line.
Evan said:I believe the statistics are that 70% of the black community in California voted for Prop 8, while the white, asian and latino communities basically split.
****************
70% of 224 people polled. How the heck is that the deciding factor?
We only know how many voted yes or no but we do NOT truly know WHO voted what.
Determining who voted what are SOLELY based on exit polls and this polling is WRONG.
I was watching flipping through the channels watching Food Network and passed by Faux, Bill O'Reilly was on and they were talking about Prop 8. Basically he wanted to know why the LGBT community was boycotting the Mormons and not blacks......yeah anyways after desperately searching the coach for the remote i changed the channel only because it was Faux and i was starting to get sick.
@Kat, I suggest you play with this: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
It's a tool for calculating the appropriate sample size based on your confidence interval (the plus or minus), confidence level (how sure you are) and the appropriate sample size.
If I'm using it right, then this bit of this poll is +/- 6.55%. I'd be happier with a smaller margin of error and a smaller sample size. I'm also interested in where you found the numbers, I poked around a bit and couldn't find them.
I'm uncertain how you know that "this polling is WRONG"
Given the math up above and the history of exit polls, I'm quite willing to admit that this poll may well be wrong. I hope it's wrong, though since those 'yes' votes still have to come from somewhere, it means that some other group's homophobia or gullibility (or, to be fair, sincerely held belief in the 'sanctity' of marriage) is even greater than it appears.
One thing I will say, which I should have said originally is quite simple: even if the numbers polled are entirely accurate, then the problem sure as hell isn't confined merely to the AA community. A little more than half of the voters in California and larger percentage in Arizona and Florida voted to make gay marriage illegal. To make the illegality of it part of their constitution. This is a national concern and it's not confined to one ethnic/sociopolitical/socioeconomic group, no matter how much I, or anyone else want it to be.
70% may not be accurate. Out of the 2,240 people who were polled. Only 224 were AA and out of that amount 156 voted for prop 8.
It probably isn't, but people will continue to harp on this number as an excuse to berate and belittle black people in general.
------
Really, I've never liked how the LGBT community has likened it's struggle with that of blacks. I'm not saying they don't have a struggle -- they do. But their consequences differ greatly from that of blacks in this country. One is not worse than the other, but they are different.
I think it's sad that they are not only blaming the black community, but feel comfortable doing so blatantly. It really makes me feel for the black members of the gay community. Whose "side" do you go to when neither side wants to accept you whole?
I agree. I also wonder what happens to those of color in the gay community when this kind of thing happens. The sad thing is, like in everything else, people of color in that community are silenced and never seen.
------
Religion is to blame here
Definitely
------
Winnowill,
I remember the constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage here in Texas, and I voted against it, as I feel anyone who wants to get married should, as long as it is between two consensual adults. I agree that the outreach historically for the LGBT community tends to steer towards affluent white people, as if the poor or others don't exist.
Jasmyne Cannick did a great op-ed piece on this, and her comments on her blog reflected what I saw on the blogosphere as well, and they were condemning her as a black lesbian for even daring to look at the LGBT community and it's racism.
-------
WOW as usual Siditty you blow me away with your post. I am probably one of those conservative leaning Black Americans but you have given me food for thought. I do find it difficult to reconcile my religious beliefs and the homosexual lifestyle.
I know for many in the black community it is this way. It is just hard to understand for some. I think it is matter for some of thinking it is a choice, and knowing that in America it is hard to be black, why add the "extra burden" of being gay too? At least I think that is the thinking.
--------
First of all, the racism within the gay community is just as prevalent, sometimes even worse, than outside of the community. Even I/R within the gay community is "taboo"...what?! They are showing their true colors.
Back in the day, when I used to research stats on IR relationships, I always heard that IR relationships in the LGBT community was much higher than in the "straight" community. I later realized it was because the community is so much smaller that options tend to be limited, or were limited, and now it seems the community is more segregated than ever.
Keep fighting, keep challenging legislature, keep pushing, keep the movement going, eventually your voice will be heard.
That is how I feel about it as well. That is all you can do.
Grata said:
"Christians will not be sold homosexuality. The sooner these people realize it the better and continue to fight for equal legal rights with heterosexual couples."
Though it may seem judgmental and narrow-minded, the above statements is very accurate. Like previously stated, almost every religious tradition views homosexuality in a very negative light. This is not going to change. Many Christian voters are unwilling to compromise biblical scriptures to appease the masses. I am a Christian, and even though I have friends who are homosexual, if they ask me what I think about their lifestyle, I have to say that it is a sin because I believe what the Bible says about sexuality. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, therefore, even as an African American, I would have voted for Proposition 8.
I have a problem too with people blaming Christians for the lack of vote. When in fact, a great deal of people who aren't Christians don't get or care about gay marriage. Why, because in many people's minds being gay doesn't stop people from living their lives or let's be real here "having sex with whomever they choose".
So I think many people don't give much thought about other people's sex lives. Especially, when a great deal of straight people don't respect the idea of marriage
anyway. So they really aren't going to give much thought about two gay people getting married either.
Now on a personal level, I am all about equal rights for everyone, but it does irk me that the gay rights movement tries to compare themselves to the Black Civil Rights movement, now imo it is like comparing apples and oranges.
And quite honestly until those in the gay rights movement develop their OWN movement they will continue to struggle against the Right Movement, some religious groups and basic indifference to the entire movement in general.
It's not fair to blame an entire group of people, but my understanding is that the 'black vote' was the deciding factor here, though I don't know about the other two states that passed their own version of Prop 8...
In Texas the support to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage was from ALL races. White, black, and hispanic. Yet there was no outcry that white people were evil.
------
Even though I believe a marriage should be defined as a spiritual bond between a man and a woman, I don't think proposition 8 was fair. To have a right given then taken away is harsh.
I think so as well.
------
Homosexuality is forbidden in almost all major religions. There is no clear information on what the implications are if that prop was defeated. Would it be illegal for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple?
I don't think that it would lead to churches getting in trouble for refusing to marry a gay couple. Churches never legally got in trouble for refusing to marry IR couples, even after it was legal.
I don't think this was trying to make anyone's religion "illegal" it was granting gay couples the rights of marriage.
. Gays are not filing into jails as a consequence of their sexuality. They don't get followed around stores because of their sexuality, discriminated against by banks or landlords because of their sexuality ( And if such discrimination existed at least there is a way to hide it).
Very true. I am no advocating that anyone should hide or disguise themselves, but gays and lesbians tend to have this option. No one has to know their sexuality, but everyone can see skin color.
------
I was watching flipping through the channels watching Food Network and passed by Faux, Bill O'Reilly was on and they were talking about Prop 8. Basically he wanted to know why the LGBT community was boycotting the Mormons and not blacks......yeah anyways after desperately searching the coach for the remote i changed the channel only because it was Faux and i was starting to get sick.
aprettyhatemachine,
Love your NIN reference in your screen name. Yeah Faux news is hard to watch, unless it is Shepard Smith. O'Reilly is the anti-christ. Oops I said that out loud.
-----
I am a Christian, and even though I have friends who are homosexual, if they ask me what I think about their lifestyle, I have to say that it is a sin because I believe what the Bible says about sexuality. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, therefore, even as an African American, I would have voted for Proposition 8.
My question is this, why should you religious convictions affect others. Even if you feel it is a sin, unless it affects your church or religion directly, why would you vote for Prop. 8? Why would you vote at all, if it didn't affect you?
I have a problem too with people blaming Christians for the lack of vote. When in fact, a great deal of people who aren't Christians don't get or care about gay marriage.
Very true, but in the instance of Prop. 8, it was heavily courted and pushed by many Christian groups of all races and hues.
And quite honestly until those in the gay rights movement develop their OWN movement they will continue to struggle against the Right Movement, some religious groups and basic indifference to the entire movement in general.
I definitely agree.
C1 sd:
"Religion is to blame here. It just so happens there allot of religious black folks. If you are a Christian, as most Americans are and you believe in the Bible as word of God, you have to be against homosexuality, Just read Leviticus 18:22"
I am Christian but strongly disagree that homosexuality is a matter of choice. I strongly believe it's innate.
If religious folks want to argue Homosexuality is a sin, one can also argue that the bible also states that:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven" -Matthew 18:18."
I wouldn't be wrong to assume that the religious people who believe homosexuality is a sin will openely and gladly accept the above verse WHEN homosexuals are finally given their long overdue human right to marry ay?
I read an article which cited the increased Black turnout as the scapegoat for this passing.
A part of me wants to agree, but given the history of how "its always the Black people's fault" makes me question it.
I think its easy to blame the Black voters given that it was a Black man who was running for president and was so beloved by many.
I do agree that the "taboo" of the lifestyle persists heavily in the Black community. I think its sad that it does, and I had an argument with my mother about this not too long ago.
She's a religious freak who believes that this should not be a civil rights issue because its against God's law. Well, the passing of this just goes to show just how powerful "the church" is in this country, and just how much they influence policy.
As an agnostic, who claims to be progressive, it sickens me.
OH...
THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE LINK LOVE.
I was wondering why in the world are all these people showing up unnanounced. If I knew I would have cleaned up a lil bit.
LOL
To Evan:
Evidence of my numbers:
CNN POll: There were 2240 Respondents: 10% of the respondents were African-American. That means 224 black people were representing 2.3 million black folks in California.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Other articles you may want to look at.
http://lunamania.org/2008/11/07/stop-the-madness-african-americans-did%20-not-pass-prop-8
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272
San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
In addition to my previous post.
I'm merely stating that the sample size for African Americans polled in the CNN exit poll were too small to accurately determine how black people voted.
10% of 2240 respondents in the CNN exit poll were AA, that leaves 224 black people.
The poll did not bother with black men because their numbers were significantly irrelevant which is 4% or 90 black men. That left black women which were about 6% or 134 black women
With such a small sample, the numbers are simply skewed and I don't believe it accurately reflected the black population as a whole.
It should be a much lower percentage had CNN gotten a larger sample.
The fact is Prop 8 passed but
also based on the CNN exit poll, the level of religiousity, conservatism, age, and level of education played a far greater role in determining yes or no vote and for people to put the bulk of the blame on black people as a race without taking into account other factors is wrong.
"I don't think that it would lead to churches getting in trouble for refusing to marry a gay couple. Churches never legally got in trouble for refusing to marry IR couples, even after it was legal".
All you need is one successful legal challenge to set a precedent like what happened in Switzeland. There is a fine print we are not being told about.
"Even if you feel it is a sin, unless it affects your church or religion directly, why would you vote for Prop. 8?"
We really don't know the legal implications. No one has explained it. Now we are being emotionally black mailed by that community. The Prop 8 people did a good job scaring people. In their ads out here they claimed it would be taught in schools. And they were relentless with little word from the other side. I wouldn't want my child being taught in school that the gay life style is normal. ANd so far I haven't heard anyone argue otherwise. Like I said, there is fine print we are not aware of.
'I wouldn't be wrong to assume that the religious people who believe homosexuality is a sin will openely and gladly accept the above verse WHEN homosexuals are finally given their long overdue human right to marry ay?'
This is where it gets tricky. Trying to adjust people's religious beliefs to accept homosexuality. As a legal right yes. But trying to force a change on thousands of years of religious belief is a tough one. And that is why Christians will come out stronger every time and deny them that right. Not that only Christians have a problem, most ethnic cultures do too. I just mentioned how all my workmates didn't vote NO.
Some one over at Andrew Sullivan's did the math and found that the prop would have won even without the black vote.
That prop will win again because next time the same blacks will vote neither because of the abuse they are enduring at the moment which has attracted attention of those that would have otherwise not cared.
Oh Keith Olbermann just made me cry... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/
In reality, what's the real difference between a gay couple and an interracial couple? Plenty of churches would love to stop interracial marriage too. We are all members of the same species, so what exactly is the big deal if two men or women marry? Is it becuase they won't reproduce? Who cares? We have far too many people reproducing already and we could use some population control. If God supposedly made man for a only a woman, didn't God make a black man for a black woman and a white woman for a white man?
All you need is one successful legal challenge to set a precedent like what happened in Switzeland. There is a fine print we are not being told about.
Grata, this is a misunderstanding of US law. What the equal marriage rights movement is arguing for is the right to civil marriage. Marriage is a civil institution in the US, which is why you can be married by a justice of the peace, a ship's captain, or a rodeo clown: as long as that person is legally eligible to perform marriages in that state and the couple has a valid marriage license, there is no religious requirement. If you view marriage as a sacrament and feel the need to have it performed in a religious setting, that is one thing. But there is no need to declare religious affiliation or to have a religious aspect to the ceremony at all, as all those Las Vegas midnight wedding chapels and drive through wedding ceremonies should attest.
There is a separation of church and state, therefore no church can be forced to perform or even acknowledge same-sex marriages. Many churches do and will, and others refuse to: see the schism splitting the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. The proponents of Proposition 8 knew that it in no way damaged or even impacted religious marriage, nor could it force a church to do anything it doesn't want to do; if a proposition could dictate church doctrine, then we could legislate away churches that teach hate from the pulpit, like the Westboro Baptist Church or World Church of the Creator. This is why the CLDS, Knights of Columbus and others launched their disinformation campaign. They object morally to civil marriage rights being granted to gays and lesbians, and have imposed through the voters their religious will on the California constitution. Many legal challenges to the Proposition have been mounted, and I believe at least one of them will be successful. There is a reason the California Supreme Court declared banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional, which is what caused the ballot initiative movement in the first place. Massachusetts is surviving with equal civil marriage, and California will too, when this amendment is overturned, as I'm sure it soon will be.
She's a religious freak who believes that this should not be a civil rights issue because its against God's law. Well, the passing of this just goes to show just how powerful "the church" is in this country, and just how much they influence policy. As an agnostic, who claims to be progressive, it sickens me. OH... THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE LINK LOVE. I was wondering why in the world are all these people showing up unnanounced. If I knew I would have cleaned up a lil bit. LOL
Next time I will give you some notice so you can fix up the place LOL. Being a black "non-believer" in the black community is hard too. I will blog about that another time.
-----------------
In reality, what's the real difference between a gay couple and an interracial couple? Plenty of churches would love to stop interracial marriage too. We are all members of the same species, so what exactly is the big deal if two men or women marry? Is it becuase they won't reproduce? Who cares? We have far too many people reproducing already and we could use some population control. If God supposedly made man for a only a woman, didn't God make a black man for a black woman and a white woman for a white man?
Much like in the Bible it condemns homosexuality, some feel that the Bible condemns interracial relationships. People have used Gen. 11:1-9, Deuteronomy 7:3, First Kings 11:2, and Nehemiah 13:25 to prove that God is against IR marriage. Due to societal pressures and norms, these beliefs and these books have been reinterpreted and not considered to in reference to race, but rather different tribes, non-believers, and/or "heathen groups". I guess before this reinterpretation, blacks were heathens, after all we as blacks to some wear the mark of Cain. Then you have Bob Jones University who openly prohibited IR relationships on their campus, and yes they did lose their tax exempt status for upholding those beliefs, but it upheld racial segregation.
When I grew up in the 1980s, I heard this countless times from my white Baptist and Methodist "friends". Then you have "churches" like http://www.kingidentity.com.
Maybe as social norms change, and maybe depending upon reinterpretation of the Bible homosexuality might be accepted.
-------------
There is a separation of church and state, therefore no church can be forced to perform or even acknowledge same-sex marriages.
I was under the impression of the same thing, which is why I ask why if it does not affect you personally, would you be against it?
@Kat, I was actually mildly surprised to see how little impact both education (up to, but not including post-graduate education) had on people's votes.
However, having now taken the time to look at the available data, I retreat to my cave and await better data to either prove me wrong, or right. Given how prevelant this argument is, I'd be surprised (though not shocked) if no further polling was done.
However, please note, my original comment was directed at Tigasinnamon, who I believe was confused ("how is it that we are 70% of the Prop 8 vote???").
I was also awful damn discouraged by the fact that the Republicans could pull 82% 'Yes' votes, but the Democrats could only get 64% 'No' votes.
@ Siditty "In Texas the support to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage was from ALL races. White, black, and hispanic. Yet there was no outcry that white people were evil."
Well, there should have been. The fact that we aren't getting any outcry about either Florida, or Arizona except when they get lumped together with California does lend a distressing degree of support to the argument that the reason for this narrative (*Sarcasm alert* Blacks stab gays in the back! Proof of their treacherous nature! Even they recognize the immorality that is homosexuality! *end of sarcasm alert*) is racist...
In essence, the "no on prop 8" leadership dropped the ball by assuming that blacks would vote in their favor because they view oppression the same way. They did not make much of an effort in going out to brown communities, so not having those votes or more of those votes is their fault. This is pretty typical, though, from what I have seen. People of color have not been fully engaged in that community on a regular basis, so it tends to remain a very homogenous movement, like feminism. Ultimately, if they'd gone the Loving vs. Virginia route, they might have had more success. It's more "human" story--people readily identifiable with something we can all identify with: being in love--than the hulking monolith of the Civil Rights movement.
I am beginning to get annoyed with the idea that the gay marriage movement is exactly the same as the Civil Rights Movement, especially with regard to this issue (the prop 8 vote). These things are civil rights issues, but I believe it's akin to saying flyweights and heavyweights are exactly the same because they're boxers. Would you put them in a ring together and expect a fair fight? Their histories, styles, speed, reach, and impact (when landing punches) would be so different that it would be decidedly lopsided.
What I think a lot of gay people are missing is that first and foremost, it was about being recognized as a full-fledged person. I can't recall gays ever being a fraction of an individual for voting purposes, sent to the back of the bus because a straight person wanted their seat, or needing the national guard to escort them to school. Marriage wasn't even part of the equation: people were dying just for the opportunity to vote unobstructed and to live in their homes without fear of being dragged out in the middle of the night to an uncertain fate. Religion aside (which did and continues to play a major role in this), older blacks who can remember not being able to use certain fountains or seeing people spit on for sitting at a counter might be offended that their struggles have been not only co-opted for emotional gravitas, but somewhat trivialized by distilling it in to something else.
In American society, being white isn't a bad thing because it usually doesn't bring the burden of living with
institutionalized and individual prejudices. For the overwhelmingly white gay community, this leaves their sexual orientation as their "master" identity (as opposed to a "slave/subordinate" identity like being a sibling or being part of a club). This is a really big blow if this is the majority of the oppression you've gone through. I say it that way because most of the drama doesn't seem to start until outing, as opposed to being born with a very obvious and observable difference. Unfortunately, falling back on a position of skin privilege to give strength to your outrage (like using the n-word, declaring a state of rampant homophobia in everything but your ethnic demographic, and swearing to never vote for another black candidate ever) at this measure failing isn't going to help your cause or change minds.
At this point, I have to admit at being more peeved about this blaming shit than normal. Up until recently, my bestest friend in the whole world (for half my life damn near) was a white lesbian and the only person on the planet I talked to every day; we were close enough that we referred to each other as sisters. Her biases began seeping out during the elections with a vengeance: first she was mad about Hillary, then it was zomg! All Palin, All the time. I began avoiding her when constructive discourse about politics became impossible, then got caught up in school work. When Palin first showed herself, I said I wanted to hear about her political accomplishments and what she wanted to do for the country, not how many kids she has; I was told "America" wanted to hear it and asked if my response ("I know I'm not America") was going to lead in to something "bitter." If I said McCain's avoiding eye-contact and not shaking Obama's hand was indicative of something deeper, I was "paranoid" and told "not everything is a racial conspiracy." The next week, she was foaming at the mouth about how Obama must've ordered his white mother away from the spotlight because he was ashamed of her.....nevermind the woman's been dead more than a decade....and damnit why isn't he talking about white women?!?!
When I had time to talk to her again two weeks later, she'd already made up her mind about things only being racism when you're white (because for 12 years I must've secretly been muttering "kill whitey" under my breath every time we interacted). The conversation continued, albeit in a one-sided manner, and when she couldn't win the Suffering Olympics with her trials and tribulations as a woman, she went for the gold with her sexual orientation. I was shocked that she tried to jump down my throat about not being able to get married. I find great irony in this because I was more excited about the court ruling in my home state than she was: she'd always said she'd never wanted to marry at all. She even called upon two black people she knew as proof that the entire black community agrees that gays "are the new niggers." I can only imagine what she says now.
All this considered, I don't think this would've dissuaded me from voting "no" on 8 if I were eligible to vote back home in good ol' Alameda County. I've seen how my irascibly Southern Baptist family treats a pair of my cousins, brother and sister, because of who they love. They still insist his molestation turned him gay and that someone must have converted his previously straight sister when she split with her husband. I don't put much faith in what the family says because they still insist that I am ruined (despite never having been in trouble for anything) because I was never raised in the church, but my cousins who were aren't (despite being in and out of jail, among other things).
The no on prop 8 people need to regroup, rethink their target audiences, and make it clear that being able to get married isn't going to infringe upon the rights of the religious with regard to being able to say no to officiating marriages.
---------------
@ Evan
The poll that's being cited is an exit poll. If we did another poll just like it, we'd have to compare the two to see if they're even representative of the population (z or t test). Even then, it would be a guess without having polled the ENTIRE population of people or a larger sample. With so few individuals (less than 300) counted, I would find it very hard to draw any kind of generalizations for upwards of three-quarters of a million people who actually voted.That's bad statistics.
Black voters are not the deciding factor. The Daily Kos breaks down the numbers pretty well: "In other words, Proposition 8 would have still passed by 81,565 votes, if Black voters had done no more than reflect the rest of the state's will on the matter." Even if blacks had voted like everyone else, it still wouldn't have passed. The fact of the matter is that the other groups that voted in the election (latino, asian, native, and white) had 9.3 times more than the maximum total number of black votes in CA. It's scape-goating.
To paraphrase an interesting comment I saw on LiveJournal, it must be easier to sit at a dinner table of bigoted middle to upper-class relatives who voted against your right to be married than it is to have dinner with straight people of different backgrounds in an attempt to reach out to them.
The most direct comparison that can be made about the issue of Gay marriage is not with the Civil Rights Movement but with the Supreme court case: Loving v. Virginia(1967) which struck down the ban on IR relationships.
The gay community could also cite in Court that Prop 8 violates the 14th amendment which states:
"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".
This movement for gay rights is going to take alot time and effort. Remember, people did not just wake up one day and decide segregation was wrong. Public opinion had to be swayed over a long period of time in favor of the Civil Rights cause.
digitalcoyote and kat, you both rock! I've posted much the same sentiments at other blogs, but you two summed up my response to this situation pretty succinctly. This is just another case of, when you need somebody to blame, blame it on the blacks! Business as usual. The sad thing is, although I will alwsys vote with my conscience, it sure makes me question my solidarity with a community that doesn't even recognize or appreciate its own members who look like me, let alone community allies who look like me.
"We are all members of the same species, so what exactly is the big deal if two men or women marry? Is it becuase they won't reproduce? Who cares? We have far too many people reproducing already and we could use some population control. If God supposedly made man for a only a woman, didn't God make a black man for a black woman and a white woman for a white man?"
Too much wrong with this argument. First of all equating race with sexuality is off the mark.
Those that argue against the gay lifestyle and use nature as their evidence, the same Nature would support them with the interracial argument because interracial couples can procreate while gay ones can't.
No one arguing for the gays has come up to clarify what the implications for the religious institutions are. This issue has been ignored. Will it be illegal for religious institutions to refuse to marry gay couples? Until that is answered there will be alot of resistance. One can't get their rights by stripping those of another which may be the case here.
I have found that most people supporting the gay cause are secular, atheist or agnostic. They refuse to take into consideration the religious beliefs of those opposed to it.
Some one over at Field's had a great suggestion. Let the courts perform all marriages gay and straight, and the churches perform ceremonial ones for those that wish to sanctify their already legal marriage. The churches decide without the state's interference who they marry and who they don't. And gays should accept that there are people that will never accept them just like black people accept that other races will never wholly accept them.
We can learn from what happened to the Episcopal church when they ordained a gay Bishop. The church broke up and the anti gay group is now being led by a Church in Africa and it has lost many members as a result.
Gays should concentrate on the legal battle and leave the religious institutions alone unless they intend to take them over and run them themselves.
"I was under the impression of the same thing, which is why I ask why if it does not affect you personally, would you be against it?"
There are people who voted neither because they were not sure of the implications. I would be in the same situation. I believe gay couples should have the same exact civil rights as straight couples. this is aAmerica and the constitution guarantees that.
My problem comes with trying to interfere with people's personal beliefs whether religious or otherwise. They should be able to respect the opinions of those that don't agree with that life style as long as those people are respectful and stop attacking people's religious beleifs because they don't agree with them.
At the moment, Christians and blacks are being demonized and this further escalates the situation.
*********************
"The next week, she was foaming at the mouth about how Obama must've ordered his white mother away from the spotlight because he was ashamed of her.....nevermind the woman's been dead more than a decade....and damnit why isn't he talking about white women?!?!"
DC,
LOL! Your post is spot on.
"The no on prop 8 people need to regroup, rethink their target audiences, and make it clear that being able to get married isn't going to infringe upon the rights of the religious with regard to being able to say no to officiating marriages."
Exactly. Gays are pissed off that there are those that won't accept their lifestyle because of religious beliefs. They need to accept that. And even if they get the right to marry(which they will eventually) Those same Christians will think of their lifestyle as deviant. It won't change their attitude. They need to present their case as that which won't infringe on another's rights as you mentioned.
I think that the reason why people voted against Prop 8 is because of the misinformation that was circulating. One of the lies going around was that it was said that homosexuality would be taught in the schools, which wasn't true. Playing on the fears and insecurities of people is no way to get a law passed. I think that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as straight people. No one should judge anyone for their lifestyle or who they choose to be with. I don't necessarily agree that the gay/lesbian struggle could be compared to the Black Civil Rights Movement, but it is a civil rights issue. But more than that, it is a personal issue between two people. I think that the government should stay out of it. I've had gay/lesbian friends who desperately wanted to marry but couldn't and wanted the same rights, but couldn't get them. I think that it's sad. Everyone should be equal, but they are not because of fear. Homophobia stems from fear and ignorance.
Too much wrong with this argument. First of all equating race with sexuality is off the mark.
How is it off the mark. I was born black I cannot change my race, much like being born straight, I cannot change my sexual orientation.
Many married couples have infertility problems, should they not be married because they cannot reproduce?
I have found that most people supporting the gay cause are secular, atheist or agnostic. They refuse to take into consideration the religious beliefs of those opposed to it.
It isn't about religion. I know many well rounded religious people who support gay rights. I know many gays who are religious and believe in God. It is not an atheist or agnostic phenomenon. Self proclaimed atheists and agnostics make up a very small portion of the population. Most people in America believe in a God or affiliate with a religion.
We can learn from what happened to the Episcopal church when they ordained a gay Bishop. The church broke up and the anti gay group is now being led by a Church in Africa and it has lost many members as a result.
You are suggesting gay marriage would be an end to religion or religious rights. I don't think so. I think that the Episcopal Church split, many churches do, and not always under the guise of gay rights.
classical one said...
Religion is to blame here. It just so happens there allot of religious black folks. If you are a Christian, as most Americans are and you believe in the Bible as word of God, you have to be against homosexuality, Just read Leviticus 18:22
**********************************
exactly, Religion has been the blame to most of the problems in human history. I was lucky in my early teen to escape from a cult known as the catholic church.
********************************
Winnowill said...
Grata, this is a misunderstanding of US law. What the equal marriage rights movement is arguing for is the right to civil marriage. Marriage is a civil institution in the US, which is why you can be married by a justice of the peace, a ship's captain, or a rodeo clown: as long as that person is legally eligible to perform marriages in that state and the couple has a valid marriage license, there is no religious requirement. If you view marriage as a sacrament and feel the need to have it performed in a religious setting, that is one thing. But there is no need to declare religious affiliation or to have a religious aspect to the ceremony at all, as all those Las Vegas midnight wedding chapels and drive through wedding ceremonies should attest.
****************************
Ok, let me touch off on something you said here that has been on my mind. Marriage is a social institution. It has been for sometime, even before most the these current religions that are practiced have existed. Marriage is a social not religious institution, which is very clear to see if you look at all the different societies throughout history that have developed the concept of marriage and have different religions and/or have never been in contact with one another. The concept and institution of marriage predates almost all modern religions, yet these religions have someone staked a claim in marriage. Created a monopoly on a social institution if you will. Look, if you haven't noticed, marriage is one of the most powerful social institutions in place, and it has always been. I could bring up literally hundreds of examples why, but I'm not writing someone a sociology thesis. Just look at how many presidents in this country were bachelors or how married people in a lot of places pay lower taxes. Now by religion laying claim to a social institution, Christianity in this situation, and excluding and discriminating a certain group of people is not only illegal in the sense of separation of church and state as has been stated here earlier, but it is also institutionalized discrimination, which still happens to a lot of black people today. Now I'm not saying anything about comparing peoples struggles, but all I know is pain is pain, and there is to much of it in the world.
**********************************
classical one said...
In reality, what's the real difference between a gay couple and an interracial couple? Plenty of churches would love to stop interracial marriage too. We are all members of the same species, so what exactly is the big deal if two men or women marry? Is it becuase they won't reproduce? Who cares? We have far too many people reproducing already and we could use some population control. If God supposedly made man for a only a woman, didn't God make a black man for a black woman and a white woman for a white man?
**********************************
Damn, do you have to beat me to all my points. This is why I called the catholic church a cult. It is lead by an old man whose educated in theology, was part of the Nazi army (he was drafted and his participation is said to have been unenthusiastic), and has no background on science, economics, or sociology (at least I hope so, or else there is something sick here). They follow doctrines that are two millenniums too old and for the most part, too irrelevant. First the stand against contraceptives are not only stupid but irresponsible. The current rate of population is just incredibly dangerous, we are already in a food shortage, and he promotes against population control. Lets not forget that lower fertility rates have been shown to correlate with a higher standard of living, as its easier to see that when you have less mouths to feed, the more each mouth that is fed receives (not rocket science). Yet there are millions of followers who take his word at face value, now tell me that's not scary. Christianity: what started as an Idea is now an Enterprise. They have their own country, and its funny how they have drawn the fine line between cult and religion. Honestly what is the difference. It's sad that if I bring this up, I won't nearly the same amount of people listening to my message as the person talking about a man who turns water to wine (which is not possible, well technically it could be if quantum theory is applied here, but highly unlikely).
I have found that most people supporting the gay cause are secular, atheist or agnostic. They refuse to take into consideration the religious beliefs of those opposed to it.
****************************
Religious believes have held back human society since the dawn of time. The Renaissance (the artistic but most importantly the scientific rebirth) was started mostly because the Catholic church was losing ground. Up until that time Europe had been in a dark age since the fall of the roman empire, which is about (give or take a hundred years) the time that the Christianity had become the major religion in Europe. Look religion always seems to be on the other side of progress, and therefore I refuse to take into consideration the opposing beliefs of people who don't have the best interests of progress for this world at heart. Look, maybe some people aren't strong enough to rely on something other then religion, sure that's cool, I respect that, but don't sit there and talk about me having to have consideration for other peoples believes when they trump the rights of other people and the progress of society which off the top of my head I think it goes against the ninth amendment.
70% is accurate. Also, anti jewish sentiment is highest among black Americans as well.
Blacks to blame?
I have lots of family in CA and they are all thinking it's the Mormon's fault. I am a Mormon who see legit points on both sides of this debate.
Just a few points.
blaming religion as a whole. even degrading religion profits nothing just as blaming or degrading homosexuals profits nothing.
Different people have different beliefs and lifestyles.
Most Christian religions in question, at least Mormonism, teach that homosexual acts are wrong just as sexual acts outside marriage are wrong. A person with same sex attractions is under the same charge as an un wed heterosexual; to keep thier passions in check and abstain. That is the homosexual "choice" in question here.
black skin is not a "choice" or an action.
Whether or not I agree with the legislation, the law, and who marries whom does affect both sides.
The state cannot force a church to perform a marriage but it can revoke tax exempt status as well as confiscate property. It has done both of theses things in the past. Philadelphia is in litigation to evict the Boy scouts from a downtown building they built and payed for almost 100 years ago.
Whatever a government/state does or does not legalize has a direct affect on culture. It can legitimize or marginalize.
I support gay rights and i always will but i can't let go of the racism after the vote. This was an eye opener for me.
Why is O'Reilly the anti-christ? Bill is fair compared to far left-wing, racist zealots like yourself.
Too much wrong with this argument. First of all equating race with sexuality is off the mark.
Why is that? You are born of a certain race and more than likely you are born of a certain sexual orientation. Both of these issues are outside of our control. I can't just decide to change my sexuality or my race.
"Why is that? You are born of a certain race and more than likely you are born of a certain sexual orientation. Both of these issues are outside of our control. I can't just decide to change my sexuality or my race".
There is no real concrete scientific evidence that people are born gay. There are numerous attempts out there but they are highly debated with in the scientific community. No one knows the answer to that. Anyone that claims to is simply lying. So equating race with sexuality is in IMO trivializing race and some may find it even offensive.
I personally acknowledge that I don't know.
But I do know that for some people its nurture and for some others its a choice. There are gay people that acknowledge that its a choice they made.
On the other hand you can't choose to be black, you either are or you aren't.
"How is it off the mark. I was born black I cannot change my race, much like being born straight, I cannot change my sexual orientation."
That depends on if you wholly believe that its nature. There is no scientific concensus on that and I doubt there ever will be. Its all just hearsay. Amond gays, like some famous female Basket baller (I forget her name) She said that she chose to be so. And she is not the only one. People should be free to sleep with who they choose but they should not try to force feed the idea down those that don't agree with it. And yes, they should marry too without trying to change people's religious beliefs. When people feel no need to hang onto their religious beliefs, they will change.
"Many married couples have infertility problems, should they not be married because they cannot reproduce?"
Clearly that was not my point. My response was in reponse to C1's argument of equating race and sexuality by using nature as an argument. Using the anology of black men were meant for black women by nature therefore men were meant for women gets challenged by the same nature that allows the former to procreate.
Now following your own argument about infertile couples, that then becomes a defect of nature. All things normal, men and women are supposed have the ability to procreate. The fact that they don't is clearly a fault in their nature in otherwords an abnomality. And the same argument can be further extended to sexuality. But its not PC to say that now, is it?
We know for sure people are born black, we don't know for sure that people are born gay. Some tell us they are while others tell us that they chose to be. So who is telling the truth. I am not ruling out nature but my feeling is those born that way are a tiny minority while others its a combination of nuture and environment.
If you have ever gone through a single sex school, (like I did), you will see how environment plays a key role. We had girls that became Lesbians and took on manly roles in school and had relationships while in their teens. All the girls I knew with this life style are now all married with children. How do you explain that? My conclusion was that in the absense of men, these girls adjusted themselves to fill the vacuum, the moment they left the single sex schools they met real men and settled back to their traditional gender roles.
I think there is a renowned reseacher out there who concluded that for the majority of gays it is a subconscious choice. (I will try to find his name).
Anyway, choice or not, its their life and they are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else but they should not attempt to infinge on the rights of others who choose to look at their life style as not acceptable to their values.
"You are suggesting gay marriage would be an end to religion or religious rights. I don't think so. I think that the Episcopal Church split, many churches do, and not always under the guise of gay rights".
The Episcopal's recent split was all about gay rights. Look it up. Yes, gay rights can and have in this case split a religious organization. Don't be tempted to down play the impact of gay rights on religion, its very real. And this is where real problems arise, one group wants its civil rights in a manner that may be damaging to others.
Getting the right to be legally married doesn't have to bring down long standing religious institutions in its wake. But those pro gay marriage don't seem to care for the religious rights of others.
That is why I am in favor of all marriages being done by the courts and leave the religious institutions to decide who they mary and who they don't.
***********************************
"Look religion always seems to be on the other side of progress, and therefore I refuse to take into consideration the opposing beliefs of people who don't have the best interests of progress for this world at heart. Look, maybe some people aren't strong enough to rely on something other then religion, sure that's cool, I respect that, but don't sit there and talk about me having to have consideration for other peoples believes when they trump the rights of other people and the progress of society which off the top of my head I think it goes against the ninth amendment."
You just proved my point. You feel that strongly about religion and the religious and conservatives feel the same way about gay marriage. Its a no win situation. I don't see how the gay efforts can't be as oppressive as the religious ones. Already we are seeing them scapegoating blacks for their loss. What next?
You make a good point about marriage beign a social institution. And it should be. Let the religious people dictate to their followers what type of marriage they should have. Once that clear separation is made, then people will unreservedly vote for gay marriage since they won't feel pressured in their own churches to marry gay people. But to me it appears that is not enough, gay marriage activists would like to see it outlawed for churches discouraging homosexuality. And this is where they cross the line. There will always be people who are anti homosexuality in all races and there is not much one can do about it.
It surprises me that people with secular views that believe in evolution don't understand it as a basic human survival instinct to oppose homosexuality. After all isn't life about self preservation and the abiltity to prolong procreation in order for the species to survive? Isn't that a basic biological need?
"The state cannot force a church to perform a marriage but it can revoke tax exempt status as well as confiscate property. It has done both of theses things in the past. Philadelphia is in litigation to evict the Boy scouts from a downtown building they built and payed for almost 100 years ago."
Exactly. And these are the implications that pro gay marriage people are reluctant to address. Instead they have made such a big deal and are guilting blacks but are not reading out loud the fine print which is clearly there.
Most people I know with conservative views agree to marriage. Afterall whether you agree with their lifestyle or not, they exist and are not going anywhere. People's biggest concerns are the effects on schools and churches. And no one is talkinng about that. Until they do I hope the resistance remains because now the rights on how to practise one's faith will be trumped upon.
There is no real concrete scientific evidence that people are born gay
Homosexuality occurs quite regulalry in nature, where animals will only mate with a member of the same sex, scientists do not consider it chance or some kind of "choice."
Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. However, people who say it is a choice have no proof of any kind on their side. Could I just choose to be gay? Could you choose to be attracted to women and date them?
It surprises me that people with secular views that believe in evolution don't understand it as a basic human survival instinct to oppose homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not spreading and only a few percent of the population of this country claim to be gay. Human populations on the other hand are exploding and endangering the very future of humans. So the problem is not enough reproduction to save humanity but far too much reproduction that is leading to environmentally destructive consequences.
Grata: "Gays are not filing into jails as a consequence of their sexuality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law ("Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world;")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
Brohammas: As for the question of tax exemption, if that were a real concern, then it would have come up already, someone looking to be a member, or a priest/rabbi/whatever would have sued. It hasn't and it won't because of the broad discretion churches have, which has enabled them to, for example, not hire any female priests/whatevers.
Tax exemption is not relevant to this discussion and it's not at issue. Neither is the boy scouts tax exempt status at risk, merely a sweetheart deal from eighty years ago.
The tactics of the GLBT community were wrong. Marraige being a civil rights issue, yes. Similar to Black Civil Rights, no.
The GLBT community should have stessed the wording in the Loving v. case a bit more.
You make a good point about marriage beign a social institution. And it should be. Let the religious people dictate to their followers what type of marriage they should have. Once that clear separation is made, then people will unreservedly vote for gay marriage since they won't feel pressured in their own churches to marry gay people. But to me it appears that is not enough, gay marriage activists would like to see it outlawed for churches discouraging homosexuality. And this is where they cross the line. There will always be people who are anti homosexuality in all races and there is not much one can do about it.
*********************************
It's not that Marriage should be a social institution, it's that IT IS a social institution, and has been for much of human history. The problem is not forcing churches to marry people, in this country you can married in a christian church, a mosque, a synagogue, or by a judge. It doesn't matter what your religion is, the fact of the matter is most gay people probably would rather get married by a judge (which would grant them the marriage just like it were a religious institution), but the problem is religious enterprises wield too much power, especially in this society, that there's no way in hell that would happen. Marriage and religion have nothing to do with one another. If you read the bible, you will see that marriage existed way before Christianity did, but some how the Christians and Catholic churches hold some kind of monopoly on what the definition of marriage is. And yes i do have a problem with conservatives, most of them are stupid. Change is inevitable, that is a fact of life. Change gives meaning to today, as will not last forever, and brings hope and meaning for tomorrow, as it brings new promises and threats. To resist change is just stupid, and yet that's what the definition of being a conservative is. The foolishness of fighting a losing war against something that is not physical, something that you can't kill. Kind of explains why conservatives launched a "War on Terror".
The fact that they don't is clearly a fault in their nature in otherwords an abnomality. And the same argument can be further extended to sexuality. But its not PC to say that now, is it?
I don't think infertile couples are an abomination. I don't think gays are either. I was using the example of the infertile couple because you were saying that the purpose of people is to procreate.
--------
I am not ruling out nature but my feeling is those born that way are a tiny minority while others its a combination of nuture and environment.
I don't think that there is any way for us to know 100%, but I am not thinking that people for the most part can be "turned" gay by their environment. If we were to go by environment and past experiences, I think more people would be gay.
If you have ever gone through a single sex school, (like I did), you will see how environment plays a key role. We had girls that became Lesbians and took on manly roles in school and had relationships while in their teens. All the girls I knew with this life style are now all married with children. How do you explain that? My conclusion was that in the absense of men, these girls adjusted themselves to fill the vacuum, the moment they left the single sex schools they met real men and settled back to their traditional gender roles.
Maybe those some girls who got married and had kids did so to suppress their sexual urges due to the taboo that homosexuality seems to be. I don't think going to an all girls school makes you prone to being gay. Maybe some were bisexual. It isn't unheard of for gay or lesbian people to feel their sexuality is a stigma and try to suppress or hide their orientation in this society. Maybe these girls were experimenting, which also isn't unheard of. What defines manly and feminine anyway.
------
The Episcopal's recent split was all about gay rights. Look it up. Yes, gay rights can and have in this case split a religious organization. Don't be tempted to down play the impact of gay rights on religion, its very real.
So that one example makes it concrete evidence are proof? My point being made was that churches throughout history have split for reasons other than homosexuality, and gay rights will not be the downfall of all religion or churches, or religious rights.
The Baptist church you have Primitive vs. Missionary vs. Southern Baptists. Pretty much all have the same doctrine, they just have a different views of different things, none of which are homosexuality.
------
It surprises me that people with secular views that believe in evolution don't understand it as a basic human survival instinct to oppose homosexuality. After all isn't life about self preservation and the abiltity to prolong procreation in order for the species to survive? Isn't that a basic biological need?
I don't believe homosexuality can be spread, so I don't think homosexuality is detrimental to the survival of the human race.
-------
People's biggest concerns are the effects on schools and churches
What is going to happen in the schools?
I'm the double whammy here. I'm bisexual and black. I didn't choose to be so. Who would want to choose to be discriminated against because of who they love? No sane person would? I don't get why the LGBT community thought black people were on the LGBT side. Generally black christians are conservative. That has never changed. Yea, I think it's stupid that black people can be homophobic, but what do you expect. You have kids runnig around saying "no homo" because they're talking to a friend of the same sex. Black kids just don't become homophobic. It starts at home and the media. Look at rap music, some of the most homophobic music you can listen too. I think religion has too much power over government. If the church can decide whether or not they preform a marriage , why are they so concerned about gay people. Using the Bible as a reason to oppose gay marriage isn't valid in my eyes. No one truly knows who made the Bible. Somebody could've made it up. The Catholic Church hasn't even regconized all the "bibles". They only claim like 44 versions. When there's like hundreds. Don't forget when you translate something it might not come out the same way in it's original language. To me , it's kind of stupid people are denied the rights of marriage because of a line in a book. If the Bible told us to kill every black person, would you kill your self? In slavery time the Masters used Christianity as a way to brainwash black people. The said the Bible held proof that slavery was ok. I'm tored of people blaiming their prejudices on a book. I'm sorry if I seem mean. I'm upset, of how unevolved wwe humans really are. I respect everyones beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to critize them.
My mom, who is a black lesbian, has talked to me a lot about the rampant racism within the gay community. It even inspired a paper of mine as a senior in college. She can't stand how white gays equate the struggle for gay rights with the Civil Rights movement. She always says she cn hide her gayness, but she can never hide her blackness.
She has gotten into quite a few disagreements with white lesbians over issues surrounding gay rights and has said if it weren't for black folks marching, dying, and protesting in ways/numbers still not seen in this country, then there would be no gay rights movement.
Oh, and blacks are not the majority n CA, so they need to stop tripping and blaming them for Prop 8.
This whole matter was one of a few primary impetuses for the development of terryhowcott.com - and particularly it's beloved community and exceptional selves galleries.
White supremacy in White "lgbt" communities - and in fact in White "progressive" communities has literally clicked progress down the road almost as if deliberately.
Their only aim has been to achieve rights that would benefit them - and continue to get funding based upon uplifting Black people - a scam to be sure.
The real question is will Black 'lgbt' folk move beyond what Cleo Manago has called "philosophical parenting" by White gays and "come home" to do the cultural work of changing Black hearts and minds.
And then finally, will their skin folk - who are also their kin folk, finally once and for all let them in.
Peace.
T.H.
I'm a little late getting back to read the rest of the comments, which were all good, but I want to add (and I'm piggybacking on a comment):
I think that the gay community has to understand that it is not enough to try jump onboard the civil rights' train. In other words, it's not like they can say, "ok, civil rights brought us all the way to this point and we just need to carry the flag a little further to get to our end goal." Instead the gay community needs to use the civil rights' movement as a model. Understand why they did what they did and do that. Use the tools you have now that they didn't have before and make people understand.
There is nothing about me being black that means I'm supposed to support the gay community. However, having close friends who are gay changes that. Inherently, I owe gay people nothing and I get offended when they think and suggest that I do owe them something for any other reason than that I, as a human being, understand their plight and want better things for them. I understand such because I see it in action NOT because I'm black.
A. Smith! Beautifully written!!
I was over on Stereohyped and someone made a comment about how black people should "know better" and that they should be punished for their "hypocrisy" and it was turning my stomach!
But Thank you, that response makes me very very happy.
Post a Comment