Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 12, 2009
Homo Debunk Tank
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Uh, Queerty? The NGLTF report that "thoroughly debunked notion that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly" for Prop 8 was itself thoroughly debunked.
And let's say the initial exit polls that showed Prop 8 getting 70% of the African American vote were off—hell, let's say the NGLTF study that found that "just" 58% of African Americans voted for Prop 8 was correct. Those kind of numbers—upwards of 58%—are generally considered landslide territory, or "overwhelming." Remember this election?
1
In light of the CA Supreme Court's likely upholding of Prop 8, the potential dissolution of 18,000 marriages and revelations that there were no real outreach efforts on the part of the No on 8 campaign (and plenty of outreach through the Yes on 8 campaign, even though the No on 8 campaign had a freakin' letter from Obama among other key items), we opt instead to chase our tails and point fingers again. For what?
Yes, let's close the barn door now that the cows are gone, rustled and burgers at some LDS ward's cookout.
Yes, let's close the barn door now that the cows are gone, rustled and burgers at some LDS ward's cookout.
2
Dan, please stop. I like a lot of what you do, but I'm getting really tired of defending you amongst my social circles.
Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be an ally instead of a blatant racist? Hiring a couple of black staffers really doesn't make this kind of stuff ok.
Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be an ally instead of a blatant racist? Hiring a couple of black staffers really doesn't make this kind of stuff ok.
3
Oh wow. This post is unfortunate. :(
That report WASN'T debunked, they just said "oh, there's a 6 percent margin of error." Of course there is, unless you poll every single voter.
The worthless exit poll is not worth looking at for anything. A lot of the 2008 exit poll results were counter to the actual election results. In 2000, they called Al Gore as president. In 2004, they called John Kerry as president. Etc etc etc blah blah blah.
By the way, by every single reliable poll, men voted for proposition 8 in a landslide, women voted against proposition 8 in a landslide.
That report WASN'T debunked, they just said "oh, there's a 6 percent margin of error." Of course there is, unless you poll every single voter.
The worthless exit poll is not worth looking at for anything. A lot of the 2008 exit poll results were counter to the actual election results. In 2000, they called Al Gore as president. In 2004, they called John Kerry as president. Etc etc etc blah blah blah.
By the way, by every single reliable poll, men voted for proposition 8 in a landslide, women voted against proposition 8 in a landslide.
4
@2:
More...
As the slingers of racism charges have been pointing out since November 5: the African Americans vote in California was too small to have been decisive. It didn’t “tip the balance.” Which is why, they’ve argued, that citing the black vote on Prop 8 amounts to an inflammatory distraction. It's divisive, not helpful, motivated by racism, conscious or subconscious, wocka wocka wocka. But the very next thing of their mouths is this: To advance its political agenda, the gay community—which for the millionth time is not all white—must to do more and better outreach to straight African American voters. We need to do more and better outreach to... a community whose votes did not "tip the balance" on gay rights this year and probably won’t in future years. And Blow argues that to reach out to these voters—these non-decisive voters—the gay movement should retool its message and drop arguments that are apparently working with other, much larger segments of the voting public—whites, Latinos, Asians—including arguments that compare “legalizing interracial marriage with [legalizing] gay marriage.”
The same voices can't argue that, on gay rights, the straight black vote is so unimportant that it’s a divisive distraction to even note it and at the same time argue that the straight black vote is so important that the gay movement must retool its messages to target the black vote—even if it means dropping (“Don’t even go there”) messages that are working on groups of voters that are large enough to “tip the balance.”
I happen to believe that the black vote on Prop 8, while not decisive, has to be noted (and with distress); and that the gay community must do a better job reaching out to straight black voters.
6
And... could you tell me what's racist about this post? Queerty has an interview up with an activist who argues that gay marriage isn't valid goal, and that gays have to stop comparing their struggle to the Civil Rights Movement.
To get into the interview, Queerty cites those exit polls, and we're back where we were before: leveling racism charges against people who are distressed by the vote totals—which did not tip the balance—while arguing that gays and lesbians must do more and better outreach to African Americans... who are not voting against us in large numbers, per their argument, and whose votes aren't decisive regardless.
To get into the interview, Queerty cites those exit polls, and we're back where we were before: leveling racism charges against people who are distressed by the vote totals—which did not tip the balance—while arguing that gays and lesbians must do more and better outreach to African Americans... who are not voting against us in large numbers, per their argument, and whose votes aren't decisive regardless.
7
Squabbling about whether or not there was racial-bias in an election that happened nearly 6 months ago will change nothing, and get you nowhere.
If you really want to make a difference, ask yourself what WE can do to change the minds of *any* voter who helped pass prop 8. That's the only way to make this right.
If you really want to make a difference, ask yourself what WE can do to change the minds of *any* voter who helped pass prop 8. That's the only way to make this right.
8
Please, let's stop talking about how the Mormons bankrolled Prop8.
After all, it's best to avoid paying attention to the details.
After all, it's best to avoid paying attention to the details.
9
The moral of the California Prop 8 story is that Blacks (who might know a little about Civil Rights) more than any other demographic totally reject the premise that gay marriage is a Civil Right.
10
My question is, why is Dan doing everything in his power to INCREASE the percentage of blacks who oppose gay rights?
11
@9,
So they don't know their own history. How does this makes them different from other Americans?
So they don't know their own history. How does this makes them different from other Americans?
12
@10 -- Right as usual Fnarf. THAT is a very interesting question. He's re-making the same types of mistakes that the whole No on 8 gang made.
14
@11
They don't really need to know a lot of history. Just living their lives in America gives them a pretty good handle on the situation. They know a Civil Right when the see it. But thanks just the same, white boy.
They don't really need to know a lot of history. Just living their lives in America gives them a pretty good handle on the situation. They know a Civil Right when the see it. But thanks just the same, white boy.
15
If Queerty interviewed someone who laid down some dose of reality to set them straight about what Civil Rights truly are then it seems they're being honest unlike you Mr Savage. Blatant racist doesn't even begin to describe someone like you. But you're preaching to your choir who hold your same racist views and keep trying to equat The Civil Rights Movement with your demands for the made up marriage rights that you fancy for whatever self aggrandizing reasons you have in your head.
16
Dan,
You're not racist, just obtuse:
"Or maybe, ASIF, Jack and Ennis's predicament seems faintly ridiculous to liberated gay men who regard the Tortured Homo Routine—from Giovanni's Room to Fame to Brokeback Mountain—as more laughable than tragic."
Remember that comment? There are people for whom this "routine" is more than just "faintly ridiculous". If anything is evidenced by the poll numbers, it is the fact that there is much more homophobia present in African-American communities--at least at this particular day, on this particular poll, in California. It would be logical to conclude that there are people who suffer from that, would it not?
The fact is that those who are liberated are so due to the grace of their respective community, neighborhood, state, etc.; for those who are not in such a welcoming place, that 'ridiculous' routine you speak of is the only one compatible with not getting their ass beat. Two decades ago, every fag knew this. Now, the liberated find it as a cause of laughter, in spite of the fact that there are still many for whom it is stark reality.
Don't you think that it is just that callous attitude towards our own history that allowed Prop 8 to succeed? Do you see blacks yukking it up over slavery or Jim Crow, or the Jews giggling during Schindler's List? Many see gays as not being totally serious about the goals of the civil rights movement, as compared to more 'respected' members of that coalition--this flippancy towards what amounts to the daily experience of those not lucky enough to be liberated sure doesn't help.
You're not racist, just obtuse:
"Or maybe, ASIF, Jack and Ennis's predicament seems faintly ridiculous to liberated gay men who regard the Tortured Homo Routine—from Giovanni's Room to Fame to Brokeback Mountain—as more laughable than tragic."
Remember that comment? There are people for whom this "routine" is more than just "faintly ridiculous". If anything is evidenced by the poll numbers, it is the fact that there is much more homophobia present in African-American communities--at least at this particular day, on this particular poll, in California. It would be logical to conclude that there are people who suffer from that, would it not?
The fact is that those who are liberated are so due to the grace of their respective community, neighborhood, state, etc.; for those who are not in such a welcoming place, that 'ridiculous' routine you speak of is the only one compatible with not getting their ass beat. Two decades ago, every fag knew this. Now, the liberated find it as a cause of laughter, in spite of the fact that there are still many for whom it is stark reality.
Don't you think that it is just that callous attitude towards our own history that allowed Prop 8 to succeed? Do you see blacks yukking it up over slavery or Jim Crow, or the Jews giggling during Schindler's List? Many see gays as not being totally serious about the goals of the civil rights movement, as compared to more 'respected' members of that coalition--this flippancy towards what amounts to the daily experience of those not lucky enough to be liberated sure doesn't help.
17
Blacks may be forgiven for not seeing the homosexual quest for marriage as a serious Civil Rights struggle.
Homosexual activist have been mocking the institution for years and displaying frivolous contempt.
Five years ago America was treated to the spectacle of Gavin Newsom passing out illegal marriage licenses like they were free condoms or a needle exchange program.
When the Ca. Supreme Court over ruled California's voter passed ban on gay marriage everyone concerned knew another referendum that would reinstate the ban was a few months off. Responsible judges would have postponed action on the ruling until after the Prop 8 vote; individuals who were serious about their marriage would have waited for the same reason. Both parties were way more interested in the political theatre and don't give a rat's ass about the institution of marriage.
Media coverage of gay marriage inevitably features an affluent DINK couple planning a $45,000 blowout wedding, hard to equate that with Rosa Parks and the Selma march.
Marriage has been nothing but a political football for gay activist trying to stick it to the Religious Right and Blacks recognize it.
Homosexual activist have been mocking the institution for years and displaying frivolous contempt.
Five years ago America was treated to the spectacle of Gavin Newsom passing out illegal marriage licenses like they were free condoms or a needle exchange program.
When the Ca. Supreme Court over ruled California's voter passed ban on gay marriage everyone concerned knew another referendum that would reinstate the ban was a few months off. Responsible judges would have postponed action on the ruling until after the Prop 8 vote; individuals who were serious about their marriage would have waited for the same reason. Both parties were way more interested in the political theatre and don't give a rat's ass about the institution of marriage.
Media coverage of gay marriage inevitably features an affluent DINK couple planning a $45,000 blowout wedding, hard to equate that with Rosa Parks and the Selma march.
Marriage has been nothing but a political football for gay activist trying to stick it to the Religious Right and Blacks recognize it.
18
#16, did you purposely leave out the next sentence:
Why would you deliberately distort Dan's actual response like that?
Or maybe you had the misfortune of seeing Brokeback in a room full of vapid L.A. faggots who wouldn't know an honest emotion if it blew a three-day load down their throats.
Why would you deliberately distort Dan's actual response like that?
19
@14,
White boy, huh? Not a regular reader here, are you? Marriage is a civil right, just ask black folk who do know their history and know that slaves were forbidden to marry and nevertheless persisted to do so, even without recognition and even as they could be separated at a moment's notice.
White boy, huh? Not a regular reader here, are you? Marriage is a civil right, just ask black folk who do know their history and know that slaves were forbidden to marry and nevertheless persisted to do so, even without recognition and even as they could be separated at a moment's notice.
20
Loving v. Virginia was the dumbest comparison pro-marriage-rights advocates could have come up with. What? Black people are supposed to be thrilled that they're now *allowed* to marry white people? Why is that? Do white people make for superior marriage partners?
21
Jade,
My larger point was already made. Extending the quotation would have been superfluous. Some people think that we're 'past it', while others have no empathy at all. Which of these two groups helped get Prop 8 passed more? I think it's a toss-up.
In actuality, you had a small core of dedicated activists, who were overwhelmed by corporate shills and libertarians. It seems fairly obvious with the cross-sampling of attitudes here and elsewhere that the gay coalition will disintegrate upon achieving marriage. Ad hoc partnerships like this are not going to engender a lot of trust. Who will help the transgendered once these 'vapid' LA types have gotten their marriages? What about people with AIDS? Can you answer that? Thank god I live in Minnesota, where there is a healthy sense of civic duty rather than stratified castes each out for their own as in CA.
My larger point was already made. Extending the quotation would have been superfluous. Some people think that we're 'past it', while others have no empathy at all. Which of these two groups helped get Prop 8 passed more? I think it's a toss-up.
In actuality, you had a small core of dedicated activists, who were overwhelmed by corporate shills and libertarians. It seems fairly obvious with the cross-sampling of attitudes here and elsewhere that the gay coalition will disintegrate upon achieving marriage. Ad hoc partnerships like this are not going to engender a lot of trust. Who will help the transgendered once these 'vapid' LA types have gotten their marriages? What about people with AIDS? Can you answer that? Thank god I live in Minnesota, where there is a healthy sense of civic duty rather than stratified castes each out for their own as in CA.
22
@ 2: since when is stating a fact racist (whether it's 58% or 70% or whatever, the majority of blacks in California voted to take away the rights of gays to marry). No, it's not pretty, but stating what is true is not racist. The shame does not belong in Dan's court.
23
19 Dear, it seems you are the one who needs to go and ask African Americans who have suffered real discrimination. You will get educated about what being unable to use public facilities and having to cede your space to a white person just because of your race really is. Grab a history book on African American history, then go and talk to an African American honey.
24
Let me see if I get this, you know, outside the realm of tail-chasing: if one's suffering is greater than the other, said other is incapable of claiming any part or portion of one's suffering as being similar.
In this case, Native Americans have been royally dicked compared to the AA community, therefore, the struggles of the AA community are irrelevant and one cannot consider them on the same or similar level.
In this case, Native Americans have been royally dicked compared to the AA community, therefore, the struggles of the AA community are irrelevant and one cannot consider them on the same or similar level.
25
#21, I completely misread your original post. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
I cannot answer your questions satisfactorily. I wish I could. But I can answer with certainty that I will. For what that's worth.
I cannot answer your questions satisfactorily. I wish I could. But I can answer with certainty that I will. For what that's worth.
26
Next person who tells me that black homophobia is somehow excused or justified by white gay racism gets a fist in the face.
27
Baconcat,
You've got it all wrong; you're giving humanity too much credit. You are not me, therefore, I am under no obligation to care what happens to you. However, should something bad happen to me, I may be granted a temporary ability to see my pain as if it were your pain. So when the blacks were slaves, they compared themselves to the Israelites in bondage, something that free blacks in Africa could not care less about. This functional solidarity between blacks and Jews has been somewhat muted in recent times.
Analogously, the early feminists identified with blacks because they wanted the vote. The Irish identified with the blacks because they were indentured servants. The President of Mexico has recently complained that immigrants from his country to ours take jobs "that even black people do not want". And yet...the early feminists campaigned against the 14th amendment, the Irish brutally oppressed the blacks and Mexicans and blacks are currently embroiled in racially-tinged gang wars.
Despite what we may say up front, the individual interests making up the civil rights movements don't get along, their interests are often mutually exclusive, and at the group level, conformity is ruthlessly enforced. Social progress moves at a glacial pace. I try to be the bigger man...that's about all I can do.
You've got it all wrong; you're giving humanity too much credit. You are not me, therefore, I am under no obligation to care what happens to you. However, should something bad happen to me, I may be granted a temporary ability to see my pain as if it were your pain. So when the blacks were slaves, they compared themselves to the Israelites in bondage, something that free blacks in Africa could not care less about. This functional solidarity between blacks and Jews has been somewhat muted in recent times.
Analogously, the early feminists identified with blacks because they wanted the vote. The Irish identified with the blacks because they were indentured servants. The President of Mexico has recently complained that immigrants from his country to ours take jobs "that even black people do not want". And yet...the early feminists campaigned against the 14th amendment, the Irish brutally oppressed the blacks and Mexicans and blacks are currently embroiled in racially-tinged gang wars.
Despite what we may say up front, the individual interests making up the civil rights movements don't get along, their interests are often mutually exclusive, and at the group level, conformity is ruthlessly enforced. Social progress moves at a glacial pace. I try to be the bigger man...that's about all I can do.
29
@24: Exactly. It's not a contest, and it's not really about feeling sorry for people. The fact that group X faced greater challenges, and was subjected to worse oppression, than group Y does not mean that it's okay to keep oppressing group Y. The minute the conversation turns into "who was oppressed the worst," the only valid conclusion is that everyone who wasn't slowly tortured to death should thank their lucky stars and STFU.
What Dan is calling attention to -- and I really don't see this as racist at all -- is the fact that a group that is generally very conscious about and responsive to issues of social justice simply did not see Prop. 8 as an issue of social justice. This means that the No on Prop 8 campaign failed not because people are just callous and don't care about social justice, but because that campaign failed to convince people who care about such things that this was such an issue.
A lot of people seem to want to make gay rights out to be an issue that only affects middle class white men, and therefore Dan talking about African-American opposition to gay rights becomes racist. In fact, the issue is that gay rights campaigners in Cali failed to show African-American voters how this is an issue that affects their human rights as well.
It's a complicated and fraught issue, no doubt, but those of you just shouting "racist" and "douchebag" are doing nothing but making yourselves feel better about your lack of insight here.
What Dan is calling attention to -- and I really don't see this as racist at all -- is the fact that a group that is generally very conscious about and responsive to issues of social justice simply did not see Prop. 8 as an issue of social justice. This means that the No on Prop 8 campaign failed not because people are just callous and don't care about social justice, but because that campaign failed to convince people who care about such things that this was such an issue.
A lot of people seem to want to make gay rights out to be an issue that only affects middle class white men, and therefore Dan talking about African-American opposition to gay rights becomes racist. In fact, the issue is that gay rights campaigners in Cali failed to show African-American voters how this is an issue that affects their human rights as well.
It's a complicated and fraught issue, no doubt, but those of you just shouting "racist" and "douchebag" are doing nothing but making yourselves feel better about your lack of insight here.
30
Lee,
The primary difference was accounted for by religiosity, as the author of the study in question makes clear in the comments section on the link provided in the article. As the black civil rights movement is founded upon the church and upon Scripture and the gay rights movement, well...wasn't, I'm hardly surprised that CA black voters fail to see the parallel.
Dan, given his stated views on religion, probably finds the author's conclusions--that outreach would be best performed via FAITH-BASED measures--inconvenient at best. It would suggest that such posts as "Youth Pastor Watch" are misguided at best. So he sticks to straight percentages, ignoring the variables that were found to account for them. This could easily be construed as racist, as it shifts the burden from religion as a homophobic entity to a view of blacks as somehow intrinsically homophobic.
Not to mention the sheer statistical disingenuousness of comparing an election with tens of millions of tallied votes to an exit poll of a few hundred voters with a margin of error of EIGHT POINTS. In addition, where Dan writes "African-Americans" it would be more accurate to say "CA African-American voters"--once again, to avoid the 'blacks hate gays' generalization.
So we have in this one post on the topic:
Bias-motivated truncation of the study's conclusions.
A verrrry generous margin of error for data.
Bad labeling of variables and controls for said data.
Specious analogies made on the basis of the aforesaid.
Blood boils. Words are exchanged. Ad hits are generated. Rinse and repeat.
Dan isn't racist, just stupid.
The primary difference was accounted for by religiosity, as the author of the study in question makes clear in the comments section on the link provided in the article. As the black civil rights movement is founded upon the church and upon Scripture and the gay rights movement, well...wasn't, I'm hardly surprised that CA black voters fail to see the parallel.
Dan, given his stated views on religion, probably finds the author's conclusions--that outreach would be best performed via FAITH-BASED measures--inconvenient at best. It would suggest that such posts as "Youth Pastor Watch" are misguided at best. So he sticks to straight percentages, ignoring the variables that were found to account for them. This could easily be construed as racist, as it shifts the burden from religion as a homophobic entity to a view of blacks as somehow intrinsically homophobic.
Not to mention the sheer statistical disingenuousness of comparing an election with tens of millions of tallied votes to an exit poll of a few hundred voters with a margin of error of EIGHT POINTS. In addition, where Dan writes "African-Americans" it would be more accurate to say "CA African-American voters"--once again, to avoid the 'blacks hate gays' generalization.
So we have in this one post on the topic:
Bias-motivated truncation of the study's conclusions.
A verrrry generous margin of error for data.
Bad labeling of variables and controls for said data.
Specious analogies made on the basis of the aforesaid.
Blood boils. Words are exchanged. Ad hits are generated. Rinse and repeat.
Dan isn't racist, just stupid.
32
@23,
My, my, your more of a delusional bitch than I originally thought.
I stated clearly just one example of horrible injustices against black Americans, but I don't know what I'm talking about? Could you demonstrate your staggering stupidity any more perfectly?
My, my, your more of a delusional bitch than I originally thought.
I stated clearly just one example of horrible injustices against black Americans, but I don't know what I'm talking about? Could you demonstrate your staggering stupidity any more perfectly?
33
@30: I accept the point that breaking down the CA vote by race probably obscures the degree to which religion plays a role. That doesn't really change the point here, which Dan clarified by quoting himself in 4: if the black vote wasn't the decisive factor, as some gay rights activists are saying, then why would it be necessary to fundamentally alter the rhetoric of the gay rights movement so that it appeals more to black (or, more specifically, religious, black, Californian) voters?
The real point here is that some gay activists, in their attempts to appease everyone, are playing into a divide-and-conquer scenario.
So, yeah, if you're in favor of marriage rights for everyone, you reach out to as many people as you can, but those who are opposed to you on an uncompromising, epistemological level should not be allowed to rewrite the entire platform.
The real point here is that some gay activists, in their attempts to appease everyone, are playing into a divide-and-conquer scenario.
So, yeah, if you're in favor of marriage rights for everyone, you reach out to as many people as you can, but those who are opposed to you on an uncompromising, epistemological level should not be allowed to rewrite the entire platform.
34
Goddammit Dan.
Even on November 5th, you never said that the African American vote for Proposition 8 was decisive. That is one of the reasons I've been giving you (as opposed to Andrew Sullivan) a pass.
And do note that was 70% of black Californians as opposed to black people nationwide. There are vast regional differences among black communities.
It would also help for you to note that the argument is not about overwhelming African American sentiment against ALL gay civil rights. In nearly every other poll that I've seen (that I'm too lazy to look up right now) African Americans poll more favorably than their white counterparts when it comes to all other gay civil rights issues (ENDA, DADT, Hate Crimes, even adoption, I believe) but gay marriage. African Americans "get" the civil rights arguments, but many don't believe that marriage is a civil right, for some reason having to do with religion, I suppose.
Nor does it help that it seems as if gay marriage is the only civil right worth fighting for. I may be wrong about this, but I think that every other state where either a civil union bill has passed or where they have gay marriage also has numerous other civil rights protections prior to gay marriage/civil unions. I live in Illinois and we have many protections and now maybe, just maybe, we'll get "marriage lite."
Also NO minority rights should be voted upon by a simple 50% + 1 majority of the people (even Florida has that much sense, they had to reach a 60% threshold, which doesn't make that vote any less bigoted).
And no, stating the fact the various polls of black support for Proposition 8 in California is not racist, though racism can be implied in the way the reporting of the Prop 8 vote is framed (i.e. 70% of African-Americans vs. 70% of African American Californians, Los Angeles County vs. Alameda County, etc.)
So some African-American communities in California have a problem with gay marriage.So do some white communities in California where the sheer numbers were the biggest sheer number of votes that put Prop 8 over the top.
What do propose to do Dan other then browbeat this point? Do you, as another poster on Queerty alleged, blame black LGBTs in California for the support Proposition 8 had in the black community or for "black homophobia" (whatever that is)?
Not to get all Freudian and shit but a deep truth may came out of that discussion:
1) black GLBTs might just be scared of homophobic sections of the black straight community.
2) white GLBTs might just be scared of the homophobic sections white straight community.
The difference is that, by and large, many white LGBTs live and socialize in gay ghettos. Many black LGBTs live in black communities. I understand the reasons for self-segregation (physical and psychological safety from the religious nuts) but that was one of many, many things that came back to bite us in the ass in California.
I bring that up because, sure, there's as much outreach to do in Orange County, Fresno, and other redneck sections of California as there is in Compton and Watts. and...all of us (GLBTs, that is) may, just may, have to walk through our fear.
Love ya, Dan. But quit the browbeating. Please.
More...
Even on November 5th, you never said that the African American vote for Proposition 8 was decisive. That is one of the reasons I've been giving you (as opposed to Andrew Sullivan) a pass.
And do note that was 70% of black Californians as opposed to black people nationwide. There are vast regional differences among black communities.
It would also help for you to note that the argument is not about overwhelming African American sentiment against ALL gay civil rights. In nearly every other poll that I've seen (that I'm too lazy to look up right now) African Americans poll more favorably than their white counterparts when it comes to all other gay civil rights issues (ENDA, DADT, Hate Crimes, even adoption, I believe) but gay marriage. African Americans "get" the civil rights arguments, but many don't believe that marriage is a civil right, for some reason having to do with religion, I suppose.
Nor does it help that it seems as if gay marriage is the only civil right worth fighting for. I may be wrong about this, but I think that every other state where either a civil union bill has passed or where they have gay marriage also has numerous other civil rights protections prior to gay marriage/civil unions. I live in Illinois and we have many protections and now maybe, just maybe, we'll get "marriage lite."
Also NO minority rights should be voted upon by a simple 50% + 1 majority of the people (even Florida has that much sense, they had to reach a 60% threshold, which doesn't make that vote any less bigoted).
And no, stating the fact the various polls of black support for Proposition 8 in California is not racist, though racism can be implied in the way the reporting of the Prop 8 vote is framed (i.e. 70% of African-Americans vs. 70% of African American Californians, Los Angeles County vs. Alameda County, etc.)
So some African-American communities in California have a problem with gay marriage.So do some white communities in California where the sheer numbers were the biggest sheer number of votes that put Prop 8 over the top.
What do propose to do Dan other then browbeat this point? Do you, as another poster on Queerty alleged, blame black LGBTs in California for the support Proposition 8 had in the black community or for "black homophobia" (whatever that is)?
Not to get all Freudian and shit but a deep truth may came out of that discussion:
1) black GLBTs might just be scared of homophobic sections of the black straight community.
2) white GLBTs might just be scared of the homophobic sections white straight community.
The difference is that, by and large, many white LGBTs live and socialize in gay ghettos. Many black LGBTs live in black communities. I understand the reasons for self-segregation (physical and psychological safety from the religious nuts) but that was one of many, many things that came back to bite us in the ass in California.
I bring that up because, sure, there's as much outreach to do in Orange County, Fresno, and other redneck sections of California as there is in Compton and Watts. and...all of us (GLBTs, that is) may, just may, have to walk through our fear.
Love ya, Dan. But quit the browbeating. Please.
35
And let me add, I get as pissed off about religion and the many nuts that it spawns as Dan does. The idea of doing outreach in churches...don't want any part of it.
37
32 You're projecting again honey.
Calling me a delusional bitch when you're the one comparing the discrimination my people faced with what a group of spoiled individuals who already enjoy domestic partnerships are doing.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman is recognized. The decision has been made by the people and the racist idiots need to get over it.
People, especially African Americans recent whining asses like you and Dan regurgitating this stupid issue. The more you do it the more you'll look like the sore losers you are. Stop bothering people and stop scapegoating African Americans just because you are unwilling to accept reality.
Calling me a delusional bitch when you're the one comparing the discrimination my people faced with what a group of spoiled individuals who already enjoy domestic partnerships are doing.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman is recognized. The decision has been made by the people and the racist idiots need to get over it.
People, especially African Americans recent whining asses like you and Dan regurgitating this stupid issue. The more you do it the more you'll look like the sore losers you are. Stop bothering people and stop scapegoating African Americans just because you are unwilling to accept reality.
38
Dan isn't browbeating. He's giving us some facts and figures to contemplate, and then to do something about as each of us see fit. I'm sick to death of hearing from posters and pundits that some rights are civil rights and some aren't, that loving partnerships are ok but marriage isn't. More to the point of this post, I think most of us who just want to get married and have access to our partner's pension are sick to death of hearing the bizarre logic that somehow, slavery and segregation preclude gay people from referencing the Civil Rights movement to further the rights of ALL Americans. The gays are next in line. It's time to use everything at our disposal. Deal with it.
39
Lee,
The level of concern shown for victims of homophobia in poor, rural and minority communities should not be a function of what percentage of the vote they represent. Were that the case, then what reason do I need to care about those who have been bashed? Divorced from the sense of communal threat they are said to represent, aren't they all really just individuals to whom bad luck happens? Or does their only value reside in their ability to be a symbol of the oppression of this "community"?
In death, a member of Fight Club has a name! Pretty weak sauce, man.
The level of concern shown for victims of homophobia in poor, rural and minority communities should not be a function of what percentage of the vote they represent. Were that the case, then what reason do I need to care about those who have been bashed? Divorced from the sense of communal threat they are said to represent, aren't they all really just individuals to whom bad luck happens? Or does their only value reside in their ability to be a symbol of the oppression of this "community"?
In death, a member of Fight Club has a name! Pretty weak sauce, man.
40
Still waiting for a teensy bit of coverage by the Stranger of how Black Queers around here feel might about this subject, Dan.
Rather than stepping on that not-so-merry-go-round again, can you at least TRY to cover the local angle, Dan--you know, actually interview some real live Black Gay Men and Women in Puget Sound just for shits and giggles? How about we get started on that outreach locally while we're on the cusp of Domestic Partnership (and a very likely pushback from the very Churchy folks right here in our own back yard)?
Rather than stepping on that not-so-merry-go-round again, can you at least TRY to cover the local angle, Dan--you know, actually interview some real live Black Gay Men and Women in Puget Sound just for shits and giggles? How about we get started on that outreach locally while we're on the cusp of Domestic Partnership (and a very likely pushback from the very Churchy folks right here in our own back yard)?
41
@39: "The level of concern shown for victims of homophobia in poor, rural and minority communities should not be a function of what percentage of the vote they represent."
I think that's more or less what Dan was saying...
I think that's more or less what Dan was saying...
42
Andy,
You know that just ain't gonna happen. The plan is to use this framing of the issue to guilt educated and middle class black gays into returning to the very same neighborhoods they worked hard to escape from, so that the A-listers won't have to get their hands dirty. Classic gutless libertarianism.
I had a conversation about universal health care with a budding young libertarian student recently. After expounding a thinly-veiled Social Darwinist/Free Market spiel, he tried to convince me to support marijuana as end-of-life palliative medicine. I basically told him that his lack of human compassion towards those who could not afford health insurance kind of jarred with his professed humanity in lobbying for dope for cancer patients. Was he sure he wasn't just using them as a proxy for mj legalization, so if he got caught toking he wouldn't lose his FAFSA? He smirked.
Gays have two routes:
1. Harvey Milk, Larry Kramer, Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick style intersectionality and social justice.
2. Andrew Sullivan's libertarian single-issue bullshit.
I view the first as naive, but capable of adaptation. However, if it is the second, I say twist in the wind, bitches.
You know that just ain't gonna happen. The plan is to use this framing of the issue to guilt educated and middle class black gays into returning to the very same neighborhoods they worked hard to escape from, so that the A-listers won't have to get their hands dirty. Classic gutless libertarianism.
I had a conversation about universal health care with a budding young libertarian student recently. After expounding a thinly-veiled Social Darwinist/Free Market spiel, he tried to convince me to support marijuana as end-of-life palliative medicine. I basically told him that his lack of human compassion towards those who could not afford health insurance kind of jarred with his professed humanity in lobbying for dope for cancer patients. Was he sure he wasn't just using them as a proxy for mj legalization, so if he got caught toking he wouldn't lose his FAFSA? He smirked.
Gays have two routes:
1. Harvey Milk, Larry Kramer, Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick style intersectionality and social justice.
2. Andrew Sullivan's libertarian single-issue bullshit.
I view the first as naive, but capable of adaptation. However, if it is the second, I say twist in the wind, bitches.
43
"The plan is to use this framing of the issue to guilt educated and middle class black gays into returning to the very same neighborhoods they worked hard to escape from, so that the A-listers won't have to get their hands dirty."
Hahaha.
Hahahaha.
Ha?
Hahaha.
Hahahaha.
Ha?
44
Lee,
But why do the blacks have to assume good faith? Didn't tg's recently get ditched by the movement, with the vocal support of the majority? I presume the share of them that voted for Prop 8 was nowhere near 70 percent. Yet stating that the concern for the safety and well-being of marginalized members is only an adjunct to the real goal of cementing property rights for the upper-income queers through marriage is either derided as cynical or responded to with threats.
The quid pro quo quality of this whole line of reasoning really makes me sick, I'm sorry.
But why do the blacks have to assume good faith? Didn't tg's recently get ditched by the movement, with the vocal support of the majority? I presume the share of them that voted for Prop 8 was nowhere near 70 percent. Yet stating that the concern for the safety and well-being of marginalized members is only an adjunct to the real goal of cementing property rights for the upper-income queers through marriage is either derided as cynical or responded to with threats.
The quid pro quo quality of this whole line of reasoning really makes me sick, I'm sorry.
45
You think that's funny, do you? I saw first-hand how the tone changes when 'activism' involves more than the glorified cruising of Pride parades...participation seems to drop off sharply. People can't even bother to wear a condom, much less care about those outside their potential social circle.
46
OMG, reality is totally racist!
Seriously...I don't understand what's so freakin' racist about pointing out the obvious: subjugated populations tend to have higher rates of misogyny (remember kids: homophobia is just misogyny repackaged) as a direct result of their subjugation by the ruling/privelleged population.
To spell it out: black folks in the US have had oppressive, strict, rigid authoritarian Christianity RAMMED down their fucking THROATS by white people ever since they got here as a way of keeping them controlled (slavery itself used to be considered biblically supported). So yeah, it's had an effect.
Black people are human. Black people also have a culture that's fairly distinct from white culture because social segregation still exists. Certain aspects of black culture suck, just as certain aspect of all cultures suck. I'm perfectly fine with blaming that fact on race oppression, but I'm not okay with trying to stick our heads in the sand and pretend the problem isn't there. Especially since the first conversations I ever had about homophobia in the gay community were with the black gay and lesbians folks I knew at college who introduced me to the problem as they experienced it, lived it and breathed it and had their hearts broken by it.
Seriously, the logic that calls this "racist," is the same logic that used to say we couldn't talk about or acknowledge the high incarceration rates of black people because that could ONLY mean that black people were more naturally prone to be criminals.
Seriously...I don't understand what's so freakin' racist about pointing out the obvious: subjugated populations tend to have higher rates of misogyny (remember kids: homophobia is just misogyny repackaged) as a direct result of their subjugation by the ruling/privelleged population.
To spell it out: black folks in the US have had oppressive, strict, rigid authoritarian Christianity RAMMED down their fucking THROATS by white people ever since they got here as a way of keeping them controlled (slavery itself used to be considered biblically supported). So yeah, it's had an effect.
Black people are human. Black people also have a culture that's fairly distinct from white culture because social segregation still exists. Certain aspects of black culture suck, just as certain aspect of all cultures suck. I'm perfectly fine with blaming that fact on race oppression, but I'm not okay with trying to stick our heads in the sand and pretend the problem isn't there. Especially since the first conversations I ever had about homophobia in the gay community were with the black gay and lesbians folks I knew at college who introduced me to the problem as they experienced it, lived it and breathed it and had their hearts broken by it.
Seriously, the logic that calls this "racist," is the same logic that used to say we couldn't talk about or acknowledge the high incarceration rates of black people because that could ONLY mean that black people were more naturally prone to be criminals.
47
"Still waiting for a teensy bit of coverage by the Stranger of how Black Queers around here feel might about this subject, Dan."
In my experience, Andy, black queers are the first to acknowledge the increased homophobia in the black community. And ultimately, that's what pisses me off the most about all this.
In my experience, Andy, black queers are the first to acknowledge the increased homophobia in the black community. And ultimately, that's what pisses me off the most about all this.
48
Laurel--
Getting gay marriage passed will change homophobia in the black community how? Oh yeah: the funding of all the NPOs will dry up after those single-issue voters have 'gotten theirs'. I watched a gays-only high school built here, while transitional housing for homeless queer youth was closed for lack of funds. Please don't pretend that there is anything altruistic in the scant mention of how homophobia affects blacks, or Latinos, rural, the poor, etc; it is strictly self-interest.
I merely ask why blacks cannot vote for whomever they please. If the right-wing Christians can offer them services, even homophobic ones, then that beats the gays right there. Why should blacks or the poor or Latinos hesitate to vote in their self-interest? Gays don't.
Getting gay marriage passed will change homophobia in the black community how? Oh yeah: the funding of all the NPOs will dry up after those single-issue voters have 'gotten theirs'. I watched a gays-only high school built here, while transitional housing for homeless queer youth was closed for lack of funds. Please don't pretend that there is anything altruistic in the scant mention of how homophobia affects blacks, or Latinos, rural, the poor, etc; it is strictly self-interest.
I merely ask why blacks cannot vote for whomever they please. If the right-wing Christians can offer them services, even homophobic ones, then that beats the gays right there. Why should blacks or the poor or Latinos hesitate to vote in their self-interest? Gays don't.
49
Gay black guy here who acknowledges it.
Move back to the black community? Depends on what you are talking about. I don't make enough money to buy a home in South Shore. I don't make enough money to buy a home near Evanston Township High School, where a small black community is located (which is pretty gay friendly from what I've seen).
If anyone is implying that I move into the 'hood, you must be fucking joking.
But Detroit (my hometown) defies all of these stats. When Proposal 2 was voted on in Michigan, it passed with a 59-41 margin. There was no variance in those stats based on ethnicity. And the vote in Wayne County (where Detroit is located) was 54-45%. Were it not for Detroit and Wayne County, Proposal 2 would have passed by bigger margins (around 62-63%).
80-90% of Detroit is African American and it's as poor and run down as shit. Yet the vote there defied all of the usual predictors of race, class, and education levels in black communities that Dan has cited (shocked the shit out of me, quite frankly).If you were to ask me offhand, I'd say that there is a bit too much too much of that down home religion in most black communities in California, straight from the South. Moreso than you get in the Midwest
And I am not defending the black position on the marriage issue, I am simply pointing out what it seems to be.
@47 I acknowledge it Laurel, but are you one of those white queers that blame black LGBTs for the homophobia in black communities? I've been out since I was 17. I work with black LGBT kids. I talk with my family about homophobia; some of them are extremely bigoted. I just wanna slap some of the black LGBTs that continue to go to these churches. What more do you want me do to? Black LGBTs, by and large, don't have the resources to do much frankly. Better yet, why don't you take your chickenshit ass into Orange County or Fresno or those many other redneck pockets of California and do outreach? If you aren't willing to do that, or your too damn scared too do it then don't expect me to have a duty to do the same.
I'll stay nice and relatively safe on the North Side of Chitown (which everyone on the South Side in black and Mexican communities and even in Bridgeport) thinks is Faggotville anyway, thank you very much.
Not saying that your saying all of that, but I've seen more than comments of that type, as if it is my sole duty along to work with the black community.
And, yes, Loveschild is a delusional bitch.
More...
Move back to the black community? Depends on what you are talking about. I don't make enough money to buy a home in South Shore. I don't make enough money to buy a home near Evanston Township High School, where a small black community is located (which is pretty gay friendly from what I've seen).
If anyone is implying that I move into the 'hood, you must be fucking joking.
But Detroit (my hometown) defies all of these stats. When Proposal 2 was voted on in Michigan, it passed with a 59-41 margin. There was no variance in those stats based on ethnicity. And the vote in Wayne County (where Detroit is located) was 54-45%. Were it not for Detroit and Wayne County, Proposal 2 would have passed by bigger margins (around 62-63%).
80-90% of Detroit is African American and it's as poor and run down as shit. Yet the vote there defied all of the usual predictors of race, class, and education levels in black communities that Dan has cited (shocked the shit out of me, quite frankly).If you were to ask me offhand, I'd say that there is a bit too much too much of that down home religion in most black communities in California, straight from the South. Moreso than you get in the Midwest
And I am not defending the black position on the marriage issue, I am simply pointing out what it seems to be.
@47 I acknowledge it Laurel, but are you one of those white queers that blame black LGBTs for the homophobia in black communities? I've been out since I was 17. I work with black LGBT kids. I talk with my family about homophobia; some of them are extremely bigoted. I just wanna slap some of the black LGBTs that continue to go to these churches. What more do you want me do to? Black LGBTs, by and large, don't have the resources to do much frankly. Better yet, why don't you take your chickenshit ass into Orange County or Fresno or those many other redneck pockets of California and do outreach? If you aren't willing to do that, or your too damn scared too do it then don't expect me to have a duty to do the same.
I'll stay nice and relatively safe on the North Side of Chitown (which everyone on the South Side in black and Mexican communities and even in Bridgeport) thinks is Faggotville anyway, thank you very much.
Not saying that your saying all of that, but I've seen more than comments of that type, as if it is my sole duty along to work with the black community.
And, yes, Loveschild is a delusional bitch.
50
48.
They can. As can racist whites. But if they vote in an ignorant or bigoted way, they should be ready to take the criticism without whining or unfair (and untrue) accusations of racism toward the person criticizing them.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. With the exception of a handful of Log Cabin Republicans, many, many thousands of gay people (and lefty radical hippies for that matter) vote against our own financial self-interest when we vote Democrat or Green. We vote to support welfare though we'll never need it. We vote to support public schools, though the majority of us don't have children and never will (or we have them in private schools). We vote for universal or single-payer health care, though we have that from our high-paying jobs.
Many thousands of us can afford to take care of our partners financially and live in an area of the country that is gay-friendly with gay civil rights legislation. We don't need marriage because we can afford to buy all the protections we need. And still, we vote Democrat or Green. We vote against our own financial self-interest, and we do it because it's the right thing to do for everyone else.
I merely ask why blacks cannot vote for whomever they please.
They can. As can racist whites. But if they vote in an ignorant or bigoted way, they should be ready to take the criticism without whining or unfair (and untrue) accusations of racism toward the person criticizing them.
Why should blacks or the poor or Latinos hesitate to vote in their self-interest? Gays don't.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. With the exception of a handful of Log Cabin Republicans, many, many thousands of gay people (and lefty radical hippies for that matter) vote against our own financial self-interest when we vote Democrat or Green. We vote to support welfare though we'll never need it. We vote to support public schools, though the majority of us don't have children and never will (or we have them in private schools). We vote for universal or single-payer health care, though we have that from our high-paying jobs.
Many thousands of us can afford to take care of our partners financially and live in an area of the country that is gay-friendly with gay civil rights legislation. We don't need marriage because we can afford to buy all the protections we need. And still, we vote Democrat or Green. We vote against our own financial self-interest, and we do it because it's the right thing to do for everyone else.
51
It just goes to show that there is more work to be done to get social acceptance in the community.
52
@48
"But if they vote in an ignorant or bigoted way, they should be ready to take the criticism without whining or unfair (and untrue) accusations of racism toward the person criticizing them."
See, I agree with this.
Personally, I would not have minded if GLBTs had marched on conservative homophobic bigoted African American churches in California. But I would remind you to check and see if a particular AA church is bigoted and it would probably help if you took a few black LGBTs with you just so it didn't look like you were pick on black people.
But that's just me. I can't stand most of these churches nowadays.
"But if they vote in an ignorant or bigoted way, they should be ready to take the criticism without whining or unfair (and untrue) accusations of racism toward the person criticizing them."
See, I agree with this.
Personally, I would not have minded if GLBTs had marched on conservative homophobic bigoted African American churches in California. But I would remind you to check and see if a particular AA church is bigoted and it would probably help if you took a few black LGBTs with you just so it didn't look like you were pick on black people.
But that's just me. I can't stand most of these churches nowadays.
54
You left out the word "fantastic" between "last" and "comment." ;-)
That last comment was for jade at #50
You left out the word "fantastic" between "last" and "comment." ;-)
55
@54 How about:
That last comment was for the fantastic jade at #50 ;)
And no Dan isn't racist but he is a shit-starter and a Cynic. Then again, so am I, so I can relate.
That last comment was for the fantastic jade at #50 ;)
And no Dan isn't racist but he is a shit-starter and a Cynic. Then again, so am I, so I can relate.
56
#55. And I make three.
Being a cynical shit-starter is how we've always gotten things done in this country, beginning with Thomas Paine.
Being a cynical shit-starter is how we've always gotten things done in this country, beginning with Thomas Paine.
57
52 You're nothing short of either a faker or a gay uncle tom. No real black person would even think of giving these people the idea of harassing black churches. Not after all the reports of violence and verbal intimidation black people suffered at their hands in California. Are you going to be amongst the shields you proposed the intimidators take with them in the hopes that they're not seen for what they truly are?
"Gay black guy here" my ass....!
"Gay black guy here" my ass....!
58
Ah, here it comes...
Look, primarily because of the black church and that fake holier than thou shit that is preached against homosexuality, the church is primarily responsible for the undignified way in which gay black men were treated in the 80's. Gay black men died undignified deaths. Like my mother said when she finally saw what was happening when she visited my grandmother in a nursing home, "I expect white folks to treat their children like that, I could NEVER treat a child of mine like that."
Thankfully, My mom hates the church as much as I do, for her own reasons.
And since then, black communities still don't have a handle on the problem and still you want to preach against homosexuality in those churches while people are dying at sub-Saharan rates. And many of you want to blame ALL of that on white people. Look at your damn selves (those of you in conservative churches)
What kills me is that there's a more than a few gay blacks that are willing to stay up in those churches and direct those choirs and take that shit. I don't.
I saw far too many gay black men with AIDS on the street and you know what you sanctimonious bitch...many of them didn't die from AIDS, many died from crack overdoses. They were turned away and shunned by their own, which they assumed to be other black people at the time.
The black church (as an institution, not individuals) has blood on it's hands. For all the Xtian love you preach about, I remember when many of you Holy Rollers acted in a very un-Xtian way (Jesus would not have turned them away). Gay black men had to depend on each other and on the gay community at-large (if they could develop that much trust in them). And it's still the gay community that many in black communities with AIDS have to come to get some sort of services.
I remember that shit and I won't forget it. I haven't forgiven, though I am trying.
Don't get me wrong, that does not excuse the racism that does have the tendency to drip on threads like this (like the one who's pissed at something to do with black LGBTs, what the hell was that about?). But one of the reasons that I, personally, leave the outreach to churches to others is because of sanctimonious bitches like you. I can't deal with it.
More...
Look, primarily because of the black church and that fake holier than thou shit that is preached against homosexuality, the church is primarily responsible for the undignified way in which gay black men were treated in the 80's. Gay black men died undignified deaths. Like my mother said when she finally saw what was happening when she visited my grandmother in a nursing home, "I expect white folks to treat their children like that, I could NEVER treat a child of mine like that."
Thankfully, My mom hates the church as much as I do, for her own reasons.
And since then, black communities still don't have a handle on the problem and still you want to preach against homosexuality in those churches while people are dying at sub-Saharan rates. And many of you want to blame ALL of that on white people. Look at your damn selves (those of you in conservative churches)
What kills me is that there's a more than a few gay blacks that are willing to stay up in those churches and direct those choirs and take that shit. I don't.
I saw far too many gay black men with AIDS on the street and you know what you sanctimonious bitch...many of them didn't die from AIDS, many died from crack overdoses. They were turned away and shunned by their own, which they assumed to be other black people at the time.
The black church (as an institution, not individuals) has blood on it's hands. For all the Xtian love you preach about, I remember when many of you Holy Rollers acted in a very un-Xtian way (Jesus would not have turned them away). Gay black men had to depend on each other and on the gay community at-large (if they could develop that much trust in them). And it's still the gay community that many in black communities with AIDS have to come to get some sort of services.
I remember that shit and I won't forget it. I haven't forgiven, though I am trying.
Don't get me wrong, that does not excuse the racism that does have the tendency to drip on threads like this (like the one who's pissed at something to do with black LGBTs, what the hell was that about?). But one of the reasons that I, personally, leave the outreach to churches to others is because of sanctimonious bitches like you. I can't deal with it.
60
Let me add...
Many black churches are not like what I described in my previous post. It's the churches that preach that straight-out-the-South-hick Jesus shit (of whatever ethnicity) that I am referring to.
Nothing short of an apology for the role of the institutional African-American Church treatment and hostility and plain cruel inhumane treatment of gay black men in the 1980's will suffice.
At least the gay community at large has manage to pull themselves together, somewhat (a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory, nevertheless) when their own families turned their backs on them. I do applaud that.
Many black churches are not like what I described in my previous post. It's the churches that preach that straight-out-the-South-hick Jesus shit (of whatever ethnicity) that I am referring to.
Nothing short of an apology for the role of the institutional African-American Church treatment and hostility and plain cruel inhumane treatment of gay black men in the 1980's will suffice.
At least the gay community at large has manage to pull themselves together, somewhat (a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory, nevertheless) when their own families turned their backs on them. I do applaud that.
62
Gay is a white thing. Dan proves it.
Dan Savage is a white before he is anything else.
He pretends all the world loves gay people except for those pesky "blacks".
Why didn't more white men support Prop 8, how about latinos, asians, women?
How about the military, every major religion, the government, the Boy Scouts having prohibitons against homosexuality....no, only "the blacks" matter.
In world ordered by Dan a black person has to choose between race and sexuality. Somehow his being gay is equal to being black.
I am not supporting racist gay or straight.
If Dan's "Marriage Equality" crusade was about marriage equality I would support it.
Instead it has become a platform for white bigots gay and straight to spew their "soft" racism. "I liked black people...till that vote." or "There's a black President so they owe us."
Justice won't happen until black gay people define their own experience and voice instead of it being dictated to them by gay white "friendly" bigots and their supporters.
Not being able to marry is just like being black?
What a great way to make two important yet distinct experiences seem trival.
Dan Savage is a white before he is anything else.
He pretends all the world loves gay people except for those pesky "blacks".
Why didn't more white men support Prop 8, how about latinos, asians, women?
How about the military, every major religion, the government, the Boy Scouts having prohibitons against homosexuality....no, only "the blacks" matter.
In world ordered by Dan a black person has to choose between race and sexuality. Somehow his being gay is equal to being black.
I am not supporting racist gay or straight.
If Dan's "Marriage Equality" crusade was about marriage equality I would support it.
Instead it has become a platform for white bigots gay and straight to spew their "soft" racism. "I liked black people...till that vote." or "There's a black President so they owe us."
Justice won't happen until black gay people define their own experience and voice instead of it being dictated to them by gay white "friendly" bigots and their supporters.
Not being able to marry is just like being black?
What a great way to make two important yet distinct experiences seem trival.
63
62.
This statement alone is so full of shit that I refuse to read the rest of your post.
He pretends all the world loves gay people except for those pesky "blacks".
This statement alone is so full of shit that I refuse to read the rest of your post.
64
Jade, I did read the rest of the post. He was about to make a point that I agree with but it got lost.
Personally, I can't and don't choose between gay and black, to me it's a false choice. I'll define for myself what both of those adjectives mean to me.
Personally, I can't and don't choose between gay and black, to me it's a false choice. I'll define for myself what both of those adjectives mean to me.
65
"Marriage is a civil right, just ask black folk who do know their history and know that slaves were forbidden to marry and nevertheless persisted to do so, even without recognition and even as they could be separated at a moment's notice."-posted #19
Are you seriously try to compare a slaves experience with gay marriage equality?
Review the history. Slaves (gay or straight) were property of whites (gay or straight). They were traded and sold as such.
They married by jumping over the broom after getting permission from their masters. Even then they had no rights to their bodies, spouse or children.
Don't gloss over that horrific and ugly portion of US history.
Are you seriously try to compare a slaves experience with gay marriage equality?
Review the history. Slaves (gay or straight) were property of whites (gay or straight). They were traded and sold as such.
They married by jumping over the broom after getting permission from their masters. Even then they had no rights to their bodies, spouse or children.
Don't gloss over that horrific and ugly portion of US history.
66
Chitown Kev, @ 35.
As a Christian I apologize for the narrow bigoted views of many who call themselves Christians. I am ashamed. I am truly sorry, you are right to be angry. The gospel of grace has been polluted.
I am willing, and will continue to do the Outreach to the Christian community.
I wish you joy.
Best wishes,
k
As a Christian I apologize for the narrow bigoted views of many who call themselves Christians. I am ashamed. I am truly sorry, you are right to be angry. The gospel of grace has been polluted.
I am willing, and will continue to do the Outreach to the Christian community.
I wish you joy.
Best wishes,
k
67
@65
Yeah, now that infuriates me to no end and I don't even have to go back to African American slavery to be infuriated. Look at the slavery of women in Easten Europe TODAY, I have far more rights then those women. The idea the the poster would even compare the 2 is dumb and racist.
Yeah, now that infuriates me to no end and I don't even have to go back to African American slavery to be infuriated. Look at the slavery of women in Easten Europe TODAY, I have far more rights then those women. The idea the the poster would even compare the 2 is dumb and racist.
68
Kim, that's appreciated, thanks.
But I want to hear that, on an institutional level, from the one institution in the black community that could always be relied upon to provide a sense of dignity, pride, and personhood to black people at a time when black people could not be treated and respected as autonomous human beings anywhere else in society.
Because those institutions lied to me and my gay black brothers in the 1980's. They failed to protect us. They demonized gay black men (whether they had AIDS or not) as de facto white men and shunned them. (White people are supposed to do that, black folks don't do that!) And many conservative black church institutions continue to lie to themselves and their communities. Address that, apologize for that, and we can talk.
That shit hurts more than anything, it hurts more than some this racist bullshit that some of these posters spill out (I can survive that).
But I want to hear that, on an institutional level, from the one institution in the black community that could always be relied upon to provide a sense of dignity, pride, and personhood to black people at a time when black people could not be treated and respected as autonomous human beings anywhere else in society.
Because those institutions lied to me and my gay black brothers in the 1980's. They failed to protect us. They demonized gay black men (whether they had AIDS or not) as de facto white men and shunned them. (White people are supposed to do that, black folks don't do that!) And many conservative black church institutions continue to lie to themselves and their communities. Address that, apologize for that, and we can talk.
That shit hurts more than anything, it hurts more than some this racist bullshit that some of these posters spill out (I can survive that).
69
67.
Hi Kevin. I don't think that #19 was comparing slavery to marriage equality. His post was taken out of context. Or, more specifically, his post was restated incorrectly. Or wrong conclusions were drawn from it. Whatever.
Saying that marriage is a civil right that slaves, and later interracial couples, were denied does not at all mean that slavery and gay marriage are equal in their effects or scope. Keshmeshi never said that and I don't think he meant it either.
Dan has said over and over and over that The Civil Rights Movement and our current civil rights movement are two different things that have parallel issues. He recently made the point that black people didn't (and don't) seem to mind that the women's movement used similar language when fighting for their rights.
There is a homophobia apparent in many people's resentment toward our use of the words "civil rights," I think.
Hi Kevin. I don't think that #19 was comparing slavery to marriage equality. His post was taken out of context. Or, more specifically, his post was restated incorrectly. Or wrong conclusions were drawn from it. Whatever.
Saying that marriage is a civil right that slaves, and later interracial couples, were denied does not at all mean that slavery and gay marriage are equal in their effects or scope. Keshmeshi never said that and I don't think he meant it either.
Dan has said over and over and over that The Civil Rights Movement and our current civil rights movement are two different things that have parallel issues. He recently made the point that black people didn't (and don't) seem to mind that the women's movement used similar language when fighting for their rights.
There is a homophobia apparent in many people's resentment toward our use of the words "civil rights," I think.
70
Kevin,
It is one of my hearts desire, that you and every member of the LGBTQ community would recieve that apology. I am sorry for both our failure and our betrayal.
It is one of my hearts desire, that you and every member of the LGBTQ community would recieve that apology. I am sorry for both our failure and our betrayal.
71
62 You just got a witness. We need to define our own experience and voice instead of being dictated by gay white bigots, beautifully expressed. Couldn't agree with you more, we need to also avoid the attempts at bastardising the black community (be it the church , schools, cultural institutions) by those that want to keep African Americans in a fear induced state. Those that seek to redefine the black experience in order to please their gay white masters need to know that they'll be called on their attempts at B.S comparisons and set straight.
72
Jade,
I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. My posts here are all part of an organic whole, and my concept of blacks voting 'selfishly' on matters pertaining specifically to gay marriage is predicated upon those questions I asked earlier that you couldn't answer. Yes, voting for liberal causes constitutes a sacrifice; but I don't see it as being so actively harmful to your quality of life as making temporary political alliances with Libertarians over social issues would be to blacks.
Take Andrew Sullivan, for example. A few years ago, in his capacity as editor, he published an analysis of psychometric testing funded by White Nationalists finding that blacks did more poorly on those tests than whites. As a conservative, his policy goals in so doing were abundantly clear: attacking the 'suspect class' status of the United States government in general, and that of blacks in particular. This effort came to fruition in such things as affirmative action's decline. He then complains about the homophobia in the black community, which is ironically negatively correlated with education levels INDEPENDENT OF THE RESULTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING. That is to say, we sent blacks who might not compare with the brightest of whites to college not merely to prepare them for corporate labor, but also to set a certain and select portion to transform the societal attitudes and perceptions of the black community at large. It was an investment that resulted in less homophobia, less crime, less misogyny and...get ready for it...CONTINUALLY BETTER SCORES ON PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.
Those 'quotas' helped everyone, but Sullivan led the crusade--as a FOREIGNER, no less--to have them abolished as he feels that intellectual differences between the races are innate and immutable, in spite of increasing evidence to the contrary about the effectiveness of those tests. Why? Because as a Libertarian, he looked at his tax returns and regretfully decided to attack those programs right alongside the racists who funded the study in the first place. I'm sure it was as heart-wrenching a decision for him as when Jefferson had to decide between freeing his slaves and giving up his imported Madeira wine. It had the same result, too. He was trying to be 'impartial', ie 'Objectivist', and he used "truthiness" as an intellectual justification for being selfish.
Today, Sullivan is one of many people who try to square their prior selfishness with the looming responsibility for those actions by mouthing the words of liberals. You see, despite the fact that poverty and lack of education correlate positively with homophobia, Sully et al just don't want to pay to fix that. You see? Blacks, Latinos, the poor should just try harder to realize the rational basis for giving equality to the poor homosexuals. Yet Sullivan and his ilk still support cutting the funding for programs that are proven to insure that result. Huh? At least Sullivan is intellectually honest enough to extend that hypocrisy to being AGAINST hate crime legislation; Dan, being merely an acolyte, is in favor of them.
This is what makes me sick about libertarians like Andrew and Dan. They argued for the Iraq War, and now howl under its expense. They are implicitly and even expressly okay with social inequalities, yet are never quite cognizant of cause and effect when it comes to the difference in social views that accompany that disparity. The mistakes Dan has CONSISTENTLY made when referring to the data in the original post indicates to me that he feels that blacks are homophobic and fanatically religious because they are black, rather than for any merely economic reason. Liberality is the result of a liberal education; as a function of civil society, it necessarily includes the sacrifice of generosity of which Jade has previously spoken. The question I have is how many in the gay 'community' are liberal in the first sense, vis-a-vis themselves, but conservative and even reactionary in the second sense, when it comes to others?
The only liberal I have ever seen here has been Trevor. The rest want all the liberties of a civil society, but chafe at the expense. But the black voters in CA, and blacks in general, are supposed to assume good faith in this one case? Because technically speaking, homophobia is merely an 'externality', along with AIDS, racism, gun violence in the economic imperialist vision that America has endorsed. Dan bought into it, and so did lots of other gays. The consequences are there to be suffered; the question is really about who shall be the ones to suffer them.
25 percent of gays voted for McCain. This is more than a 'handful', Jade. This was a vote to make the poor shoulder the burden to a greater extent than anyone else. I know it is racist of me to say so, but wouldn't it be fair to guess that close to 100 percent of those gay McCain voters were white? And I know it is regionalist of me, but I would bet a disproportionate amount of that total was in...California! Add to that the significant portion of gays who will become Republican, Libertarian, or apolitical as soon as 'equality' has been achieved, and you have a pretty good justification for blacks or Latinos or poor, or anyone else on the fringes to vote yes on 8. Now I and other educated blacks are supposed to go and tell them that in spite of the clear detriment it represents to the black community, that black voters are supposed to be liberal in this regard?
It sucks enough being racially inferior; please don't ask me to be stupid as well.
More...
I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. My posts here are all part of an organic whole, and my concept of blacks voting 'selfishly' on matters pertaining specifically to gay marriage is predicated upon those questions I asked earlier that you couldn't answer. Yes, voting for liberal causes constitutes a sacrifice; but I don't see it as being so actively harmful to your quality of life as making temporary political alliances with Libertarians over social issues would be to blacks.
Take Andrew Sullivan, for example. A few years ago, in his capacity as editor, he published an analysis of psychometric testing funded by White Nationalists finding that blacks did more poorly on those tests than whites. As a conservative, his policy goals in so doing were abundantly clear: attacking the 'suspect class' status of the United States government in general, and that of blacks in particular. This effort came to fruition in such things as affirmative action's decline. He then complains about the homophobia in the black community, which is ironically negatively correlated with education levels INDEPENDENT OF THE RESULTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING. That is to say, we sent blacks who might not compare with the brightest of whites to college not merely to prepare them for corporate labor, but also to set a certain and select portion to transform the societal attitudes and perceptions of the black community at large. It was an investment that resulted in less homophobia, less crime, less misogyny and...get ready for it...CONTINUALLY BETTER SCORES ON PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.
Those 'quotas' helped everyone, but Sullivan led the crusade--as a FOREIGNER, no less--to have them abolished as he feels that intellectual differences between the races are innate and immutable, in spite of increasing evidence to the contrary about the effectiveness of those tests. Why? Because as a Libertarian, he looked at his tax returns and regretfully decided to attack those programs right alongside the racists who funded the study in the first place. I'm sure it was as heart-wrenching a decision for him as when Jefferson had to decide between freeing his slaves and giving up his imported Madeira wine. It had the same result, too. He was trying to be 'impartial', ie 'Objectivist', and he used "truthiness" as an intellectual justification for being selfish.
Today, Sullivan is one of many people who try to square their prior selfishness with the looming responsibility for those actions by mouthing the words of liberals. You see, despite the fact that poverty and lack of education correlate positively with homophobia, Sully et al just don't want to pay to fix that. You see? Blacks, Latinos, the poor should just try harder to realize the rational basis for giving equality to the poor homosexuals. Yet Sullivan and his ilk still support cutting the funding for programs that are proven to insure that result. Huh? At least Sullivan is intellectually honest enough to extend that hypocrisy to being AGAINST hate crime legislation; Dan, being merely an acolyte, is in favor of them.
This is what makes me sick about libertarians like Andrew and Dan. They argued for the Iraq War, and now howl under its expense. They are implicitly and even expressly okay with social inequalities, yet are never quite cognizant of cause and effect when it comes to the difference in social views that accompany that disparity. The mistakes Dan has CONSISTENTLY made when referring to the data in the original post indicates to me that he feels that blacks are homophobic and fanatically religious because they are black, rather than for any merely economic reason. Liberality is the result of a liberal education; as a function of civil society, it necessarily includes the sacrifice of generosity of which Jade has previously spoken. The question I have is how many in the gay 'community' are liberal in the first sense, vis-a-vis themselves, but conservative and even reactionary in the second sense, when it comes to others?
The only liberal I have ever seen here has been Trevor. The rest want all the liberties of a civil society, but chafe at the expense. But the black voters in CA, and blacks in general, are supposed to assume good faith in this one case? Because technically speaking, homophobia is merely an 'externality', along with AIDS, racism, gun violence in the economic imperialist vision that America has endorsed. Dan bought into it, and so did lots of other gays. The consequences are there to be suffered; the question is really about who shall be the ones to suffer them.
25 percent of gays voted for McCain. This is more than a 'handful', Jade. This was a vote to make the poor shoulder the burden to a greater extent than anyone else. I know it is racist of me to say so, but wouldn't it be fair to guess that close to 100 percent of those gay McCain voters were white? And I know it is regionalist of me, but I would bet a disproportionate amount of that total was in...California! Add to that the significant portion of gays who will become Republican, Libertarian, or apolitical as soon as 'equality' has been achieved, and you have a pretty good justification for blacks or Latinos or poor, or anyone else on the fringes to vote yes on 8. Now I and other educated blacks are supposed to go and tell them that in spite of the clear detriment it represents to the black community, that black voters are supposed to be liberal in this regard?
It sucks enough being racially inferior; please don't ask me to be stupid as well.
74
72. You've written a long post. One that I've read closely. But I can't seem to get past the fact that you devote most of it to Andrew Sullivan.
I understand what he's doing in your post, I guess. I, too, think he's a self-centered douchebag of the highest order. I don't know why Dan admires him, and that's really none of my business. But I'll be damned if I'll apologize for Sullivan, or be lumped in with him so that you can make a point.
I couldn't care less if Dan used to be a Libertarian. Many centrist Democrats began as conservative libertarians, or worse (David Brooks is one; John Aravosis is another one). This isn't uncommon and it shouldn't condemn a person. Most of us started out believing how we were raised to believe, and were born again into thinking human beings when we reached adulthood. In fact, when I find that someone's moved to the left after years of conservative thinking, I admire him or her. Especially if they did it after they became financially secure.
I've read many, many columns and essays by Dan, and with the exception of his disappointing decision to trust the Bush administration regarding Iraq (a decision he quickly recanted before the war actually began, albeit begrudgingly), I've never seen any Libertarian leanings in his politics. He's for universal healthcare, and I don't get any indication from him that he'd sell out the First Amendment to protect the Second or have his taxes lowered (which seems to be a tenet of Libertarianism).
So. Andrew Sullivan is a half-wit douchebag with a mean streak. 25% of gays and lesbians are conservatives. We make up +/-8% of the population. From what I understand, "minorities" are no longer a minority when it comes to population. Of course, many, many Hispanics--until this election--have historically voted Republican. Many more African Americans didn't vote at all. And yet you're worried about how the LGBT vote might affect your way of life?
I am as lefty as it gets, 72, but I'm beginning to interpret a lot of these posts (not just yours) as, "We're voting against your basic civil rights because--along with thinking you're abominations--we also think you're fakers, liars, and self-centered back-stabbers." That's fucking insulting and I've lost patience with it.
I've never asked you to be stupid. Please don't ask me to graciously accept unfair and unwarranted accusations. I used up all my White Guilt in my twenties.
More...
I understand what he's doing in your post, I guess. I, too, think he's a self-centered douchebag of the highest order. I don't know why Dan admires him, and that's really none of my business. But I'll be damned if I'll apologize for Sullivan, or be lumped in with him so that you can make a point.
I couldn't care less if Dan used to be a Libertarian. Many centrist Democrats began as conservative libertarians, or worse (David Brooks is one; John Aravosis is another one). This isn't uncommon and it shouldn't condemn a person. Most of us started out believing how we were raised to believe, and were born again into thinking human beings when we reached adulthood. In fact, when I find that someone's moved to the left after years of conservative thinking, I admire him or her. Especially if they did it after they became financially secure.
I've read many, many columns and essays by Dan, and with the exception of his disappointing decision to trust the Bush administration regarding Iraq (a decision he quickly recanted before the war actually began, albeit begrudgingly), I've never seen any Libertarian leanings in his politics. He's for universal healthcare, and I don't get any indication from him that he'd sell out the First Amendment to protect the Second or have his taxes lowered (which seems to be a tenet of Libertarianism).
So. Andrew Sullivan is a half-wit douchebag with a mean streak. 25% of gays and lesbians are conservatives. We make up +/-8% of the population. From what I understand, "minorities" are no longer a minority when it comes to population. Of course, many, many Hispanics--until this election--have historically voted Republican. Many more African Americans didn't vote at all. And yet you're worried about how the LGBT vote might affect your way of life?
I am as lefty as it gets, 72, but I'm beginning to interpret a lot of these posts (not just yours) as, "We're voting against your basic civil rights because--along with thinking you're abominations--we also think you're fakers, liars, and self-centered back-stabbers." That's fucking insulting and I've lost patience with it.
I've never asked you to be stupid. Please don't ask me to graciously accept unfair and unwarranted accusations. I used up all my White Guilt in my twenties.
75
Jade,
I trust you. I am only speaking as to the mindset of those in CA. Look at it in the context of CA politics: Reagan, high land prices, racially-motivated gang warfare on all sides, the immigration problem, scarce resources and a ton too many people. That slice of America is not representative of the whole, not least due to that infamous constitution-by-plebiscite thing. Every minority or suspect class has gotten burned by that thing; lots of majority business owners and citizens too. But CA citizens love it, it's a legalized blood sport.
But returning to the black vote in CA, which is what is at issue here, I question its validity as a news item, period. Those were people who had never voted before, and in all likelihood will never vote again--even if Obama runs again. So what is this data for? Venting? This was totally framed by the media months before the election. Why were all the cameras at the 8 protest sites? They wanted a bloodbath. The corporate media isn't racist or homophobic per se, in that their reasons for promoting this sort of thing are objective--they do it for the money. I don't hold it against them anymore than I do Slog for leaving up 'controversial' race-related posts in its comment section for the ad hits.
As for Dan's politics, while he has an obvious sexual orientation, his political stripes remain to be seen. From what I've read, he pretty much goes by gut when choosing out stories to post, rather than attempting to bolster any cohesive political response to a reasoned view of human nature. Or economics. Or religion. Or city planning. Or....race. That's why I called him 'stupid' as opposed to 'racist'. But regarding the topic at hand, I have seen posts on this that obviously rely on Sullivan's posts regarding the same topic, with minor changes to fit where Dan and Sullivan disagree. Unfortunately, Sullivan's pieces do have a libertarian/race-monger slant to them, as exemplified in their framing: semantics, presentation of data, contextualization with relevant social data, recommendations for social policy, etc. And the fact that when Dan reposts them, he slaps another conclusion on the end, hardly changes the tone of the original.
Anyway, that's why I brought up Sullivan so much. Dan is just a moron, and relied on a badly framed narrative because it had the click and glitter of statistics. Your liberalism is appreciated, and I think I reacted a bit harshly in saying that Trevor is the only one here. There are plenty more. But I don't think I can do anything about Prop 8 anymore than you just because I'm black. I have nothing in common with those voters and, more importantly, I live in Minnesota. I'm horrified at the implications this particular vote has in terms of setting precedent. But it shouldn't be allowed to dominate the national conversation while the Prop 8 group mounts efforts elsewhere using the negative energy this whole discussion has and continues to produce. Especially not with these crap posts by Dan.
Oh, and I don't expect you to feel white guilt. But I also don't think that given my proximity to the CA voters in question, I should be obliged to feel any black guilt either. I am not somehow responsible for their votes any more than I am responsible for the voting habits of gays. If I were in CA, I'd be part of the 30 percent who voted no on 8, and part of the 75 percent of gays who voted liberally. But yup, "fakers, liars, and self-centered back-stabbers" would seem to be the vibe I'm getting from CA gays--especially in the Castro and WeHo. And Dan calls the ones in LA 'vapid'. Do you think that may have 'colored' other minorities' (and apparently voters in general) perception of them?
More...
I trust you. I am only speaking as to the mindset of those in CA. Look at it in the context of CA politics: Reagan, high land prices, racially-motivated gang warfare on all sides, the immigration problem, scarce resources and a ton too many people. That slice of America is not representative of the whole, not least due to that infamous constitution-by-plebiscite thing. Every minority or suspect class has gotten burned by that thing; lots of majority business owners and citizens too. But CA citizens love it, it's a legalized blood sport.
But returning to the black vote in CA, which is what is at issue here, I question its validity as a news item, period. Those were people who had never voted before, and in all likelihood will never vote again--even if Obama runs again. So what is this data for? Venting? This was totally framed by the media months before the election. Why were all the cameras at the 8 protest sites? They wanted a bloodbath. The corporate media isn't racist or homophobic per se, in that their reasons for promoting this sort of thing are objective--they do it for the money. I don't hold it against them anymore than I do Slog for leaving up 'controversial' race-related posts in its comment section for the ad hits.
As for Dan's politics, while he has an obvious sexual orientation, his political stripes remain to be seen. From what I've read, he pretty much goes by gut when choosing out stories to post, rather than attempting to bolster any cohesive political response to a reasoned view of human nature. Or economics. Or religion. Or city planning. Or....race. That's why I called him 'stupid' as opposed to 'racist'. But regarding the topic at hand, I have seen posts on this that obviously rely on Sullivan's posts regarding the same topic, with minor changes to fit where Dan and Sullivan disagree. Unfortunately, Sullivan's pieces do have a libertarian/race-monger slant to them, as exemplified in their framing: semantics, presentation of data, contextualization with relevant social data, recommendations for social policy, etc. And the fact that when Dan reposts them, he slaps another conclusion on the end, hardly changes the tone of the original.
Anyway, that's why I brought up Sullivan so much. Dan is just a moron, and relied on a badly framed narrative because it had the click and glitter of statistics. Your liberalism is appreciated, and I think I reacted a bit harshly in saying that Trevor is the only one here. There are plenty more. But I don't think I can do anything about Prop 8 anymore than you just because I'm black. I have nothing in common with those voters and, more importantly, I live in Minnesota. I'm horrified at the implications this particular vote has in terms of setting precedent. But it shouldn't be allowed to dominate the national conversation while the Prop 8 group mounts efforts elsewhere using the negative energy this whole discussion has and continues to produce. Especially not with these crap posts by Dan.
Oh, and I don't expect you to feel white guilt. But I also don't think that given my proximity to the CA voters in question, I should be obliged to feel any black guilt either. I am not somehow responsible for their votes any more than I am responsible for the voting habits of gays. If I were in CA, I'd be part of the 30 percent who voted no on 8, and part of the 75 percent of gays who voted liberally. But yup, "fakers, liars, and self-centered back-stabbers" would seem to be the vibe I'm getting from CA gays--especially in the Castro and WeHo. And Dan calls the ones in LA 'vapid'. Do you think that may have 'colored' other minorities' (and apparently voters in general) perception of them?
76
Too, too much to digest here, esp. A Man With No Pants.
I'm beginning to become a bit of a Caliphobe in the sense that it wracks my nerves to no end how much thr Prop 8 vote is dominating the national discussion on gay marriage, gays v. blacks, etc.
I've been reading statements like "70% of blacks voted against Prop 8." Or even worse "70% of African Americans voted against gay marriage."
Hello? Did the entire population of African Americans come from all over the country to all corners of California specifically to vote against Proposition 8 (there is a year residency requirement before you can vote in CA, I believe)?
Hello, was there a nationwide referendum of gay marriage on November 4, 2008 where 70% of black people voted against gay marriage?
Black Virginians did not have a vote on Prop 8. Black Ohioans did not vote on Prop 8. Black Floridians did not have a vote on Prop 8. Only Californians did (black, white, Latino, whatever) had a vote on Proposition 8.
Seriously, it's beginning to look like a lot of shit in California is seriously fucked up for all types of reasons. The stupid fucking Constitution in the state would be a good place to start. The Eastern seaboard seems to be moving along on the marriage question just fine, with 2 pro-gay black governors, the second consecutive gay black mayor in Cambridge, Mass., high visibility of LGBTs of color in New Jersey, a gay black school president in Chicago, a significant presence of black LGBT's in the civil unions debate here (I'm crossing my fingers on that).
With the exception of that oh-so-special Rev. James Meeks, I can't imagine a scene where black people would be happily celebrating in front of churches at taking away someone's cilvil rights. I can't imagine white gays in Chicago or New York (even if they wanted to) saying the n-word out of their mouth at a rally (and if that did happen, you would have plenty of Puerto Ricans in Chicago and New York highly pissed off. Not to mention Dominicans. They're Latino, yes. But many consider themselves black also.)
Sure, part of me says it's a national cause and I'm down. The other part of me is like, "Please keep your California problems and issues and relate them to California. That vote is not indicative of everyone's (gay, black, white, Latino, and all combinations thereof) reality. Just California.
More...
I'm beginning to become a bit of a Caliphobe in the sense that it wracks my nerves to no end how much thr Prop 8 vote is dominating the national discussion on gay marriage, gays v. blacks, etc.
I've been reading statements like "70% of blacks voted against Prop 8." Or even worse "70% of African Americans voted against gay marriage."
Hello? Did the entire population of African Americans come from all over the country to all corners of California specifically to vote against Proposition 8 (there is a year residency requirement before you can vote in CA, I believe)?
Hello, was there a nationwide referendum of gay marriage on November 4, 2008 where 70% of black people voted against gay marriage?
Black Virginians did not have a vote on Prop 8. Black Ohioans did not vote on Prop 8. Black Floridians did not have a vote on Prop 8. Only Californians did (black, white, Latino, whatever) had a vote on Proposition 8.
Seriously, it's beginning to look like a lot of shit in California is seriously fucked up for all types of reasons. The stupid fucking Constitution in the state would be a good place to start. The Eastern seaboard seems to be moving along on the marriage question just fine, with 2 pro-gay black governors, the second consecutive gay black mayor in Cambridge, Mass., high visibility of LGBTs of color in New Jersey, a gay black school president in Chicago, a significant presence of black LGBT's in the civil unions debate here (I'm crossing my fingers on that).
With the exception of that oh-so-special Rev. James Meeks, I can't imagine a scene where black people would be happily celebrating in front of churches at taking away someone's cilvil rights. I can't imagine white gays in Chicago or New York (even if they wanted to) saying the n-word out of their mouth at a rally (and if that did happen, you would have plenty of Puerto Ricans in Chicago and New York highly pissed off. Not to mention Dominicans. They're Latino, yes. But many consider themselves black also.)
Sure, part of me says it's a national cause and I'm down. The other part of me is like, "Please keep your California problems and issues and relate them to California. That vote is not indicative of everyone's (gay, black, white, Latino, and all combinations thereof) reality. Just California.
77
Now on to that 25% of gays and lesbians that voted for McCain/Palin.
I would have to look for the story but there has been some polling on this. In many gayborhoods in big cities (New York, Philly, San Francisco, Provincetown, DC) The LGBT vote for Obama was roughly in the low to mid 80%. In Chicago close to 90% of the LGBT vote went to Obama.
In Dallas, I believe the number was 56% for Obama. In Miami, I believe it was 58% Obama...
There's 2 factors in play.
1) Obviously, there seems to be a North/South split in the vote. I also suspect there may be a rural/urban split in the vote.
2) Maybe GLBT polls are beginning to be conducted in places other than New York and California. Maybe these polls are more reflective of that diversity.
A third factor. John Kerry stuck his neck out for the LGBT community just a bit more than Barack Obama did. We returned Kerry's appreciation with our loyalty.
And actually, the GLBT vote for Obama was about the same as the GLBT vote for Bill Clinton in 1996, I believe. Just to put that in context.
I would have to look for the story but there has been some polling on this. In many gayborhoods in big cities (New York, Philly, San Francisco, Provincetown, DC) The LGBT vote for Obama was roughly in the low to mid 80%. In Chicago close to 90% of the LGBT vote went to Obama.
In Dallas, I believe the number was 56% for Obama. In Miami, I believe it was 58% Obama...
There's 2 factors in play.
1) Obviously, there seems to be a North/South split in the vote. I also suspect there may be a rural/urban split in the vote.
2) Maybe GLBT polls are beginning to be conducted in places other than New York and California. Maybe these polls are more reflective of that diversity.
A third factor. John Kerry stuck his neck out for the LGBT community just a bit more than Barack Obama did. We returned Kerry's appreciation with our loyalty.
And actually, the GLBT vote for Obama was about the same as the GLBT vote for Bill Clinton in 1996, I believe. Just to put that in context.
78
And as far as Prop 8 goes, here's my thing...
If you want to hold me (as a gay black man) responsible for Watts and Compton because I'm black, well, OK.
Do I get to hold white LGBTs responsible for Orange County and Fresno because those are predominately "white" counties (with a bigger payoff in votes)?
All of that, of course, is hypothetically speaking but as of yesterday.
Because No on 8 did not have a significant presence or outreach in Watts, Compton, Orange County, or Fresno, or anywhere in Inland California. It is a little unfair to say that No On 8 solely neglected minority communities.
Now Dan has done a pretty good job of holding their feet to the fire on that. I've seen better (Peterilis) but Dan's been OK In the way that Dan only can.
If you want to hold me (as a gay black man) responsible for Watts and Compton because I'm black, well, OK.
Do I get to hold white LGBTs responsible for Orange County and Fresno because those are predominately "white" counties (with a bigger payoff in votes)?
All of that, of course, is hypothetically speaking but as of yesterday.
Because No on 8 did not have a significant presence or outreach in Watts, Compton, Orange County, or Fresno, or anywhere in Inland California. It is a little unfair to say that No On 8 solely neglected minority communities.
Now Dan has done a pretty good job of holding their feet to the fire on that. I've seen better (Peterilis) but Dan's been OK In the way that Dan only can.
80
Loveschild, I apologize for my name calling.
But I am not going to defend institutions in black communities that would no sooner that ostracize me or see me dead simply because I am gay solely because they are black institutions and I, therefore, have to be down with them.
That doesn't mean that I won't acknowldge the tremendous good that these institutions (and individuals associated with them) have done (the Civil Rights Movement of course, Preacher-Dude James Baldwin would be another, Jeremiah Wright would be a third).
But I am not going to defend institutions in black communities that would no sooner that ostracize me or see me dead simply because I am gay solely because they are black institutions and I, therefore, have to be down with them.
That doesn't mean that I won't acknowldge the tremendous good that these institutions (and individuals associated with them) have done (the Civil Rights Movement of course, Preacher-Dude James Baldwin would be another, Jeremiah Wright would be a third).
82
76
That is the way intellectually lazy bigotry works.
You think Blacks get it bad, Mormons are 1% of California but Dan wants to boycott the entire state of Utah because of California's Prop 8 vote.
huh?
That is the way intellectually lazy bigotry works.
You think Blacks get it bad, Mormons are 1% of California but Dan wants to boycott the entire state of Utah because of California's Prop 8 vote.
huh?
83
I think you can say "we need to reach out to black people when it comes to gay marriage rights" without blaming black people as a whole for Prop 8. The fact is, in politics votes often go by a very thin margin and you need all the votes you can get. If black people were significantly more likely to vote for Prop 8, it doesn't us any good to point fingers and say "it's their fault." Instead, if (for example, since I'm having a hard time finding solid numbers) 48% of whites and 70% of blacks voted yes, think of 22% of black voters as being "easy targets" for campaigning--that is, gay marriage activists have dropped the ball when it comes to reaching out to black voters, and getting that outreach up to the level of success they've had with white voters will be more successful than trying to change the minds of whatever percent, in any racial group, will always vote against gay rights.
I just don't see playing the blame game as doing any good. We need to stop the scapegoating and start taking action.
I just don't see playing the blame game as doing any good. We need to stop the scapegoating and start taking action.
84
Dan,
Keep talking politics even though your spoiled, whiny, kink demanding readers want you stop.
Marriage is a civil right and all Americans are entitled to the same, equal, civil rights. No wedding can be valid without a previously issued legal civil license.
It doesn't matter how much money the wealthy cults of Mormons and Catholics are willing to spend to fight it, or how many black racists are willing to call you white boy, deny that it is a real civil right and vote against it, the issue remains the same.
Equal rights, including marriage, apply to all Americans. Church and State are separate. Our laws are intended to protect minorities from both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of other hostile minorities.
Direct democracy, in the form of simple majority passage ballot initiatives, is almost inevitability the precursor to disaster because the average voter is too stupid to understand long term consequences and responds only to vapid emotional pitches. Even bad State Legislators are better than that.
Keep fighting the good political fight on the Slog and other places. The kinksters have you all to themselves during the Tuesday podcast and your Thursday column.
Keep talking politics even though your spoiled, whiny, kink demanding readers want you stop.
Marriage is a civil right and all Americans are entitled to the same, equal, civil rights. No wedding can be valid without a previously issued legal civil license.
It doesn't matter how much money the wealthy cults of Mormons and Catholics are willing to spend to fight it, or how many black racists are willing to call you white boy, deny that it is a real civil right and vote against it, the issue remains the same.
Equal rights, including marriage, apply to all Americans. Church and State are separate. Our laws are intended to protect minorities from both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of other hostile minorities.
Direct democracy, in the form of simple majority passage ballot initiatives, is almost inevitability the precursor to disaster because the average voter is too stupid to understand long term consequences and responds only to vapid emotional pitches. Even bad State Legislators are better than that.
Keep fighting the good political fight on the Slog and other places. The kinksters have you all to themselves during the Tuesday podcast and your Thursday column.
85
@81. Prove "the racism in the gay community suppressed the vote for Obama" as a fact.
Read the link I posted in @79 and then come back and talk. Those polls indicate that the vote for Obama was regional and in the low to mid-80's outside of the South. (A racist vote in Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Atlanta? That's plausible by the data.) And the GLBT vote for Obama was about the same as it was for Clinton. Go look that up, because you don't pay me enough.
Read the link I posted in @79 and then come back and talk. Those polls indicate that the vote for Obama was regional and in the low to mid-80's outside of the South. (A racist vote in Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Atlanta? That's plausible by the data.) And the GLBT vote for Obama was about the same as it was for Clinton. Go look that up, because you don't pay me enough.
86
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=n…
I"n heavily gay precincts in some cities the support for Obama was higher than even the national LGB average. In Boston 85 percent voted for Obama, 14 percent for McCain, and one percent for others this year. In San Francisco, 94 percent of voters in heavily gay precincts voted for Obama this year; McCain got a paltry four percent of votes in those precincts, and third-party candidates picked up just two percent. In Provincetown, Massachusetts, 88 percent voted Obama, 11 percent for McCain, and only one percent for others. The numbers for P’town were virtually identical to the vote tallies in both West Hollywood and in five heavily gay precincts of the Silver Lake section of Los Angeles.
Obama also did well among heavily gay precincts in some of the red states, although not as well as in bluer parts of the country. In Dallas, 64 percent in heavily gay precincts voted for Obama, 35 percent for McCain, and one percent for others. In Houston, 66 percent of heavily gay precinct voters supported Obama, 33 percent McCain, and one percent others."
I"n heavily gay precincts in some cities the support for Obama was higher than even the national LGB average. In Boston 85 percent voted for Obama, 14 percent for McCain, and one percent for others this year. In San Francisco, 94 percent of voters in heavily gay precincts voted for Obama this year; McCain got a paltry four percent of votes in those precincts, and third-party candidates picked up just two percent. In Provincetown, Massachusetts, 88 percent voted Obama, 11 percent for McCain, and only one percent for others. The numbers for P’town were virtually identical to the vote tallies in both West Hollywood and in five heavily gay precincts of the Silver Lake section of Los Angeles.
Obama also did well among heavily gay precincts in some of the red states, although not as well as in bluer parts of the country. In Dallas, 64 percent in heavily gay precincts voted for Obama, 35 percent for McCain, and one percent for others. In Houston, 66 percent of heavily gay precinct voters supported Obama, 33 percent McCain, and one percent others."
87
It just pisses me off to no end that people are throwing our some of these stupid firebombs 6 months later without doing the research.
It was (and is) unfair to extrapolate national assumptions about "the black community" based on an exit poll result (or 2 or 3) from a California ballot initiative on same-sex marriage on November 4, 2008.
It is EQUALLY as unfair to extrapolate "racism" in the national GLBT vote for Barack Obama without accounting for regional differences. Don't target the LGBT communities P'town, Philly, New York, West Hollywood, and San Francisco with that firebomb. And don't you dare target the LGBT community in Chicago.
The bulk of that 27% of the GLBT vote for McPalin seems to have come from the South. At least that's what the data pretty clearly shows.
i apologize for the takeover, Dan.
It was (and is) unfair to extrapolate national assumptions about "the black community" based on an exit poll result (or 2 or 3) from a California ballot initiative on same-sex marriage on November 4, 2008.
It is EQUALLY as unfair to extrapolate "racism" in the national GLBT vote for Barack Obama without accounting for regional differences. Don't target the LGBT communities P'town, Philly, New York, West Hollywood, and San Francisco with that firebomb. And don't you dare target the LGBT community in Chicago.
The bulk of that 27% of the GLBT vote for McPalin seems to have come from the South. At least that's what the data pretty clearly shows.
i apologize for the takeover, Dan.
88
#75.
I'll start by saying that--as much as I disagree with some of your arguments and conclusions, I love our discussion, because it's rare for me to enjoy conversations that give me different perspectives. The times I do are when they're with intelligent respectful people, even if I don't agree with them. You're such a very bright person. And I'm saying all of this for a reason, not just to give you the equivalent of an Internet Blow Job. I'm saying this because, 1. you are, and 2. . . .
Stop calling Dan stupid! wtf?? It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence, and you're fucking intelligent as all get-out, so I know you really can't be thinking that Dan is stupid or moronic.
I agree with both you and Chitown Kev regarding California and how fucked up it's becoming.
I also want to apologize for my "white guilt" bullshit. I regretted that as soon as I submitted my post. I'm sorry for it.
Other than that, I really have no reply to what both you and Kevin are saying. I don't even know where to start anymore. I'm still in a lot of pain from the election. I don't want to take the easy way and just place blame. I read these conversations because I need to, because I'll be the first to admit how angry I was and how easy it was to place blame. I had some shameful thoughts after the election. But I know there are never simple reasons behind these kinds of issues. And at least I was aware that my thoughts were wrong. But I had them.
I think this is something that we can all get past. I do. But it's going to take some hard, uncomfortable, difficult, and even embarrassing conversations. Some of the best conversations about this have been found here, on this blog, because Dan had the balls to start them.
I don't have anything of value to add.
More...
I'll start by saying that--as much as I disagree with some of your arguments and conclusions, I love our discussion, because it's rare for me to enjoy conversations that give me different perspectives. The times I do are when they're with intelligent respectful people, even if I don't agree with them. You're such a very bright person. And I'm saying all of this for a reason, not just to give you the equivalent of an Internet Blow Job. I'm saying this because, 1. you are, and 2. . . .
Stop calling Dan stupid! wtf?? It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence, and you're fucking intelligent as all get-out, so I know you really can't be thinking that Dan is stupid or moronic.
I agree with both you and Chitown Kev regarding California and how fucked up it's becoming.
I also want to apologize for my "white guilt" bullshit. I regretted that as soon as I submitted my post. I'm sorry for it.
Other than that, I really have no reply to what both you and Kevin are saying. I don't even know where to start anymore. I'm still in a lot of pain from the election. I don't want to take the easy way and just place blame. I read these conversations because I need to, because I'll be the first to admit how angry I was and how easy it was to place blame. I had some shameful thoughts after the election. But I know there are never simple reasons behind these kinds of issues. And at least I was aware that my thoughts were wrong. But I had them.
I think this is something that we can all get past. I do. But it's going to take some hard, uncomfortable, difficult, and even embarrassing conversations. Some of the best conversations about this have been found here, on this blog, because Dan had the balls to start them.
I don't have anything of value to add.
89
@20:
"Loving v. Virginia was the dumbest comparison pro-marriage-rights advocates could have come up with. What? Black people are supposed to be thrilled that they're now *allowed* to marry white people? Why is that? Do white people make for superior marriage partners? "
There is a concept called the social distance scale. It measures the degree to which people are excluded from society. At it's most extreme, people are not tolerated at all. If you recall your history, at one time homosexualitly was punishable by death in the US. And black people were not even considered to be human beings. And it has only been a few years since sodomy laws were struck down at a federal level. Prior to that, you could be put in jail for beomg gay. Following the scale, would you let them in your country, or city or neighborhood, or workplace, or family? Both the civil rights movement and the equal rights movement have fought for (and continue to fight for) acceptance at each level of inclusion. Civil right leaders get this, and are strong allies of the gay rights movement. It breaks my heart that less than a majority of the African American community gets this (whether the percent is 52% or 70%).
So Loving vs Virginia struck at the final frontier to racism, tolerance of racial minorities within the family. Just as the gay marriage battle strikes at tolerance within the family. Without Loving vs. Virginia would Barack Obama be president? I am not sure how many bastard president's we have had.
"Loving v. Virginia was the dumbest comparison pro-marriage-rights advocates could have come up with. What? Black people are supposed to be thrilled that they're now *allowed* to marry white people? Why is that? Do white people make for superior marriage partners? "
There is a concept called the social distance scale. It measures the degree to which people are excluded from society. At it's most extreme, people are not tolerated at all. If you recall your history, at one time homosexualitly was punishable by death in the US. And black people were not even considered to be human beings. And it has only been a few years since sodomy laws were struck down at a federal level. Prior to that, you could be put in jail for beomg gay. Following the scale, would you let them in your country, or city or neighborhood, or workplace, or family? Both the civil rights movement and the equal rights movement have fought for (and continue to fight for) acceptance at each level of inclusion. Civil right leaders get this, and are strong allies of the gay rights movement. It breaks my heart that less than a majority of the African American community gets this (whether the percent is 52% or 70%).
So Loving vs Virginia struck at the final frontier to racism, tolerance of racial minorities within the family. Just as the gay marriage battle strikes at tolerance within the family. Without Loving vs. Virginia would Barack Obama be president? I am not sure how many bastard president's we have had.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (89) RSS