2008 No Wedding Cake For You
posted by on November 9 at 16:44 PM
One argument advanced in the wake of the passage of Prop 8 is that gays and lesbians are ultimately responsible because we failed to do the kind outreach to the African American community that might have convinced more African Americans to vote against Prop 8. But if being invited to—and attending—a gay couple’s wedding couldn’t sway this voter, it’s hard to imagine what kind of outreach might have convinced her.
Cheryl Weston once attended a wedding ceremony for gay friends, but on Election Day, she voted for a constitutional amendment to declare marriage in California as between only a man and a woman.“It was called a holy union, but I don’t know how holy it was,” said Weston, a Sacramento barber.
Depressing—but there’s hope.
The Greater Sacramento Urban League took a stand against Proposition 8, which was the decision of its president, James Shelby, 66.“I’m a Christian man,” he said. “But I’m also president of the Urban League, and the Urban League has always been a civil rights group. That’s what this organization was founded on.” He said it wouldn’t be a sign of leadership to go out and “wave a flag and see how it blows” to take the pulse of the black community and then match that. “The law says that they have the right,” he said. “I think that the courts are ultimately going to be the ones to prevail on this.”
Sacramento NAACP President Betty Williams said her chapter was so divided it chose not to take a position on Proposition 8, although the California NAACP opposed it.
“We were split right down the middle,” Williams said, with younger people tending to oppose rather than favor it.
Whew.
For a second there, after you said outreach was pointless, I thought you were going to suggest gassing them. Because before you go there, call somebody, OK?
Anyway, you know Hillary & Co, and all the pundits, said Obama could never win over redneck Pennsylvania with their big city outreach and community organizing an all that shit. But Obama's campaign didn't give up that easily. *hint*
It's pretty sad when a civil rights group like the NAACP won't stand up for civil rights. Especially in Sacramento, which I understand has a pretty significant GLBT population.
I thought you were going to suggest gassing them. Because before you go there,
Oh stop with the histrioncs already. The irony is that both Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan have suggested gassive people wasn't that bad. I'm under the impression neither are white gay men. I'm so sick so people like you trying to make the most minor criticism look like Nazi propoganda when you have plenty of AA's who do have Nazi attitudes towards gays, women, etc... and get a free pass.
Try to get your point accross without having to resort to pathetic character assasination. You remind me of people who claimed Obama was a terrorist, or assosicated with terrorism, or that Michelle calls white people "whitey". There is an underlying motive which has nothing to do with getting to the truth. How can we have a dialogue about race when the most minor criticism of black people will get you called the KKK or a Nazi???
Compare this:
With this quote from Mr. Schmader's soon-to-be-former-in-law, a devout Mo(m)on, writing on her blog:
It seems like the confusion between marriage the legal contract and marriage the religious ceremony is the huge sticking point here in much of the religious community. Maybe many of these people would be more open to the idea if this semantic confusion could be reconciled.
No, gays and lesbians are responsible because, up until now, their slogan has been 'Consume your way to a better tomorrow!' My bet is that those younger voters were swayed by the fact that Perez Hilton outed Doogie Howser, MD. I know that got my endorsement.
@3: It's not homophobia when you're protecting a sacred institution ordained by God.
The ultimate irony, Flaming, is this: To keep us from having big church weddings, they work like hell to deny us civil marriage. But we can have all the big church weddings we want right now—lots of churches allow gays and lesbians to marry.
So... to keep us from having what we've already got, they work to deny us what they say they're willing to grant us.
It makes my head explode when I think about it.
To put our religious objections in perspective in Spain, a predominantly Catholic country abortion is barely legal and highly restricted and gay marriage has been legal since 2005.
Dan pined for a lean, lanky whore,
Should he be in his teens--even more!
But when asked what his plan
Was to deal with Sudan,
He replied with a groan, "What a bore!"
@7: I'm just trying to imagine what would happen if the State had other examples of official legal designations for religious ceremonies: The Baptism license. The Bar Mitzvah certificate. And then I imagine how the religious institutions that gave rise to those ceremonies would react to attempts to change the legal definitions of their civil components. Probably we would see similar turf-wars as the Church struggled to maintain its sphere of influence.
It makes my head hurt too, not just for the rank injustice and short-sightedness of denying legal rights to gays, but for the way it illustrates that the separation of Church and State, two hundred years after the inception of the Republic, is still the cause of so much contentiousness.
@5-You say "gays and lesbians are responsible because, up until now, their slogan has been 'Consume your way to a better tomorrow!'"
WOW. I noticed that bling is pretty sought after in the AA community. I read somewhere that AA's spend more % of their income on clothes that any other group. Wow, I guess we should just roll back their civil rights until they all become ascetics.
Same for hispanics, jews, asians, caucasians, arabs, women. Lets punish everyone by denying them their civil rights until they stop with this bling shit.
The younger people should not be a cause for complacency. Immigrants and those seeking asylum are also going to be very, very conservative, and they have bigger families and are statistically younger. Hence my limerick about Sudan. Do you think that people fleeing that region to Europe and here are liberals? You must also consider the fact that the Boomer conservatives were not only liberal, but radically so when they were young. If the economy goes down the shitter, then we're fucked. Not only are gays predominantly employed in the service industry--one of the most disposable sectors in times of economic downturn--but the 'rights' you consider to be safe are at the mercy of the returns of the corporations who grant them, based on the gay dollar and the expense of insurance, etc. Look at how many times Microsoft changed positions on gay rights, only to come down on our side--for now--after it viewed the bottom line on profits and did a cost-benefit analysis. What clout will we hold if half of us are too poor to buy 'nice' things?
For some perspective, look at how Europe's gays are being courted by the far-right vis-a-vis Turkish immigrants. They are using the same rhetoric about bigotry that you are here giving credence to. If the American gays start down that road, I hesitate to say whether or not I will continue to support the cause.
Sam--
I wholeheartedly agree! The recording industry co-opted black identity decades ago. I would love to see less bling and more single family dwellings for blacks. It would significantly impact homophobia in the long run as well. Or were you merely pulling that out of your ass?
Thank you #1. A friend of mine spent a week canvassing for Obama in the rural areas that surround Charlottesville Virginia, not Obama territory. He registered about 80 voters for Obama. Obama won the county and the progressive democratic party candidate unseated a hateful anti gay bigot by a hair.
News flash. Civil rights is a political struggle as well as a legal one. Hopefully the California Supreme Court will provide the legal rememdy, but in the meanwhile we should have waged a better political struggle.
and # 3 its not criticism of black people that will get you compared to the KKK and the National Socialists. Its racist criticism of black people -- like alleging that plenty of blacks have Nazi attitudes towards gays and women -- that usually invokes that comparison. At least that's my rule.
@ flamingbanjo - What was never explained and what most people don't understand is that when a religious figure presides at a marriage s/he is acting under a license from the state to do so; that is, the state permits religious figures to combine their civil and religious actions into one ceremonial. If this country could truly separate itself from the undue influence of religion in public life, the two ceremonies would be completely separate, as they are in France, a determinedly secular country: the actual marriage is a civil ceremony at City Hall, the "santification" of the marriage (the blessing of the holy matrimony) is a religious ceremony that has no effect on secular status whatsoever. A religious ceremony without the license and City Hall ceremony does not mean that a couple are married, in other words, while a civil ceremony without a religious re-affirmation is complete in legal terms. I wouldn't advocate for the kind of social upheaval that separated church and state so forcefully in France, but it sure would be nice if Americans who profess to understand and approve the Constitution's separation of church and state would actually support it in practice and make civil rights available in equal measure to all of us.
I live in a black community. I went door to door, only once did someone come with me. I could not get any of my gay or straight (white, black, asian) friends to come with me. One person going door to door agaisnt prop 8. Pretty fucking sad.
@14 You say "its not criticism of black people that will get you compared to the KKK and the National Socialists. Its racist criticism of black people -- like alleging that plenty of blacks have Nazi attitudes towards gays and woman"
So if it's racist to point out that some black people have Nazi like attitudes towards gays and women....... what is it when a black person suggests that someone who isn't black has a Nazi like-atttudes towards gays, woman, or people of color? Haven't some black people on slog assused Dan of that? I think so!
Sam,
Outside of sexual matters, Dan is a moron. I believe that that was MY general point. By stupidly posting a 'racy' (kindly excuse the expression) couple of posts regarding an EXIT POLL of all things, he turned his normally reasonable readership into a hornet's nest of Ecce Homos. Normally, this strikes me as entertaining, because everyone knows Dan's a moron. But now, he has touched a nerve on a topic that everyone, including me, hoped would be skirted with the failure of Proposition 8.
There are a thousand questions I would like to ask Dan. For example what he thought of the dynamic between gays and blacks and how it figured into those Wisconsin cops releasing Jeffrey Dahmer--something which directly contributed to a death of a friend of his at the hands of Dahmer, if I recall correctly. All the same, I know that I criticized him in a pointed fashion, and therefore should expect no response. De rigeur, as the French say.
There are all sorts of reasons to approach topics like this with caution, and many more not to approach it at all. Every word is loaded in this discussion, and it is equally possible for my posts to be interpreted as anti-gay marriage as it is for Dan's posts--especially the first one--to be construed as racist. Giving him the benefit of the doubt is easier for me, as I know him to be a fucking moron. But his sex advice is excellent, and his stupidity, when harmless, is often entertaining as well.
I will go further and say that even if he were racist, and he and Terry were the only gay couple on Earth, I STILL wouldn't vote to strip him of his rights, due to the fact that it would be morally wrong to do so. I am not your enemy, but I ask you to address this problem with an eye towards solutions and a willingness to forgo easy revenge and accusations--with the exception being for, of course, stupidity. Thanks for listening.
#13
So blacks are taking their economic frustrations out on gays?
@1
Labor unions--part of the 'progressive' coalition--picked up the slack in those counties in PA. Part of the 'progressive' coalition let gays down in CA. Get it now?
@18
I ask myself, if the situation was reverse, 70% of gays voting again the civil rights of blacks, what would the reaction be. They would not be silent, they would not walk to eggshells to avoid offending. What I have seen for a long time is that there is an elephant in the room- which is that no one can address their anger at black bigotry the same way black civil rights and religious leaders openly do, without a shit storm of anger. Gays can criticize Mormons, religious right, homophobic white redneck in pretty blunt ways but to state even a fact, such as homophobia amoung AA's, releases an enormous amount of accusations of racism. Yet I hear AA's talking about gay racism, and whether gays agree with it or not, I don't see them demonize the accuser as homophobic simply for stating that it exists and should be openly addressed.
You say "There are all sorts of reasons to approach topics like this with caution, and many more not to approach it at all. "
What a cop out. We could say that with anything! Silence anyone. To say it should not be approached would be the same as telling a black person they should not bring up white racism, that the the war on terrorism should not be questions. No it should be approaced. And why should gays be told be AA's how they are allowed to approach it? Should women appraoch the topic of sexism in the way that men tell them is acceptable?
@21 sam you haven't been paying attention have you? The issue is that Dan took Blacks to task while ignoring other groups that voted for 8 out of an expectation that Blacks should be more sympathetic to civil rights issues. This is problematic because it glosses over the issue that Blacks see Gay marriage as a religious issue - not a civil rights issue.
It is fine to point out that there is homophobia in the Black community - it's true. However, when you do so by pointing solely to skin color you run the risk of being called racist. We can and should talk about homophobia but we should talk about it in terms of the causes and cures - not in terms of skin color.
Sam,
Your argument is bullshit. I'll give you a few examples: early in the gay rights movement, they said that there was virtually no evidence of domestic abuse in gay relationships, the reason being that a man could defend himself against a man fairly well. That was an out-and-out lie on the face of it. But all the same, it was not addressed until gays had enough political clout so that the religious right could not use it as a tool against them. Dan himself talks about being beaten on by one of his exes.
Here's another one, a little more relevant: The so-called 'inter-generational' relationships and that wonderful parsing "ephebophilia". Dan had sex at what, 12 years-old? Since kids might desire sex at that age, then that means it's okay, right? After all, they are intrinsically capable of discerning when an adult is a total psychopath, right? Most telling of all is what Dan said he'd do to someone who seduced HIS son: "I'd kill him."
Those are just two examples of things best dealt with but not discussed in view of the destruction which could be wrought by the religious right with such talking points. A cop-out? Hardly. Because were gays reduced to their status as it was in, say, 1970, then guess what? Sexual abuse and exploitation of minors would skyrocket, along with participation in physically abusive relationships. It's not only a waste of our precious little political capital; it's counterproductive.
But you want to have the discussion of your personal opinion of blacks? Their sense of civic virtue? Their intelligence? Their manners? Their criminality? Fine. Here it is: where each and every right in this country was earned gradually--marriage, guns, home ownership and the stewardship of mortgages--it developed a corresponding culture to go along with it.
Let's discuss gun violence. Guns have a whole set of rules, for example, that are not written down in an instruction manual when you buy or steal them. That set of rules, "gun culture", is what constitutes RESPECT for the weapon and, above all, RESPONSIBLE usage. Without that culture, people treat guns like they are toys, or worse--that they are weapons whose purpose is to assert authority rather than to defend oneself. The end result? Gangsters.
The key thing lacking in the black 'community' is the DISCIPLINE that culture provides. Identity politics, rather than helping, has exacerbated the difficulties involved by appropriating the gains made by individual merit to the entire group. The strong, the intelligent, people with a work ethic, the moral, the kind hearted people--all fall beneath the grind of constantly being leveled off to be "equal" with every other black person, to the detriment of all.
Do you know what is the single, most effective tool of this tendency? The word n*gger. Conformity is ruthlessly enforced by means of it, as surely as it was in the Old South. It allows the lowest common denominator to address an upstanding citizen as his "brother". What type benefits most from this radical equality? Gangsters, rapists, wife-beaters, blowhard fundamentalist demagogues, murderers, child molesters and, most of all, officials of the Democratic Party.
What is the only conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion, which your stupid, self-righteous desire for 'justice', based entirely off of your petulance about losing Prop 8, forced me to have? That blacks, in order to preserve their culture, should move sharply to the RIGHT: oppose abortion, interracial marriage, gay marriage, out-of-wedlock sex; institute controls on every form of expression, not just rap, but also pornography, music videos, art and political speech; destroy the labor unions and sharply restrict immigration so that the market might be opened up to cheap black labor--are you getting me?
The scary thing is that, until Obama was cynically nominated by the Democratic machine, that is exactly the direction towards which the black vote was trending.
Say Hillary had won the primaries. Then McCain would have nominated Colin Powell, and the black vote would have gone to the GOP enough so that they would have won the election. You still would have lost on Prop 8, but with the added joy of having that in conjunction with a permanent conservative majority on the Supreme Court, most of them under the age of sixty.
What you should take from your cursory glance at blacks is the incredible damage wrought by engaging in identity politics. What you see in the black neighborhoods could soon be the reality of gays as well. Crystal meth and its attendant gangs; eating disorders; suicide; sexual exploitation; venereal disease--this is just the beginning. You'd better hope that there are enough people like me willing to act as liaison with people for whom you have no respect, with whom you have no desire to associate, about whom you have no inclination to learn, but whose votes you all-too-readily take for granted. I have a feeling that 48% was not just a gain in approval of gays, but its possible zenith.
@23 you ask "But you want to have the discussion of your personal opinion of blacks?"
WTF? Again you are throwing in a lot of your emotional baggage. I don't have a personal opinion of blacks any more than any other large group of diverse people. I do have an opinion of the double standards when it comes to talking about bigotry. I'm sure I have addressed this before I am not addressing it again. You are simply lumping in huge things to justify what I disagree with- The idea that Dan bring up this subject was 1) racist 2) unproductive 3) harmful 4) something that should be tiptoed around or avoided.
18 and 22 What clarity! Of course we should talk about homophobia in the black community... and in every other community. And we should talk about it in the broadest most informed context possible. If you can set aside disappointment and revulsion, its particular origins and relation to black family dysfunction are actually fascinating (if depressing). But that is Savage's failing. He's ultimately more akin to Ann Coulter than he thinks. He didn't get something he wanted (that we all wanted) badly and he had a very unproductive and mean spirited tantrum.
1 is not true; 2,3 and 4 are the same issue, looked at from different angles. Here is the discussion, pared down to the basic statements, I wished to avoid.
A. Who has done more for blacks: gays or the black church?
B. Who has only recently joined the civil rights movement, and promises to leave it just as quickly upon achieving their demands: gays or the black church?
C. Therefore, who represents the wiser choice of as an ally: gays or the black church?
THAT is the discussion I wish to 'tiptoe around'. MY mind is already made up in your favor; but then, I am mixed and not a Christian. There are threats of unilateral boycotts against black businesses, regardless of the way the individual voters who own them decided; there have been repeated uses of racial slurs; earlier, there had been a link to whether or not to put blacks established civil rights up for a referendum.
This has gone far beyond the realm of simple prejudice, and into threats of mutual retaliation. This is where people stop caring if others get hurt and vote purely on considerations of self-interest that are built off of irrational reactions to subtle connotations, historical perspectives, and growing, inchoate anger just looking for a place to dissipate itself.
Let me tell you something: as far as human nature goes, double standards are not hypocrisy, but CONSISTENCY. History bears that out. You aren't addressing someone who has used racial slurs or bigotry; you are attacking me as a representative of a group that you PRESUME uses them more than anyone else in the same economic bracket. I criticized Dan personally; and, if I lived there, I would do it to his face.
Your claim of a double-standard obliged me to respond as you made it clear that you felt it absolved gays of any responsibility for the passage of Proposition 8. Fine. See if threatening blacks will get them to your side.
My attempt to explain the long term development of the problems in the black church and elsewhere has been met with an accusation of baggage. I have no baggage in this; I feel obliged by an ethical impulse to defend those who are unfairly attacked on BOTH sides--as my posts clearly show.
But hey--I really have nothing invested in gay marriage passing. I have no desire to get married. I do quite well romantically, and when I encounter racism, I avoid those places where I do. As far as black people and oppression, I have no part in it. I am educated and have a job. If the situation gets rough here, I can transfer overseas. I have worked hard and saved. What are civil rights to me? If this is what voting entails, and I could eat and sleep and drink and fuck to my heart's content REGARDLESS of whether I can vote or marry. LET Dan's kid be taken away. I'm sure they have a nice re-education program for him and his husband, I mean lover, I mean fellow sinner. He's a celebrity! He'll be the first to go! I am nondescript; I can hide. One day I'll have wrinkles and thinning hair and then what good is life anymore, anyway? What do all these struggles mean TO ME? Why should I even vote? Maybe I'll just send a check.
Sound selfish? Half of San Francisco agrees with me. But focus on the blacks.
@26 See if threatening blacks will get them to your side.
Dan pointed out that 70% of black people voted for prop 8 and you see if as a threat?
When black people give data in relation to racist white attitudes I don't accuse them of threatening me. Apparently you see threats all over. Any time someone rocks your boat you claim you are threatened. I can't help but believe this tendency has probably caused you to lose out far more than racism has.
Actually a larger poll listed blacks as voting for at 47 percent and against at 40 percent. Latinos voted 50 percent in favor and 39 percent against. Yet the racial slurs were directed against blacks. By threats, I am referring to boycotts on black businesses, referendums on established civil rights and also the aforementioned racial slurs. Odd how this was based on an exit poll of 244 blacks, without confirmation. But then again, gays prefer not to associate with blacks at all. It is easy to not only react to bad data immediately, but also to dismiss it when it is proven to be incorrect. Dan's propagation of this data, over FIVE posts, in spite of constant calls to show restraint until more data came out is what resulted in this. I am grateful, however, for the refreshing honesty shown by white gays in their statement about blacks. I'm sure that apologizing would result in a loss of face.
Here's the link:
"1,200 voters from 50 precincts in Los Angeles in Tuesday's election, estimating that 50 percent of Latinos voted for Proposition 8 and 39 opposed it, while 47 percent of African-Americans voted for it and 40 percent against it."
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908