This is getting ugly!

[trillionaire]

I support gay marriage, and so do most of my friends, so this is very frustrating and disheartening to me. I hope this receives strong condemnation.

The N-Bomb is Dropped on Black Passersby at Prop 8 Protests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html

 

[iluvcarats]

Getting ugly?

I think we arrived there a long time ago.

 

[brooklyngirl]

Wow, this is thouroughly dissapointing, and oh so hypocritical

 

[luckylux]

How can people arrive at the conclusion that African Americans swung the prop 8 vote? I have 2 children under 18 (that''s the only criteria I fit on that list), but I voted NO on prop 8. In my personal circle, it tended to be the strong church going people and the older people that voted yes. I live in Oakland, and the Mormon temple is up the hill from me. Let me tell you, in that last month, there was so much activity for Yes on 8. They were at the busy corners with high traffic, waving their signs around. I didn''t think they had a chance and was shocked when prop 8 passed. The racial slurs are bad enough, I hope there is no violence!

 

[luckystar112]

I think it''s counterproductive to start blaming any one group for the passing of prop 8.
It''s makes me sad to see the reactions to the passing, but at the same time homosexuals have been doing it the right way for years with little results. People are getting desperate, and angry.

With that being said, I remember watching an episode of the real world (Denver), and Tyree (who is black) was commenting on living with Davis (who is gay). I''m paraphrasing, but I remember him saying something along the lines of that homosexuality isn''t really talked about in the black community. I don''t know if in reality he was speaking of his own social circle, but those comments stuck with me for some reason. Obviously Tyree does not represent millions of people--but he was talking like he does. It was weird. So all this talk about the black vote ruining it for homosexuals reminded me of those comments. It just seemed more like indifference than opposition.

 

[iheartscience]

Wow, that''s terrible. It does no good to try to blame Prop 8 passing on a particular racial group. It''s just another example of how divisive politics has gotten. I know politics was divisive before, but it seems worse this year. The instances of harassment towards black people PROTESTING Prop 8 are just insane and horrible.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/10/2008 6:45:20 PM
Author: luckystar112
I think it's counterproductive to start blaming any one group for the passing of prop 8.

It's makes me sad to see the reactions to the passing, but at the same time homosexuals have been doing it the right way for years with little results. People are getting desperate, and angry.


With that being said, I remember watching an episode of the real world (Denver), and Tyree (who is black) was commenting on living with Davis (who is gay). I'm paraphrasing, but I remember him saying something along the lines of that homosexuality isn't really talked about in the black community. I don't know if in reality he was speaking of his own social circle, but those comments stuck with me for some reason. Obviously Tyree does not represent millions of people--but he was talking like he does. It was weird. So all this talk about the black vote ruining it for homosexuals reminded me of those comments. It just seemed more like indifference than opposition.

In my experience, I would say that Tyree is right in many respects. Black people don't usually talk about homosexuality in our community. For example, I have a cousin who is gay/lesbian. She is living with her partner, and has been for years. My mom will call and talk to her, or tell me about her, but will not acknowledge that she is gay. She loves her niece, but she also wouldn't have gone to her wedding or commitment ceremony. I know a lot of people who are the same way. They will live and let live, but they don't endorse or support the lifestyle. Most people I know who are anti-gay marriage are afraid that gay people will sue their churches if the churches refuse to perform gay marriages. And their ministers have told them as much.

Honestly, I think it was lazy and irresponsible journalism that set up the black community as the fall guy for this proposition, when black people are only 6% of the population of CA. It makes me sad to see people fight prejudice with more prejudice. Change is coming, I hope we just get there in one piece.

One blogger's breakdown of the numbers... and the comments are interesting too...

 

[musey]

Oh, how very disappointing.

 

[Kaleigh]

This is very sad. The black community should not be set up as the fall guy... In fact they had little to do with it passing. The media really did a number on this one.

What else is new....

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 11/10/2008 8:21:19 PM
Author: trillionaire

Honestly, I think it was lazy and irresponsible journalism that set up the black community as the fall guy for this proposition, when black people are only 6% of the population of CA. It makes me sad to see people fight prejudice with more prejudice. Change is coming, I hope we just get there in one piece.

I agree. This is so disappointing. I wish people would just UNITE instead of fracturing further and further apart.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 11/10/2008 9:05:35 PM
Author: Kaleigh
This is very sad. The black community should not be set up as the fall guy... In fact they had little to do with it passing. The media really did a number on this one.

What else is new....

Agreed. I read some of the stories that came out and just thought ->

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/10/2008 8:21:19 PM
Author: trillionaire

Honestly, I think it was lazy and irresponsible journalism that set up the black community as the fall guy for this proposition, when black people are only 6% of the population of CA. It makes me sad to see people fight prejudice with more prejudice. Change is coming, I hope we just get there in one piece.

One blogger''s breakdown of the numbers... and the comments are interesting too...

good point. anything to keep people divided rather than united.

movie zombie

 

[WishfulThinking]

This is so heartbreaking to me. To see so blatantly the hypocrisy present within a community I hold *VERY* dear to my heart is so sad, especially in times when we need to unite more than ever. I''ve been following these stories like a hawk and am quite disappointed.

I am not sure if any of you receive updates from the major LGBTQ organizations, but I will say that my inbox has been flooded with emails from Equality California, Human Rights Campaign, and No on 8, as well as other affiliated groups condemning and addressing the hateful remarks that have been made. This issue is getting a LOT of attention, and I want to believe that it will be a turning point in the queer rights movement in terms of recognizing the work we have yet to do in addressing the issue of race within our own community as well as queer issues and visibility within the black community and other communities of color. That''s a very tall order, but I think it can be done if we are self-conscious enough to make it happen.

People in the queer community are so angry... and I''m angry too. Honestly, I am not sure I have ever been this angry... or this sad about any issue. But I cannot allow the MEDIA to construct a problem that distracts us from the issue at hand: proposition 8 passed by a popular vote in CA because PEOPLE voted in favor of it. Every person who voted in favor of it is responsible for its passing--no one community or demographic is more or less responsible. When divided along demographics of age and religion the racial statistics all but disappear. Race is not the issue. Would we love to believe that those who have experienced first-hand the sadness and horrors of oppression would stand by gay people in fighting against prop 8? Well... to be honest, yes. But it''s a lot more complicated than that. I can think of a lot of people who were far more instrumental in its passing than the small number of black voters... starting with the people who funded the measure, and encompassing but not limited to those who ran an ad campaign full of blatant lies and scare tactics, and the Democratic party''s refusal to loudly and clearly address the issue... and that is just the beginning.

At the same time, and I hope this doesn''t come across badly, I''m really super frustrated at the way the media is portraying the racist attitudes of some people in the queer community. Obviously there have been some horrible and racist things said, but queer people are [obviously] not the only racists around- I cannot think of a single demographic of people who do *not* have racist members. However, individuals in the "invisible demographics" [white, male, heterosexual, etc] do not get saddled with as much baggage when members of their demographic conduct themselves poorly. When a gay person does something unacceptable it reflects on all of us. Other minority groups experience the same sort of branding. What we see now in the media are characterizations of the queer community as being not only racist, but *more* racist than the rest of the population... I don''t think that''s any more fair than painting the black community as being uniformly homophobic*. We all have a lot of work to do here.

*I''m not claiming anyone here is saying this, just that I see it in the media.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/10/2008 11:38:45 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
This is so heartbreaking to me. To see so blatantly the hypocrisy present within a community I hold *VERY* dear to my heart is so sad, especially in times when we need to unite more than ever. I''ve been following these stories like a hawk and am quite disappointed.

Wishful, it is always great to have you chime in, and I am glad you are hanging in here at ATW!

I''m black and pro-rights. (Lol, I learned ''framing'' from the conservative play book

) As soon as I saw stories about "Black people being responsible for passing Prop 8," I was appalled and annoyed. However, this was not the fault of the GLBTA community. I''ve heard horrific things from blacks AND non-blacks, rising to levels of hatred and self hatred that I have never heard, and it truly breaks my heart. I hope we learn how to build bridges to overcome sexual inequality. Anyone meeting discrimination with discrimination is wrong, wrong, wrong! I also think the "my inequality is greater than, equal to, or less than yours" conversations are dangerous territory. (I mean this generally, not in response to anything that you said in your post) We need open conversation so that people can understand one another, and for the GLBTA community, this means a very tough road with Churches all over the US, including the black church.

My brother, sister and I are pro-rights. I am not sure about my parents. Change is coming, it just never gets here fast enough.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/11/2008 12:50:09 AM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 11/10/2008 11:38:45 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

This is so heartbreaking to me. To see so blatantly the hypocrisy present within a community I hold *VERY* dear to my heart is so sad, especially in times when we need to unite more than ever. I''ve been following these stories like a hawk and am quite disappointed.

Wishful, it is always great to have you chime in, and I am glad you are hanging in here at ATW!


I''m black and pro-rights. (Lol, I learned ''framing'' from the conservative play book

) As soon as I saw stories about ''Black people being responsible for passing Prop 8,'' I was appalled and annoyed. However, this was not the fault of the GLBTA community. I''ve heard horrific things from blacks AND non-blacks, rising to levels of hatred and self hatred that I have never heard, and it truly breaks my heart. I hope we learn how to build bridges to overcome sexual inequality. Anyone meeting discrimination with discrimination is wrong, wrong, wrong! I also think the ''my inequality is greater than, equal to, or less than yours'' conversations are dangerous territory. (I mean this generally, not in response to anything that you said in your post) We need open conversation so that people can understand one another, and for the GLBTA community, this means a very tough road with Churches all over the US, including the black church.


My brother, sister and I are pro-rights. I am not sure about my parents. Change is coming, it just never gets here fast enough.

You''re so right, trillionaire... the "oppression Olympics" that seem so prevalent in identity politics currently is depressing and unbecoming. It reminds me also of truly stupid [a statement rife with judgment

] arguments I''ve heard in the last few days, specifically "gay people in the US have nothing to complain about- in other countries you can be EXECUTED for being gay... why don''t you move to Iran and see how you like THAT?!"

Thanks for the insight, along with a healthy dose of othering and dehumanization of other cultures and adding to the "Muslim scare" that is pervading US society...

I am so sick of fighting with everyone. I want my utopia noooooooooooowwwwww!

I bolded the last sentence of your post because I couldn''t agree more- historically speaking the gay rights movement is moving at an unprecedented rate, especially considering the really intense "backlash" of the last 20 years. For us living it, though, it will never be fast enough. I am still young, but people every day die without having their civil rights recognized, and it''s so heartbreaking.

 

[trillionaire]

"I am still young, but people every day die without having their civil rights recognized, and it''s so heartbreaking."

co-sign!

I guess I am generally confused about the pro-rights movements and the courts. On what grounds, other than religious, are these marriage rights being denied to same sex couples? I really have no idea, because I have never heard an argument that doesn''t invoke religion.

Anyway, I posted this on a friend''s blog where we were talking about this subject, so I will post it here too:

"The question, and the only question should be:

DO TWO CONSENTING ADULTS* HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORM LEGALLY BINDING UNIONS? (or marriages, if you prefer)

Any additional details (same sex, man/woman, homosexual, heterosexual) introduces potential for discrimination. Either you think that adults should be able to decide if and when to form unions, or you do not. Period.

Whether people have religious or other hang-ups about the word marriage is irrelevant to the extent that the state sanctions and endorses marriage, and can and does refuse this endorsement to a subset of the population.

*two adults who are not already married, and who are not related to a degree prohibited by law. ''Adult'' to be defined by individual states in terms or age of leg"

 

[Kaleigh]

So what can we do to help?

 

[WishfulThinking]

There are a few rather uncompelling arguments not based on religion or morals in general. Religion should be out of the picture totally- you respect me, I respect you. No one will be suing churches, end of story. Morals are a bit trickier, as they admittedly do underlie a lot of laws here in the US. However, the morals of one group cannot deny another group rights. Again, end of story.

The more ridiculous arguments have to do with procreation, mainly. Gay people cannot have children. It's a willfully ignorant argument that ignores the fact that many gay people have children, some of which were the result of heterosexual unions/relationships. Oh right, and the huge elephant in the room of straight couples who do not have children. And old people. And sterile people. And the list goes on...

There is also the "slippery slope" argument, which is based in morals as well as mental gymnastics, as it takes a looooot of bending to make the leap from point A to points B, C, and D in these arguments. "Two consenting adults" seems like a fine place to draw a line, no? I am not an activist of polygamy or incest, and that is not the issue at hand. Were it the issue I would form an opinion, but I can't see myself being overly concerned about what consenting adults do in their private lives. Oh right, and I am not an inanimate object or an animal. That is pretty key. The fact is that the law draws lines in the proverbial sand every single day. To act like same sex marriage is the only issue in which a defining line between what is legal/recognized and what is not has been established is pretty disingenuous or misinformed.

Then there is the "it's too expensive" argument, that employers should not have to pay the extra money to have same sex partners on health insurance, and that the government should not have to give social security benefits to same sex couples. One of those could be solved with universal health insurance, but I won't go there.

The other is irrelevant because economic concerns cannot outweigh the individual rights of any American, the right to marriage being no exception.

Plus, it'd be pretty expensive if gay people weren't required to pay full taxes; after all, how can I justly be taxed equally if I do not have equal rights? I pay the same amount into social security as straight people do, but I am denied the same benefits from it. This is rather tongue and cheek, but a topic of annoyance for me currently.

In short, the arguments are flimsy at best, and offensive at worst, and amount to nothing other than the enforcement of the moral code of others on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and any court that rules otherwise is influenced by their own beliefs on the subject.

I also think this might be a good time to say that while as a general principle I think the government should issue civil unions to all people and churches should be involved in "marriage," if such a rule were established *specifically* in order to deny me the right to marriage I would be annoyed. When such a measure is fueled by discrimination rather than an interest in protecting the separation of church and state I think it would be wrong to humor it to that extent. Plus, can you imagine the field day that would be had? See? Gay people HAVE succeeded in eroding the institution of marriage!!!!! Oh goodness gracious. I also am not sure the social and cultural capital of marriage can be reproduced with another name or institution. I am stubborn enough to think that not only should I not have to meet people halfway, but I shouldn't have to go door to door changing the minds of every American- direct democracy is not the answer here. I will be the first to admit that I am very unflexible, and I do apologize for that a little bit.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/11/2008 1:44:22 AM
Author: Kaleigh
So what can we do to help?

I am not sure if this answers your question, but a great way to start would be to let everyone who will listen know that we have no interest in forcing churches to marry anyone they don't want to or lose their tax exempt status for refusing to. In return we would expect the separation of churches from political action [to remain tax exempt] and legal rights. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what legalizing same sex marriage means for churches, and people feel threatened about a subject they feel dearly about, much as I feel dearly about marriage equality. I truly think both things can exist happily, I really do.

I won't go into it anymore because I know religion is not to be discussed explicitly. If this post violates forum rules I apologize and please feel free to delete it, mods.

ETA: The Yes on 8 campaign lied in every single one of their ads, which I think really influenced people to vote yes, and I think that's too bad. I think American politics needs to be done with tactics of fear.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/11/2008 1:59:40 AM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 11/11/2008 1:44:22 AM

Author: Kaleigh

So what can we do to help?

I am not sure if this answers your question, but a great way to start would be to let everyone who will listen know that we have no interest in forcing churches to marry anyone they don''t want to or lose their tax exempt status for refusing to. In return we would expect the separation of churches from political action [to remain tax exempt] and legal rights. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what legalizing same sex marriage means for churches, and people feel threatened about a subject they feel dearly about, much as I feel dearly about marriage equality. I truly think both things can exist happily, I really do.


I won''t go into it anymore because I know religion is not to be discussed explicitly. If this post violates forum rules I apologize and please feel free to delete it, mods.


ETA: The Yes on 8 campaign lied in every single one of their ads, which I think really influenced people to vote yes, and I think that''s too bad. I think American politics needs to be done with tactics of fear.

anyone up for local protests? link

 

[WishfulThinking]

So jealous about the activism in CA right now!!! I am a very "take to the streets" kind of gal. We''re having a rally in W. MA on the 15th, along with many other places around the country, but it is just not the same. It''s also bittersweet considering the achievement of marriage equality here already, and the fact that I am moving away from here to someplace where I lack those rights.

Alas, I think protests are an awesome way to voice dissent here.

 

[iheartscience]

Didn''t know where else to put this-here''s a great commentary on Prop 8 by Keith Olbermann. link

 

[dragonfly411]

Date: 11/11/2008 1:56:10 AM
Author: WishfulThinking
There are a few rather uncompelling arguments not based on religion or morals in general. Religion should be out of the picture totally- you respect me, I respect you. No one will be suing churches, end of story. Morals are a bit trickier, as they admittedly do underlie a lot of laws here in the US. However, the morals of one group cannot deny another group rights. Again, end of story.


The more ridiculous arguments have to do with procreation, mainly. Gay people cannot have children. It''s a willfully ignorant argument that ignores the fact that many gay people have children, some of which were the result of heterosexual unions/relationships. Oh right, and the huge elephant in the room of straight couples who do not have children. And old people. And sterile people. And the list goes on...


There is also the ''slippery slope'' argument, which is based in morals as well as mental gymnastics, as it takes a looooot of bending to make the leap from point A to points B, C, and D in these arguments. ''Two consenting adults'' seems like a fine place to draw a line, no? I am not an activist of polygamy or incest, and that is not the issue at hand. Were it the issue I would form an opinion, but I can''t see myself being overly concerned about what consenting adults do in their private lives. Oh right, and I am not an inanimate object or an animal. That is pretty key. The fact is that the law draws lines in the proverbial sand every single day. To act like same sex marriage is the only issue in which a defining line between what is legal/recognized and what is not has been established is pretty disingenuous or misinformed.


Then there is the ''it''s too expensive'' argument, that employers should not have to pay the extra money to have same sex partners on health insurance, and that the government should not have to give social security benefits to same sex couples. One of those could be solved with universal health insurance, but I won''t go there.

The other is irrelevant because economic concerns cannot outweigh the individual rights of any American, the right to marriage being no exception.


Plus, it''d be pretty expensive if gay people weren''t required to pay full taxes; after all, how can I justly be taxed equally if I do not have equal rights? I pay the same amount into social security as straight people do, but I am denied the same benefits from it. This is rather tongue and cheek, but a topic of annoyance for me currently.


In short, the arguments are flimsy at best, and offensive at worst, and amount to nothing other than the enforcement of the moral code of others on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and any court that rules otherwise is influenced by their own beliefs on the subject.


I also think this might be a good time to say that while as a general principle I think the government should issue civil unions to all people and churches should be involved in ''marriage,'' if such a rule were established *specifically* in order to deny me the right to marriage I would be annoyed. When such a measure is fueled by discrimination rather than an interest in protecting the separation of church and state I think it would be wrong to humor it to that extent. Plus, can you imagine the field day that would be had? See? Gay people HAVE succeeded in eroding the institution of marriage!!!!! Oh goodness gracious. I also am not sure the social and cultural capital of marriage can be reproduced with another name or institution. I am stubborn enough to think that not only should I not have to meet people halfway, but I shouldn''t have to go door to door changing the minds of every American- direct democracy is not the answer here. I will be the first to admit that I am very unflexible, and I do apologize for that a little bit.

Wishful - In response to your morals part. It is unfortunate that people use this argument. On one hand, yes it is relevant, because my morals might differ from yours, but that should not affect the law. Every human being has a different definition of what their morals are, there is no way to generalize human morals. Low morals to me are someone who believes that stealing is ok, or that killing is ok, but not who or when or how they marry. I don''t know, I guess it is just hard for me to imagine imposing my morals on another human being