Randi Rhodes talked about it quite a bit last week also.

Hear hear. The message of equality could have really resonated in communities of color, if it had been framed and directed effectively. This wasn't ONLY a result of bigotry - we the opponents have to shoulder some of the responsibility.

Yes, people who are heavier church-goers, have lower education levels, lower income levels, etc tend to be more likely to not support gay marriage. We know that already from the white community. You didn't see Hillary talking about gay rights in her Scranton speeches.

I would like to see statistics of black support for Prop 8 along education levels and generation to see if it is out of whack with white support/nonsupport.

She said "communities of color demonstrated an awfully bigoted vote" She didn't single out blacks as Savage would have us believe in his quote. Savage has a problem with black people specifically. Its abundantly obvious at this point.

Here's Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls.

Here's Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls.

Also agreed about not doing enough work/not the right type of work/outreach. The message is too often geared just to a touchy-feely sense of "fair play" not making points that would resonate with people of color.

For instance, I think every one of my african-american friends (I'm white) didn't discover Nelson Mandela supports gay equality, or that South Africa has gay marriage until I told them. The gay community need to do a much better job gearing their message to the black community and demonstrating civil rights is civil rights.

She did say that, HDS. And I quoted her accurately in the headline. But she said it while discussing the African American vote in particular.

@4 - It's pretty apparent, in context, that when she referred to "Communities of color" she meant "The African-American Community". She was speaking euphemistically.

I'm not in California, but I agree that the No on 8 made a huge mistake if the lack of outreach that this professor describes is accurate. She outlined perhaps the most compelling arguments in favor of marriage equality that I've ever heard.

Perhaps the campaign thought it would be sufficient just to point out how glaringly unfair a ban on gay marriage is? That might be enough to fire up those already sympathetic to the cause, but clearly wasn't enough to change anyone's mind.

Oh boy, here goes whitey lecturing the mud races again...

um @7 i don't mean to be all finicky or anything but is it really the gay community's job to make sure the african american community uses basic logic? the campaign may have been poorly run due to out reach short comings but the blame still falls on those who voted to pass prop 8, no matter what their color, class, or education level.

but the fact remains, african americans alone couldn't have voted 8 down without hold them to a higher standard than any other demographic. are middle aged gay men oblivious to math?

If a general civil rights law hadn't passed would we be lecturing the black community about how they should spend more time making friends with white bigots, explaining why they shouldn't be racist?

It is true that blacks voted for Prop. 8, but that isn't why it won. There are not enough blacks in California to have made the difference. (Only 6.2%, before subtracting disenfranchised felons, children and other non-voters) Instead of worrying about that outreach, why not address the really BIG demographic group that voted for it - Old people. That is the culpable demographic.

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235

@3
Actually it was the poor and rich who voted No on 8. The middle class ($30K-150K) was against marriage equality according to the CNN exit poll.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

How many people of color have you got on staff at The Stranger? How many black folks you got writing editorial? What about gays?

Serious question.

Beyond homophobia, the state of marriage in black America may be a factor. If blacks feel that marriage is a failed institution in their own community, they may see an effort to make it available to an even more ostracized minority (who were obviously eager to take it) as an insult. It's basic jealousy . An oppressed minority will often push another oppressed minority off the ladder if both of them are trying to climb up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html

Barring a court overturning Prop 8, they need to get a repeal on the ballot next year or in 2010. Blacks traditionally don't vote in large numbers in California, and next year being an off-year, a repeal might have a chance if the gays and progressives get out the vote. San Francisco and the gay community have to do better though - a 53% turnout in SF in an election this important is just fucking pathetic.

1% of the white population that voted for Prop 8 constitutes about 62,000. If 4% more of white voters had voted "no", it would have failed. Conversely, the black community would have had to shift by 35%.

The margin would have shrunk if voter turnout in traditional gay areas like SF and West Hollywood had been higher.

Please delete post number 10.

@11, It shouldn't be anyone's job to educate other individuals, because we should all be educating ourselves, especially before heading to the polls. But at the same time, if you see people who are uninformed and don't attempt to remedy that, then you have no business being surprised and dismayed when those same people fail to support your cause.

We all get the stats that if every black person voted against Prop 8 it still could have lost. Thats not the point. The point is that they failed to see the link between their struggle and any other minority groups struggle.

And now we have to listen to the argument that the Non on 8 folks didn't explain enough to black communities that there is a parallel. Please, if they can't draw the line themselves then no amount of hand holding would have made the difference.

And aside from all that, you can't make people hold your freaking hand when they think your a sick degenerate.

20, the black 'yes' voters weren't "uninformed", the bigots have been courting them since at least the Anglican schism. Since the gays didn't counter-assault, thinking they had it in the bag, the religious right knew that they only needed an expensive, last-minute blitz to pick up their vote.

BTW, the "seperate but equal" argument will never work on people who do not believe you are, in fact, equal and cannot be taught to believe otherwise. The best strategy is to concentrate on separating the concept of legal marriage from the religious concept of marriage.

My husband shared an interesting story from a day campaigning for "No on 8" in Oakland. He said there was one house that was occupied by a white, gay male couple. All the people he spoke to who lived near their house said they would vote No on 8.

That seems to reinforce the idea that when straight people get to know gay people, they tend to drop their prejudices. It just takes time.

I didn't give much time to No on 8 because I travel constantly, but I did give money. My husband practically worked a second job campaigning for No on 8 and Obama.

I stand corrected.

I am still sick to my back teeth of the racist hysteria this has unleashed among some segments of the white gay community. On the other hand I am truly grateful for it (and that is meant without irony) because it confirms what we've suspected all along.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the reason the no on 8 campaign didn't reach ethnic communities was a combination of its smugness and the fact that white gay people don't show a lot of interest in us until they want to flog the comparison with civil rights.

No one wants to hear this, but the comparison between the gay rights struggle and civil rights struggle (and I'm a gay black man) is facile. If you want to compare gay rights to civil rights then you need to consider the time it took for blacks to receive equal treatment as well.

For a lot of gay black people there are other fish to fry, and marriage is not on the menu quite yet. I'm not noting this approvingly.

That 10% number for black participation in the election can't be right if you consider the size of the black population in California, the number of black people ineligible to vote because of felony convictions or being currently in county jail or prison, and voter turn out. You'd have to have 90% voter turn out among black people to get to that figure. There just aren't that many of us here and the numbers are declining absolutely and as a proportion of the total. I guess we're all moving to Seattle, no doubt where we will work diligently to repeal civil unions and other protections based on sexual orientation.

And by the way #13 we did spend a lot of time with white bigots explaining why they shouldn't be bigots. There are a few documentaries on the subject, as well as book here or there. You should take a look at one of them, you fool.

@14: I've never said, not once, that Prop 8 passed because of the black vote. So your point is... off-point. I've noted, as others have, the irony of African American support for Prop 8—and noting it made people lose their freaking minds, which reveals more about them than it does about me.

Just read this at DailyKos in a post about eliminating the right to divorce in California:

This may all sound ridiculous now, but fundamental rights in California can be eliminated with only a simple majority vote. I am confident that we can achieve this majority. While many demographic groups were evenly split in the recent election, one group in particular may now be predisposed to eliminating rights. More than two thirds of black voters voted Yes on 8. Clearly, this is a group who agrees that the majority should be allowed to vote on the minority’s rights. Furthermore, this group also agrees that it is possible to be separate but equal. We welcome them to our coalition, and we also look forward to voting on their constitutional rights.

Let 'em have it, ranters.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/9/12930/9102/113/657880

Dan,

Given the history of scapegoating in this country, are you really that surprised by some of the reactions? I think people of color, GLBT, women, jews, have all been used as scapegoats at one point or another all along the history of this country. When you talk about black support of Prop 8, my bleeding liberal black/gay heart immediately thinks; "Hey, what about white people? Asians? Hispanics?"

Maybe it's knee jerk on my part, I admit. But, I also don't think we are going down a productive road if the response from white gays is going to be how blacks ruined their lives. Which, BTW, I do not believe you're saying.

Obama failed us. Obama supposedly opposed the 4 anti-gay state constitutional amendments on the ballot this month. Yet every time he was asked, the most forceful part of his response was "I believe that marriage is between a man an a woman" and "I support civil unions [for gay trash]." Additionally, he did NOT inform his canvassers that he opposed the amendments. The result was that people got to the polls thinking that Obama supported the amendment.

As for the blame the blacks thing, let's get a grip people. Even if every black voter had stayed at home, prop 8 would have passed because white and latino voters voted for it >50%. Every race/ethnicity in this country has a homophobia problem. So while blacks may (i'm not convinced from one poorly-conducted exit poll) have voted for prop 8 at higher rates than other demographic groups, let's all attend to the AMPLE bigotry within our own, shall we?

"The result was that people got to the polls thinking that Obama supported the amendment."

Are you basing this on hard facts, or just assuming?

HDS - Actually, you won most of your major rights through the courts or via executive decision. If the rights of black folks had been voted on in the south you would have lost each major battle. Maybe you're the one who needs to read up on history.

Given the reality of the civil rights movement and the methods by which the biggest strides were made, true irony would only be evident if President Obama were to come out supporting DOMA and DADT.

I suppose he does, though?

I would get on board with the scapegoating (and change my tune) if he thinks DOMA should stand.

"More than two thirds of black voters voted Yes on 8. Clearly, this is a group who agrees that the majority should be allowed to vote on the minority’s rights. Furthermore, this group also agrees that it is possible to be separate but equal. We welcome them to our coalition, and we also look forward to voting on their constitutional rights."

Ah, thinly-veiled threats. So my rights are contingent upon the whim of those who conduct exit polls? Retaliatory democracy is such an excellent idea! I fear, however, that should blacks lose the right to vote that an 'exit poll' (conducted, of course, with the most objective standards that Mormon money can buy) will somehow show that there was an overwhelming amount of support from gays and lesbians; my fellow blacks might then be forced to consider what Trotsky termed 'direct action'. If this is the current state of race relations, then I'm glad I don't live in California.

Bless your hear # 29. That's all us angry black people are trying to say. None of the leading candidates in either party were speaking forcefully on behalf of a no vote on prop 8 or in support of gay marriage. Someone takes a half assed exit poll and all of a sudden blacks--not Asians, not Latinos, not women--but blacks ("ironically" of course)are the boogymen. Imagine that!

minosfur I don't know what you consider a "major" right but the voting rights act of 65 was legislation not an executive order and was passed specifically to avoid case by case litigation. and the civil rights act of 64 (another piece of legislation)was enacted to end segregation in schools, public accomodations etc. if you don't realize that this legislation as well as court ordered busing etc. grew out of the a civil rights movement that relied heavily on moral shaming of white bigotry then you're too obtuse to be bothered with.

Okay...can someone promise me that after the conversation on Black Homophobia ebbs, we can start a conversation on the full implications of the quote "no fems, fats, blacks or asians" or "white or latino only" on perhaps every gay site featuring a personals system?

I am still sick to my back teeth of the racist hysteria this has unleashed among some segments of the white gay community. On the other hand I am truly grateful for it (and that is meant without irony) because it confirms what we've suspected all along.

You are grateful to it because it confirms what you've supected all along? That eventually gays were going to get a backbone and address the elephant in the room? You call it racist hysteria yet I fail to see white gay men blasting music about killing all them black folk who voted for prop 8. People point out that a few black men have been called the N-word by gays. Guess what? I have heard plenty of black men use the word faggot, bitch, ho, kike for years. 6 gays men use the N-word and it colors the whole community as biggots? 10 million black men use homophobic, sexist, or racist language and...you fail to connect the dots!? I suspect a dialogue on race will not happen for some time because while AA's can be SO fogiving about black homophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-asian bigotry the most subtle criticism and you go ape shit crazy.
It is as though there is an unspoken Jim Crow law when it comes to free speech in this country and anyone who doesn't abide by it gets SLAMMED in the head.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/index.html

HDS - The voting rights act of 1965 was passed by Congress, not by direct vote. That's the point, it never would have been passed had it been put it to a popular direct vote like Prop 8. For that matter, the California Legislature has already voted for gay marriage, so the analogy is apt.

To claim that major civil rights legislature was passed by convincing bigots not to be bigots and voting accordingly is simply bullshit.

Sam,

What about when Rosie O'Donnell called Asians "Ching-chongs" on her show? Dredge up some examples to defend that. Or are you merely attempting to justify words that you yourself use in private? I don't use any of those words, public or private. I have heard plenty of gay men do so, however, and when I politely asked them to stop, I got hammered with that same 'pc' argument. Ten million blacks? Really? Just because some recording exec corrals some three-strike felon and records his rantings just before he gets himself shot, doesn't mean that he deserves to be the poster boy for the whole black community. Why do they sell so well? It feels like power to the poor and trodden-upon; the same way some skinny gay white kid who gets beaten by his dad might shoot up steroids and bulk up. Look at those 'gym bunnies': they are no different in mindset than any of the gangsta rappers you so delight in bringing up. I'd bet you wouldn't judge them so much. I wonder why.

hal @ 30
that's hard fact from anti-amendment people working the polls in both florida and california.

The gays aren't to blame, Dan! The gay "leaders" are to blame. We keep losing these god damn votes EVERY fucking TIME. And reports always come out that the pro-gay people ran shitty campaigns. Why is that? How much outreach and coalition building HAS there been in CA since these anti-gay amendments started passing in state after state? Hell, since CA passed the *last* anti-gay shit back in, what was it, 2000? It's insane. Honestly.

Why were Californians surprised by lying religious people scapegoating gays and spending lots of money doing so? They've done it in state after state after state. In MI the Catholics were the evildoers. In CA, the Mormons. Different church, same tactics, same results.

hds @34

did you see the billerico list of other groups that voted for prop 8 at >60%?
* The elderly (65+)
* Republicans
* Conservatives
* People who decided for whom to vote in October (but not within the week before the election)
* People who were contacted by the McCain campaign
* Protestants
* Catholics
* White Protestants
* Those who attend church weekly
* Married people
* People with children under 18
* Gun owners
* Bush voters
* Offshore drilling supporters
* People who are afraid of a terrorist attack
* People who thought their family finances were better now than 4 years ago
* Supporters of the war against Iraq
* People who didn't care about the age of the candidates
* Anti-choicers
* People who are from the "Inland/Valley" region of California
* McCain voters

btw, i'm a white lesbian. rest assured that we're not all racist bigots. what i was actually most sorry was my white straight neighbors (read: population majority) repeat the 70% "stat" back to me in trying to commiserate about prop 8 passing. they apparently never thought to question that number, which tells me that they still carry unrecognized latent racism. i've had the same conversation with them that i've had here, and they all take it in approvingly. but the fact that i have to have the conversation at all is disappointing to say the least.

Lurleen - Did it occur to you that perhaps your straight neighbors would never expect that McCain voters, Bush voters, older voters or Catholics would ever be in the progressive camp? The fact that a lot of rednecks voted for Prop 8 isn't exactly news.

What is surprising is that the African-American community votes with the rednecks on this particular topic.

@40 Dredge up some examples to defend that. Or are you merely attempting to justify words that you yourself use in private?

So instead of absorbing what I write you demand I "justify" what I wrote or.... (drum roll please) be labelled a racist. As far as suggesting I use those words in private- again, just another way to make someone "prove" they are not racist. The fact that you imagine that anyone who criticizes a black person must also call them the N-word in the privacy of their own home shows more about your thinking than mine. I spoke about facts. All you can do is insinuate I use racial slurs. Childish.

Minus,

It isn't surprising at all! Most blacks still attend the same churches that their ancestors did when they were slaves. Those churches are the segregated versions of the churches that the rednecks attend. Everyone should have seen this coming with the obvious harbinger suggested by the role of blacks in the schism of the Anglican church. What not surprising is that they didn't.

Sam,

I asked that you justify your remarks with a logical basis. My criticism is not of gays, but of the way that the movement has been run. All of my comments are of a piece with that reasoning. Your comments, on the other hand, are slowly orbiting a center that strikes me as having no basis in rationality at all. Hence I ask you to 'justify' them in the same manner--that is to say, make me believe that they are consistent with a belief that you hold apart from your emotions. If 'freedom of speech' is your basis, I find nothing inconsistent in my grouping you with people who have used the same argument to defend racist statements to me in the past. Do you understand?

I have been equally critical of the black 'community' during my posts, if you would bother to read them. Being as I am coming from a thought-out, principled viewpoint, a level of impartiality is expected of me, and I welcome criticism. Where's yours?

HDS - Actually, you won most of your major rights through the courts or via executive decision. If the rights of black folks had been voted on in the south you would have lost each major battle. Maybe you're the one who needs to read up on history.

To claim that major civil rights legislature was passed by convincing bigots not to be bigots and voting accordingly is simply bullshit.

You are an idiot. In all seriousness, you are a fucking idiot.

Go out and protest for decades, be subject to lynchings if you dare try to exercise your rights, have firehoses and dogs turned on you, have cigarettes be put out on your skin for having the temerity to sit at a whites-only counter, then come back and say that African Americans didn't fight long and hard for their basic human rights and that they didn't spend most of their efforts convincing bigots not to be bigots.

Until you do that, shut the fuck up.

@46
That's how I see it too - that conservative religious people voted for prop 8 at high rates. seeing as a lot of blacks are conservative religious, they voted heavily for prop 8 because they're conservative religious, not because they're black. same with the whites.

keshmeshi - Jesus, calm down. No one is claiming blacks didn't fight long and hard for their rights.

But blacks didn't win their rights through convincing hard-core bigots to vote for black rights, they won their rights by going around the bigots, allying with progressive whites/Jews/others, going through the courts and through Congress. If we had waited for hard-core bigots to change their mind and vote for civil rights we'd still be waiting.

Along the same line this claim that gays should have gone out and convinced religious homophobes to vote against Prop 8 is bullshit.

keshmeshi - Since you're such a fucking genius, give me an example of a popular vote for civil rights in the south during the struggle. There wasn't one, it took decades after civil rights were enforced on the south before attitudes really started to change.

And shut the fuck up accusing people of shit simply because you're too stupid to understand their post.

In fact, the tactics of the civil rights movement; sit-ins, marches, boycotts, only pissed off the bigots more, while at the same time helped them gain support among progressives. So to claim that the civil rights movement was about sitting down and convincing bigots not to be bigots is proof that you're totally clueless about the movement.

Dan, you say you keep bringing this up in order to point out "the irony of African American support for Prop 8". But really, Black support for Prop 8 is only surprising/ironic if you believed the theory that peoples who suffer persecution are less likely to inflict persecution on others when they get power. Is there any historical evidence to believe this? I see a lot to the contrary---for instance, the Jews suffered discrimination, forced explusion, and mass slaughter at the hands of others for 2000 years. Then they got a tiny piece of land and a little power---and immediately started unleashing some of the same tactics on others. There are some remarkable people who can successfully recognize analogies with their own experience to understand others', but most people just don't, at least not without some help. In addition, groups that are fearful/angry are usually more susceptible to hate-mongering and scapegoating. (But hey, I dare the gay community to be different.)

Okay...can someone promise me that after the conversation on Black Homophobia ebbs, we can start a conversation on the full implications of the quote "no fems, fats, blacks or asians" or "white or latino only" on perhaps every gay site featuring a personals system?

After the debate on black homophobia, will the gay community start to reach out to ethnic gay minorities?

Will the gay community start including more ethnic minorities in the media as well?

These aren't rhetorical questions...I just need to know.

Oooh! Oooh! While we're at it, can we repudiate the Casino Chris ads publicly? Or is that "okay" racism?

I would like a post from Adrian now, please.

Blame the victim, easy enough to do.

#55 The Citizen, I used to sit on the Board of Seattle Out and Proud. WE begged Gay people of ALL colors to sit with us and make the Seattle Pride Parade a rainbow of color, It was an OPEN invitation to everyone. NO ONE of ethnic gay minorities wanted to sit on the Board. That's one example of the "white gay community" reaching out to the "ethnic gay minorities".

Just how many of the African American churches in CA were willing to have someone speak about gay rights and marriage equality at their churches? Where, exactly, were gay activists supposed to do this outreach? These welcoming pastors would have been receptive? C'mon people, really...

@16. Why is there a DL phenomenon in the black community? Why do public health folks have to use the term MSM?

The real culprit is the person who invented the term "Gay Marriage". I mean, talk about trying to pick a fight...even if it's true, it's the stupidest way to phrase it and of course some people with get a bee in their bonnet.

The effort on the part of all people should be to ask that certain "rights" be decoupled from marriage so that there is equal access to all.

This seems doable not with additional laws, but within the judicial system.

Case in point: Access to health care. Having a civil marriage be a precursor to access to another person's health care is egregious. Unless one person can simply choose another person as an addition, there is discrimination.

Now if people focused on these individual privileges and ate away at it, it would be far more productive than starting race riots such as the SLOG intends.

Thanks 53. I've tried to explain that but I don't think he gets it.

Hey 37. Thanks for the colorful demonstration of white racist hysteria. I couldn't have asked for a better sampling of it. 10 million black men use racist and sexist language... did you get that from the census bureau?

And 52, I was in South Carolina at the height of the movement. Several relatives were jailed repeatedly. So you can give me a break from your superiority, though I'm sure its probably just a reflex. Blacks did indeed win their rights through a variety of strategies including building alliances and by convincing bigots including Lyndon Johnson not to be bigots anymore. Racism was endemic and uncritically accepted by a lot more than "hard core" southern bigots. While it didn't remove the stain of racism completely, non violent civil disobedience called enough people to their better selves to insist on change. Its at the heart of the movement's philosophy.

HDS - If you think LBJ decided not to be a bigot anymore you really are clueless. LBJ was a bigot on the day he died and he did the things he did for a complex variety of reasons, many political.

For all your talk you've yet to refute my main point, which is that civil rights in this country for blacks *did not* come about because black people sat down with bigots and talked them out of it. Somehow you've decided to take that obvious point and turn it some sinister, which says far more about your mindset than mine.

In the same way, gays will not get gay marriage by sitting down with religious homophobes and "talking them out of it."

I should also say that, to his credit, LBJ perused civil rights because he thought it was the right thing for the country, because he thought the race issue would tear the country apart eventually if it wasn't resolved, despite his personal prejudices.

#59 said

"#55 The Citizen, I used to sit on the Board of Seattle Out and Proud. WE begged Gay people of ALL colors to sit with us and make the Seattle Pride Parade a rainbow of color, It was an OPEN invitation to everyone. NO ONE of ethnic gay minorities wanted to sit on the Board. That's one example of the "white gay community" reaching out to the "ethnic gay minorities". "

Me
Its easy to make such claims on the net without any sources but where's your proof? This sounds like something that would make even the smallest amount of publicity.

@68
Proof? Was he supposed give us a link to proof? Do you think calls recorded? Videotapes of people saying "no" need to be produced?

Funny cause we keep hearing that black people are being called the dreaded N-word (well,I hear black people being called the N-word all the time but always by other black people but I guess this is more tramatic cause it's coming from homos) yet these claims have been made without proof. Why don't you demand proof from them?

Hey Scott,

And how often do gays call each other the F-word? Didn't Dan specifically start his advice column URGING people to call him just that? I imagine, given your logic, that it would be okay for heterosexuals to call us that then, right?

As long as discussions of Proposition 8 (or similar bills to come) lead to verbal race riots and finger-pointing (thanks #43 for finding a way to accuse 'no' voters of racism, excluding yourself), these bills will continue to pass. The only point worth noting is the 'no' campaign failed through lack of effort on their part.

That 70% figure was from an early reported exit poll of some 224 people.

Here is a newer figure: "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 precent against it."

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908

But I suppose even that wouldn't be enough to please those of you who seek to blame the Blacks becuase it's easier than reaching out and explaining your case and why gay marriage is not a religious issue.

And I do feel compelled to share with those of you who believe that the civil rights movement was not about outreach Dr. Martin Luther King's LetterFrom Birmingham Jail http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

Yes, much of the civil rights movement was accomplished in the courts but the outreach component was crucial too. True, MLK didn't go to Klan meetings...and no one is suggesting that gays reach out to Identity Christians or any other obviously dangerous group. But he did reach out - and the gay communtiy will have to as well if it wants to get Blacks to see gay marriage as a civil rights issue and not a religious issue.

It's clear to me that anyone who says gays need to reach out more to the black community have never tried it. I have, and can tell you it backfires, Big Time. Rachel Maddow's guest suggests that we use the language of civil rights (e.g. talk about the Loving case and "separate but but equal"). Ever try doing that? OMG, it is not fun. I guarantee you'll almost get smacked upside your head for you presumptuousness, and for insulting the black experience, and for equating being black with being a sexual degenerate. In my life I've that conversation a dozen times with blacks (at work, in college) and that's how the conversion went EVERY SINGLE TIME. Bottom line, for anyone thinking about more "outreach" to the black community, I have five words: Do Not Waste Your Time.

Is outreach a total wast of time? Of course not. Hispanics split almost evenly (53-47) on Prop 8 -- and that is not at all surprising to me. Compared to blacks, the Hispanics I've met (again, in college, and particularly at work) have been much more open-minded, particularly the women. And that "53-47" means that for every Hispanic who opposed gay marriage this year, there is not only another Hispanic who voted in our favor; there is a POTENTIAL SURROGATE within the Hispanic community, taking our side of the debate when we are "not in the room", so to speak. That is huge advantage in any future outreach to Hispanics the next time around. (Compare that to the black community, where the 70-30 vote in favor or Prop 8 shows much less of that surrogate support, and you can see where we need to focus next time. We should always remember that within any group, the greater the imbalance in a two-sided debate, the exponentially more successful the majority will be in silencing the dissenters. That's very true within a community where the majority is 70%, not so much when it's just 53%. That’s just basic group dynamics.)

Dan @74 you did not look at the results I just posted did you?

A larger exit poll of 1,200 voters from 50 precincts in Los Angeles in Tuesday's election, estimated that 50 percent of Latinos voted for Proposition 8 and 39 opposed it, while 47 percent of African-Americans voted for it and 40 precent against it.

In which case following your logic Latinos should be harder to talk to. Whatever. Avoid outreach because you talked to 12 people who didn't change while you were speaking to them. Sometimes change takes time. I think I had the dicussion of the word fag with my little brother and his friends monthy and sometimes weekly between the ages of 10 - 15. He doesn't use it anymore but certainly one discussion was not enough to break the young boys of the insult fag. I think the problem is more likely you and your fallacious use of arguments than the Black people you talked to.

Don't waste your time, clarity. They are looking for whites and Latinos; there is no interest in expanding their social horizons. If they try to engage the black community, it will only be with more threats, and that hurts us, not them. You notice they also aren't trying for Asians? Connect the dots.

To 'clarity': You are citing exit polls performed within Los Angeles. I am citing the exit polls conducted statewide for the Associated Press. The latter was a survey of 2,309 California voters and was conducted for the AP by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. Most were interviewed in a random sample of 30 precincts statewide on Election Day; 765 who voted early or absentee were interviewed by landline telephone over the final week ending on Election Day.

I apologize for the mix-up!

#76.

Don't waste your time, clarity.

Just so you know, I'm reading and listening. Granted, I've not been virulently blaming black people for Prop 8 passing, but I believed the original exit poll. However, that just showed me what I already knew: this is more a religious intolerance issue than racial.

I just didn't like it that Dan was so quickly being condemned for being a racist, when he never blamed black people for Prop 8's success. People are still accusing him of this, and it pisses me off.

Granted, I'm pissed off easily these days.

Reading your posts led me to realize I need to learn more before I start spouting opinion. Your posts have been really valuable to me, Sergei*, because they've clued me in on problems within both communities that I didn't even know existed.

So you've done some good here. For what that's worth.

*i hope I got your name right!

To Tracy: Thank you for coming to my defense. And I'll go further: If you go through the numbers, and eliminate the black vote totally, Prop 8 STILL comes out about 50-50. So clearly, while the net effect of the black vote was against us (gays), it was not decisive. Numbers don't lie.

So to be clear (for 'clarity'), I do NOT blame the black community for Prop 8's passage. I do, however, stand by my previous point: For any future vote to undo Prop 8, we are very unlikely to move opinion significantly in the black community. We will have to work better with allies within a lot of communities, blacks included. But 70 percent is a dominating majority--one that is likely to shut up dissent, whether they're talking in the Church or their own living rooms. Again, that is just basic group dynamics. I believe we have a better chance working with allies in other communities--Hispanic, Asian-American, and white--simply because there, those who already support us in are not overwhelmed by by those who oppose us. In those communities, our allies are much less likely to shut up. And we WILL need those allies next time, when we try to overturn Prop 8.

My point here is that there are several far-right groups currently courting the black people over issues such as closing the border, abortion as genocide, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc. I need some feeling that the gay vote is substantially dedicated to the entire cause of the civil rights movement--even if the blacks themselves aren't. Strategy as opposed to tactics. The path that is currently being followed is astonishingly short-sighted. I'm getting this eerie, sick feeling....

I'm not some sort of Chomsky radical. I'm simply aware of the fact that we have TWO years to build a solid coalition, not four. The R's, who show no signs of changing their base, could easily sweep Congress on social issues in '10; a well-placed poll such as the one on Prop 8 could act as a strategy of tension between groups who think of the civil rights movement as a zero-sum game. This is Weimar-level dangerous, and we need to plan for the long term.

the irony of African American support for Prop 8

Barring the continued ignoring of broader, longer-term and better statistical evidence (perhaps "70%" has some sort of mystical quality about it?), why is this "ironic"? Because Black people are a monolith, a single multiheaded organism that thinks and acts as one? Because having experienced past and current racism is an inoculation against showing bias towards others? Because now that Barack Obama has been elected president all our Black problems are over? Because our own Black struggles have been won so easily, so quickly and without the need to persuade and build coalitions? Because we can locate African American scholars from Princeton who also believe it is ironic?

I am honestly confused by the "ironic" and "betrayal" arguments. And it is too bad to hear such dismissal of coalition building on the basis of such faulty evidence and, in the case of one poster above, only a dozen conversations.

For any future vote to undo Prop 8, we are very unlikely to move opinion significantly in the black community.

I guess this comes as a surprise to some: There is no "the" Black "community," but multiple communities. For example, there are Black gay men working on the campus of Morehouse University to combat homophobia. I am sure they would like to know why coalition-building and ally-identification is "unlikely" to bear fruit with other Black folks.

Sweet Jesus! Thank you Yvette. Some of us have been trying to make this clear but its falling on deaf ears. Dan has set up some kind of irony test where you have to score below 70% to pass and I guess we've failed!!

Thanks Yvette. We've been trying to make these simple points, but some folks (Savage principal among them) are so determined to find the scapegoat they are impervious to reason. Savage has set up some king of irony test where you have to score less than 70% to pass, and I guess we've failed.