Comments

1. j wrote:

   The dichotomy of ‘agency’ versus ’structure’ is a problem in itself. It is overly simplistic to say that either folks are victims and are thus confined to their role in the larger system imposed on them. But it is equally simplistic to say that we are all free agents with the right to choose our actions. Social structures determine – to a degree – the types of actions we will take. They also determine the range of possibilities we see ahead of us. At the same time, we can break from the social boundaries imposed upon our lives and exercise our ‘free will’. Basically, what I’m saying is, agency and structure are inextricably intertwined. In certain instances, one force may pull stronger than the other. Personal and social transformation is only possible once we realize that we *both* have agency *and* we are confined to a degree by our position in society.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 10:39 am ¶

2. CVT wrote:

   If anything, victims are MORE likely (in some cases) to be perpetrators. Working with kids, that’s what I see all the time – kids who are upset because they’ve been bullied at home come to school and bully other kids. Or because somebody made fun of them in one class, they make fun of another kid in another class. It’s the kids who have been hurt the most that tend to do the most hurting in return.

   And it’s no different with adults. Those who suffer extreme prejudice are likely to re-direct their frustrations with the system against each other (black-on-black crime) or those with whom they’ve been associated (Prince “proving” his masculinity by being even more homophobic than those that may bash him).

   Everybody does it. How often do people take out their anger and frustrations on those closest to themselves (loved ones) when it was other people who caused the initial problems?

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 10:57 am ¶

3. Joan Flores wrote:

   I was reading Angela Davis the other day (Women, Race, Class) and she discusses this a lot, though she is especially concerned with the feminist movement in America. Davis believes not that victims can’t be perpetrators, but that, because of a similar situation of oppression, there’s a larger possibility that they will find something in common with others seeking human rights. So, for example, white feminists were more likely to bond with black women in the early feminist movement than, say, a white capitalist male. However, through a combination of structure (the racist, sexist society of the time) and agency, many of these alliances didn’t happen.

   I think, however, that the most important point is how we should respond to this. A strategy that fights against both aspects (so anti-racist, education-based maybe?) would be ideal. But, if we concentrated purely on the ’structure’, wouldn’t that solve most of the problems, too? If there is no system to benefit from racism, sexism, homophobia, the people who will ‘choose’ to be perpetrators will dwindle down.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶

4. Celeste wrote:

   I think Prince has also gotten really into relgion as of lately. I heard that he’s taking out some of his raunchy lyric out of his songs.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 12:44 pm ¶

5. lakergrrl wrote:

   As far as I understood, homophobia is irrational fear of or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. I saw nothing to perpetrate homophobia in Prince’s comments. Due to his new faith, his views on sexuality and/or morality have probably become more conservative on the whole. What if Prince, based on his personal moral code, no longer engages in, or advocates engaging in sex before marriage?Does that make him an erotophobe, seething with hatred for all the heteros knocking boots without a marriage license ? I hardly think so. What I find more disturbing are all the comments (thankfully not on this blog) to the effect that ‘Of course, Prince was gay, just look at him’. Implying either that all gay men fit a certain stereotype or that anyone that doesn’t fit the “masculine” norm (especially a black masculine norm) is gay.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶

6. octogalore wrote:

   I think your link with the idea of agency nails the trouble with saying victims cannot be perpetrators. While on first blush it seems like a sympathetic thing to say, does it really stem from sympathy, or from a denial of agency on the part of victims to have an array of beliefs independent of those others wish to project?

   I wonder whether your conversation with Krisna reflects the hesitancy (on Krisna’s part) of ascribing agency because of a concern that this would trigger both liability and denial of entitlement. But your noting that often choices are circumscribed by lack of options, I think, is responsive to this concern.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶

7. Eric Daniels wrote:

   Are you people that naive, I have seen racists within African- American community because we have suffered under the lash of white racism that we have to deal both sides of the coin the outside oppressor from it’s institutions and the victims who become the predators inside the group. It’s human nature no ethnic and gender group who suffered is above being a perpetrator, just ask the Israelis who are doing the same thing to the Palestinians the Germans and Europeans did to them or Rwanda when the Hutu Nuns were tried for crimes against humanity the Tutsis many of the Hutus in the audience had utter contempt for what they did to the Tutsis with words ‘whining like a little baby’ or ‘ A typical Tutsi so weak’.

   Don’t these words sound familiar folks !!!

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 1:22 pm ¶

8. Tonja wrote:

   First time commenting, long time reading! Love this blog.

   I definitely think victims are more likely to be perpetrators. The expression “thou doth protest too much” comes to mind. Look at all of the political figures that came out of the closet after being adamantly against gay marriage.

   I do think, though, that his religion has more to do with is stance than him trying to appear more “masculine”. If he cared so much about that, I’m not sure he would have made such a brand out of his personality and style.

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶

9. Fatemeh wrote:

   Great post! You make great points about victims being perpetrators of similar intolerances. “Horizontal hostility” comes to mind immediately!

   Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶

10. Eric Daniels wrote:

    Prince has always been religous conservative even in so-called open androgny period, he was a Seventh- Day Adventist as a child and supported Republican candidates in the 1980’s-1990’s. So I am not surprised like the former Pimps and hustlers I grew up around as a kid when they get old or see their own morality they become the most evangelical because it enables them to have the same control of their enviroment when they were ’sinners’.

    Unless there is a tape of Prince actually saying Homophobic things on tape and video I will just assume he was misquoted. Prince is still the same womanizer only he has a bible to justify his reasoning.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶

11. ms. four wrote:

    If victims can’t be perpetrators, then that means that white women (victims of sexism) and Dan Savage (victim of homophobia) can’t be racist.

    Surely no one here would argue that.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 4:40 pm ¶

12. jvansteppes wrote:

    I always thought he was at least queer friendly because his symbol as ‘the artist’ is very similar to the trans symbol.
    It doesn’t surprise me that he would make homophobic comments even though his gender has left him vulnerable to gay-bashing; lots of straight, more feminine men do this to distance themselves from possibly being a victim. And Eric Daniels brings up a good point: he always was a womanizer. He was just sexy in a faggy way once.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 5:30 pm ¶

13. firstofall wrote:

    two words. cheek-less pants.

    either he was misquoted, or he is just too messed up to untangle. I always thought he was gay! purple rain, are you kidding me?!?

    this can’t be right.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 5:38 pm ¶

14. DeeDee wrote:

    @lakergrrl– I agree with you that Prince is not a homophobe (as in seething with vitriol), but is abiding by the principles and structure of his (relatively) new religion.

    I also have to add that while a victim may be a perpetrator, I think what is in question here are the levels of to which the two “discriminations” in question are equal. Some have argued that this is exactly the same as blacks not being able to marry, learn to read, become gainfully employed, rent or purchase homes, or even be defined as actual people with thriving intellect, etc. Others would argue that these two discriminations are not on the same level.

    As an African American who must deal with varying levels of discrimination from others, regardless of their sexual orientation, I would have to argue that these two comparisons are not on equal footing.

    However, after having a spirited converstation with a co-worker (and close friend), I believe that in order for equal marriage rights to apply, marriage would need to be taken out of a religious context and put into a strictly civil context. Those of religious faith could continue their ceremonies as is while the state would recognize all marriages in solely civil and governmental terms.

    Just my two cents worth…

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 7:57 pm ¶

15. Black Canseco wrote:

    Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals/homosexual lifestyle.

    One of the things that’s gotta end in the name of furthering discussions is the automatic broad-brushing of anyone who doesn’t embrace homosexuality as a 100% wonderful lifestyle/human attribute/reflection of sexual coolness/insert here as being “homophobic.”

    I went back to Andrew Sullivan’s piece to find the homophobia in Prince’s statement. I’m still looking for it. Based on Prince’s faith he believes that Sodom and Gahmorra were destroyed due to the citizenry’s sexual immorality.

    While that might be offensive to many, I’m not sure it rises to homophobia. Prince over the years has struck me as being a lot of things but hateful, irrational and fearful of differences isn’t one of them. That he disagrees with Gay marraige and believes that God disagrees with it, while again might be offensive doesn’t strike me as phobic or hateful.

    One of the many subtexts to come out of Prop 8 fallout (i live in SoCal now) is the prevailing sentiment voiced by far too many in the gay community that “you’re either cheerleading us or you’re just another homophobe who needs to be re-educated”.

    There’s no middleground. You can’t have an opinion that’s anything less than “You’re gay? Wow that’s so cool?!” without being shoved into some little “ignorant religious zealots here” box.

    The easiest way to lose folks is to tell them their opinions are based on ignorance, stupidity and/or religious brainwashing.

    My opinion is that Prop 8 will be reviewed and ultimately overturned and gay marraige will be come a legal reality by 2010 at the latest.

    But this notion of the intellectual, spiritual inferiority of those who don’t yell hallelujah and celebrate it is gonna keep a lot of unnecessary division going on.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 8:14 pm ¶

16. Jha wrote:

    Black Canesco: There’s no middleground. You can’t have an opinion that’s anything less than “You’re gay? Wow that’s so cool?!” without being shoved into some little “ignorant religious zealots here” box.

    …. Uh, what?

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 9:08 pm ¶

17. cmd wrote:

    Re: Prince–Homophobia is related to sexism, and let’s remember that Purple Rain, while amazing in its faggotry, definitely portrays most of the women as victims or whores, and Prince hits Appalonia, which is never dealt with.
    Re: the post above–cry, cry. This is what i never get about the folks who argue that their homophobia isn’t homophobia–eg, people who voted for Prop 8 and claimed they weren’t voting against ME, a queer woman of color.
    Somehow, they argued that it was about definitions of marriage and the sanctity of family. (Like there aren’t dysfunctional straight families.)
    I am hella mad about the race-baiting that’s going on, to be sure.
    But I gotta say, where are my straight progressive poc at? I was talking to a Black student the other day who said, ‘It’s my right to raise my kids how I want and teach them what I think is right.’ I said, ‘I would love to leave that alone and say that’s your right. Unfortunately, this is the problem of rights–they actually challenge each other. What about my right to live and love my partner without getting verbally or physically assaulted? Your right to teach your kid ‘what you think is right’ infringes on my right to LIVE.’
    No one is asking you to think being gay is ‘cool’–I’m asking you to not think you get to have an opinion, because no one walks around asking themselves whether they’re ‘cool’ with being straight!

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶

18. Black Canseco wrote:

    #1-I am a POC-an black/native american male.

    #2-I’m indifferent to homosexuality. Who you love/who you sleep with is neither grounds for celebration nor condemnation. It just is. . Folks have the right not as americans, but as human beings to live their life as they see fit and let God have the final say.

    Unfortunately i spent 10 years in Chicago where if you’re not gay, you’d better bend ass over backwards being a self-hating breeder or you’re not allowed to say anything. There’s huge segments of the gay community in varying cities for whom “hey live and let live” don’t fly. You’d better sign every petition, cheer every parade, support every business laugh at every joke or you’re a bigot. In my case, you’re an ungrateful bigot who doesn’t appreciate what gay people did for blacks so how dare you not be down with this.”

    I’ve seen a lot of this nonsense in my life on/off-line and enough’s enough. If not calling every Prop8 supporter a fool/cruel/myopic/ etc means that i’m wrong then i’ll be wrong. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion especially when you’re asked to vote based on your opinion even if you don’t like it. Every white person ain’t racist and every straight person ain’t homophobic.

    #3- Prop 8 like every Proposition is on a ballot because politicians—being right once every blue moon–are saying, “no matter what i think as an elected official, i’m gonna leave up to the opinion of the masses i represent”.

    Propositions/referendums are about 1 person, 1 vote and people making their opinions known. As painful as it can be, this wasn’t about Blacks or mormons or politicians. This was asking roughly 38 million people their opinion on an issue and for many not getting the answer they wanted.

    You want the government to step in, don’t worry; they will. The Supreme Court will overturn the prop–it might take a year or two, but it’ll happen.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 9:45 pm ¶

19. firstofall wrote:

    @Black Canseco:

    Religion is irrational in the most elementary sense. Religion requires faith, which is not a logical argument. So, religion is based in the choice to believe, not in a logical or rational argument.

    If a certain religious sect preaches that its adherents should fear, hate, or look down on people who act in certain ways, that is the manifestation of fear based on an irrational belief, is it not?

    Therefore, Prince’s alleged comment is homophobic because leaders in his religion teach him that he should have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexual behavior.

    It sounds like you are really more upset about these things than the issue warrants. People who are religious aren’t stupid, or spiritually inferior, or anything like that. Religion is admittedly irrational, and faith can’t be argued with.

    Nobody is asking people who do not approve of homosexuality to throw a parade every time something gay happens.

    What they are asking for is that if people don’t have anything nice to say, they shouldn’t say anything at all. That’s fair, don’t you think?

    I just find it odd that one of the most gender-ambiguous, sexually charged rock stars of our time suddenly blurts out to some reporter that in the bible, sodom and gommorah were asking for it because everybody was gay there.

    I want to say, “Weren’t you awake for your whole life before you just said that?” It’s bizarre and seems hypocritical, unless he was just playing everybody for a fool and was raising money for Jesus all that time he was gyrating half-naked on stage in frilly clothes and high heeled boots.

    It’s kind of like Tiger Woods saying to some reporter, “you know, athletes are really not intelligent and sports are a waste of time because in the bible…”

    You would say “wha? tiger you are a pro athlete” And that’s why we’re all like “wha? prince you are an androgynous sex symbol.”

    So, this is the middleground. Say to these gay zealots “Look, as long as you don’t try to pass a law that makes me have to listen to prince, I won’t pass a law that bans you from playing golf. Deal?”

    that middly enough for you?

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 9:51 pm ¶

20. firstofall wrote:

    also, black canseco,

    why if you are indifferent to homosexuality are you not also indifferent to proposition 8? Also, if you are indifferent to homosexuality, why are you even upset about anything? That is really confusing.

    I infer from your post that you have a dual attitude about homosexuality. On the outside, you conform to what others define as socially acceptable behavior toward homosexuals and homosexual issues. On the inside, you are not indifferent, but you are against homosexuality for religious reasons. What you are upset about is that you have to pretend to be ambivalent about homosexuality when you really have a gut-level disgust for it that you can’t really explain except that your religious leaders have told you that it is wrong. And that’s fine.

    If you don’t want to sign a petition, fine, whatever.
    If you don’t want to participate in homosexual issues, fine, who cares.

    The issue is this. Legislating that inner attitude is discriminatory, let’s be honest. It’s the same as legislating a ban on interracial marriage. If you felt singled out by certain elements of your community in Chicago, it may have been because they could sense that inside, you didn’t really like them. If you people know that you don’t like them, they probably won’t like you, by the way.I can tell that you don’t like homosexuality, and that’s fine with me (though cmb would disagree). As long as you don’t legislate those feelings, I have no problems with your opinions. You are free not to associate with homosexuals. You are free to not engage in homosexual behavior. That is your right.

    It is not your right to deprive a whole group of people of the rights that you enjoy because you don’t like them, or you are “indifferent” to them and their lifestyle. I think that’s fair, don’t you?

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 10:25 pm ¶

21. Black Canseco wrote:

    Firstofall,

    you’re assuming i voted in favor of a gay marriage ban. you’d be wrong. i didn’t. thanks for asking.
    —–
    It is not your right to deprive a whole group of people of the rights that you enjoy because you don’t like them, or you are “indifferent” to them and their lifestyle. I think that’s fair, don’t you?
    ====
    Big assumption on your end once again. I support Civil Unions provided they included all legal and civil rights afforded straight couples. Telling churches/religious folk they’ve gotta change their views in order to have legal equality isn’t necessary–and just as you don’t want it done to gays, why do it to those who aren’t.
    —–
    Religion is irrational in the most elementary sense. Religion requires faith, which is not a logical argument.
    —–
    great, tell people the thing they base their lives, morality and world view on is elementary illogical and irrational.

    Like i said, telling folks they’re stupid, ill-informed and their views are irrelevant is a really strange way to make your point.

    What about the faith-based folks who fought against Prop 8 based on their faith? Are they irrational and stupid? Course not; just the ones who don’t see things the way you want them to.

    got it.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 10:44 pm ¶

22. j wrote:

    why do the people commenting here all so easily accept the categories of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’? maybe these categories and the understanding of them as mutually exclusive is a problem.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 11:25 pm ¶

23. DeeDee wrote:

    J, I’m not sure if the commenters are easily accepting the categories of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ as definitions of themselves personally. I simply think they are using those terms with in the context and bounds of the entire conversation.

    The article asks the question of whether or not ‘Victims Can be Perpetrators’. That question alone confines the conversation instead of allowing it to open up.

    Heck, there are some people out there who believe that human beings create (metaphysically) EVERYTHING that happens to them. But those people might be shot down in a dialogue such as this.

    Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 11:46 pm ¶

24. Black Canseco wrote:

    this thread/issue reminds me of the recent eHarmony law suit — http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1201edit2dec01,0,1376187.story–in which a man decided that because eHarmony didn’t offer its online dating services to gay clientele that they were in violation of his civil rights.

    nevermind that there are thousands of online dating services for people of all race/gender/sexual orientations. This one didn’t do what he wanted so he sued.

    Civil Unions aren’t enough; that would just be equality in process, access of services and equal protection under the law. Far too many Prop 8 fighters are far more interested in forcing everyone else to say, “you win–marriage is whatever you want it to be, too.”

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 12:27 am ¶

25. browne wrote:

    Prince being a perpetrator of oppression to me is not surprising. I have long been fascinated with black women (and other women) and their fascination for this man who obviously is not a fan of women who think.

    His view of women is that of a tool to masturbate to.

    His fascination with the woman as blow-up Barbie doll.

    His unhealthful obsession with sex in this junior high boy kind of way.

    Many of his songs were about how he liked to use women as tools, so for him to find god and get all homophobic to me is just part of a larger problem Prince has and I think points a bit to a problem that people who at anytime thought he was ok has. Prince was never ok. He was always a disgusting little man, but now he longer has the sex, fishnets and wigs to hide it with.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 12:58 am ¶

26. browne wrote:

    I just want to add, with many people I view the religion as the problem with the Prince case I would say that he has always had the problem and now he just uses religion as another excuse for his various issues, which I’m sure he has many.

    He hides under all of these identities, so that he can lie with no consequences.

    And I’m sure he was bashed as youth and maybe these false hypocritical image that he presents is related to that, but I also think there is something else there, something very phony and not true about him and I think the lie manifests itself in all kinds of ways, which is why I have never been a fan of his.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 1:08 am ¶

27. Jane wrote:

    @Black Canesco

    “I support Civil Unions provided they included all legal and civil rights afforded straight couples. Telling churches/religious folk they’ve gotta change their views in order to have legal equality isn’t necessary–and just as you don’t want it done to gays, why do it to those who aren’t.”

    This really breaks my heart. I understand that you don’t want to have the rights of religious people to believe what they want infringed upon, but Prop. 8 (and the pro-marriage equality movement in general) is NOT about forcing religious people to change their views or to conduct gay marriages. It is about making a marriage an option for queer couples who want it and for churches who wish to conduct them. It is not and never has been about going into churches who are against gay marriage and forcing them to marry queer couples.

    Marriage is no longer a fundamentally religious practice: its meanings have become increasingly complex as our society changes. Do you believe that atheist or agnostic heterosexual couples have the right to marry? Do you believe that people have the right to get married at a court house? If so, you recognize that marriage is no longer uniquely the domain of religious institution, and as such, I don’t think you can reasonably argue against queer couples getting married.

    As a queer woman, I am deeply offended whenever a heterosexual person posits civil unions as a substitute for marriage. Civil unions to me are the legal equivalent of a condescending head pat. It may grant us legal benefits, which I will grant are better than nothing, but it also legally defines our relationships as “other.” Perhaps you will disagree with me, the legal otherness of civil unions inevitably translates into “inferior.”

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 1:58 am ¶

28. firstofall wrote:

    @b. can.:
    you misunderstand the word irrational.
    No religious belief can be validated with a logical proof. that doesn’t make it “stupid”, that makes it irrational, which means that it is not based in logic. Irrational does not necessarily mean the same thing as stupid or wrong. Ever heard of irrational numbers?

    Faith is about the belief, “the leap of faith”, not about proof. Since it is non-logical, it must also be irrational. This is a property of religion TAUGHT BY PRIESTS (a point that you didn’t address, I might add). So, while you can argue against my assumptions (which were logical, though wrong), you cannot argue against faith because it is not a proof, and that is the point. I never said religious people should change their beliefs, they just don’t have the right to legislate them, either way, for or against. (so long as religious dogma is their axiom)

    For instance:
    assertion 1: God X Exists
    assertion 2: The Holy Book of X is always infallible.
    assertion 3: The Holy Book of X says homosexuality is always abomination.

    There are no “therefores” here, see? They are assertions, they are all beliefs. How can you argue with an assertion? That is what faith is. It is not wrong or stupid, it just is something that people do. Even if assertion 3 said that homosexuality was not wrong, you can’t legislate a negative, so if your belief is that homosexuality is not wrong, it can’t be legislated. You can only legislate positives. You can’t pass a law that says “marriages must not be between homosexuals”. Then a female panda and a male unicorn can get married. That’s why it says “between a man and a woman”, just like in the bible. Also see: “whites only,” not “no blacks”.

    Frankly, again, i don’t understand what you are so upset about. you’re whole post seems really bizarre. You are for civil unions, but against…what? Peer pressure or something? “Gay is ok, but i’m not happy about it” is what it sounds like you’re saying. I can’t really tell. I think you are too complex for me to understand through textual interaction. So, ill go my way and you’ll go yours, hm?

    @j:
    i agree, i think that it is hard sometimes to find a cut and dry classification of either, except in very specific acts. I think most people are both in many different situations. Powerful over some things, powerless against others. At home, at work, at school, etc.

    @DeeDee:
    Yes, i’m sorry, I would shoot you down if you said that an african child soldier wanted to be stolen from his massacred family, or that children with leukemia want to suffer. I have heard that Secret/Theosophist/New Age/Qabbalist theory before, and I don’t really give it any credence at all. I think it serves to allow privileged people to pretend they live in a “just world” fantasy without having to deal with real suffering that is abject and tragic because it is indiscriminate and out of our control.

    Nobody who has ever told me they believe that everyone creates their own reality would ever walk up to a child with cancer and tell them to their face that they wanted to be in chemo and have tubes stuck down their throat. They want to go out and play like any other kid.

    Also, I would like a doughnut to appear in front of me right now, but as hard as I try it won’t happen. Also, by your belief, you must have wanted me specifically to shoot you down and disagree with you for some reason, even though it was impossible for you to know if anyone would even read or respond to your post, let alone me in particular. Hmmm….

    in the end, we all believe what we need to believe, i guess. Victims, all – Oppressors, all – yet equal in being oblivious to most of what makes us who we are.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 3:28 am ¶

29. OGBoundary wrote:

    I have to agree with Black Canseco. I am very active in African-American voting rights issues and have been for years. Because of that, I’m fairly well known in the community service and volunteer circles in my city. At least once a week I’m approached by other members of that community looking for help or solidarity or a hand with their own passion projects… PETA, immigrants’ rights, the environment, Hmong issues, Somali issues, Native American issues, Gay rights, you name it. Over the years I’ve learned that I simply cannot overextend myself by earning a living, helping my family, and volunteering 40+ hours a week. There’s simply not enough time. 10 times out of 10 when I tell other groups that I don’t have time to help them out, they’ve understood. I’ve never been accused of being anti-immigrant or anti-Native American or anti-Hmong. And 10 times out of 10, when I tell anyone in the gay community that I’m not available for the same reason, I get slammed. I’ve been called homophobic, a closeted homosexual, a breeder, a hater and a dozen more names I don’t care to mention both in front of and behind my back. The vitriol and sneering has been very eye-opening for me through the years. So I see a lot of validity in Black Canseco’s points.

    And also, to stay on topic, I wanted to say that I can’t stand Prince’s music. I hate electric guitars. That is only my personal opinion.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 5:10 am ¶

30. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Mod Note -

    1. I am going to remind everyone to please stay on topic. The thread is about if Victims Can Also Be Perpetrators – I am not interested in making this a debate about gay marriage.

    2. I’m tired of reading this same arc of conversation every time I mention something about gay people on this site. One more incident like this, I am making gay people a protected class on this site where all negative comments will be deleted, and repeated ones will result in a banning.

    And for the record, we’re gay cheerleaders here. You don’t have to agree, but I am sick of hearing the same feedback loop over and over again.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 7:40 am ¶

31. Celeste wrote:

    I didn’t know there were protected classes. Is there a list of the protected classes? I’m curious.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 10:36 am ¶

32. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Celeste –

    Racialicious is a space for discussion. It is *not* a safe space.

    However, patterns have cropped up which make me think we need to have a zero tolerance policy on certain things. Mixed race identity is one. I learned that lesson the hard way, as people who were not interested in furthering the conversation would routinely come here and challenge how people identify, which caused a lot of distress to the mixed race folks.

    For a while, Carmen & I were of the mindset that we needed to let people be heard, as the best way we learn was from each other. But, we quickly found that these people weren’t interested in learning, they just spouted the same shit over and over. So, while we didn’t officially announce it yet, mixed race people are a protected class on this site. It doesn’t mean people can’t disagree, but you are not permitted to challenge how someone else chooses to identify. So, while we still get many of those comments, most of them are deleted outright.

    The discussions on gay issues, muslim issues, jewish issues and transissues have also come under scrutiny, be we haven’t decided what action to take yet and if we are amending the comment policy.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 11:28 am ¶

33. atlasien wrote:

    Hearing ad nauseam repetition of “mean gays aren’t nice enough to homophobes” really lowers the intelligence level and quality of debate and drives away potential contributors. If I was GLBT and feeling vulnerable about it and stumbled across this thread, I probably wouldn’t ever come back.

    There’s a certain tipping point level that Latoya’s talking about. For example, if I saw a discussion where maybe 5-10% of the posts are about how mixed people are all confused race traitors, I might think twice but eventually join in, but if it’s more like 50%, I would stay away.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 11:46 am ¶

34. Jess wrote:

    @Jane–

    Here’s a question. If civil unions — or whatever, call ‘em ishkibibbles — give all the functional rights of marriage, what’s the problem?

    No, it isn’t the same to hear ishkibibble instead of man and husband/wife and woman/ whatever.

    But in a legal sense, if there is no difference, what does it matter?

    Are you looking for equality or acceptance? The two are not the same. Black people are legally equal, but they are not accepted necessarily. In a perfect world they would be accepted by white people. But it isn’t a perfect world.

    The legal equality does, however, give a basis for fighting the results of people not being accepting. It is not acceptable anymore for cops to go looking for black kids to shoot, even in the south, and lynching is no longer acceptable either. The affirmation that the legal system has to treat PoCs equally laid the groundwork for that, you know?

    That is, I don’t know too many veterans of the Civil Rights movement — I have known a few — who wanted white people to like them or let them marry their daughters or invite them for beers. They wanted the real stuff, the legal status that means it’s wrong to be mistreated. they all know it wouldn’t be roses afterwards, but it was a place to start.

    It seems to me that many in the LGBT movement confuse fairness and equality with acceptance. I do not expect the latter. (No I ain’t gay, but I am talking in a larger sense as an outsider). I demand the former.

    So I don’t get bent out of shape if the waiter in a restaurant hates on me b/c my wife ain’t white. As long as he serves us dinner, and does his job I am ok with that, you know?

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶

35. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Jess–
    But civil unions and marriages don’t function the same, not even legally:

    http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/27/afx5751990.html

    http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf

    It’s that lack of analogous functioning that leads some gay people to want marriage instead of civil unions.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

36. Black Canseco wrote:

    Latoya,

    I’m tired of reading this same arc of conversation every time I mention something about gay people on this site. One more incident like this, I am making gay people a protected class on this site where all negative comments will be deleted, and repeated ones will result in a banning.

    And for the record, we’re gay cheerleaders here.
    =======

    I don’t comment here as much as i used too so i occassionally miss out on stuff.

    Could you let me know that since gay people are a protected class on racialicious, what constitutes a”negative comment” versus a disagreement over related issues.

    While I could be wrong, i don’t think i’ve ever uttered anything on any site including my own that’s negative about GLBTers. I’ve only voiced disagreements over assumed lockstep intersectionality of largely white lead GLBT-centric issues and race-based issues. I’ve also commented on what i see as a common meme of “religion as the bad guy” in a lot of threads here.

    regardless, please lemme know what’s off limits these days.

    if that’s considered

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 5:59 pm ¶

37. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @BC –

    Fair enough. Things that are giving me a pain behind my eye currently (in general, not you specifically):

    1. How every conversation about homosexuality seems to immediately start arcing into a conversation on gay marriage. I’m planning more features on PoC homosexual/bisexual/pan sexual identity because from what I have heard, queers of color are often rendered invisible by both their communities. Major GLBTQ sites are, as you mentioned, white centric and many race sites (here included) don’t do a good job of wrapping GoC issues into our discussions. So basically, steer clear of going off topic. While I can see how the comments flowed into yet another rehashing of marriage v. civil unions I don’t approve. Discussing racism in the white gay community, or homophobia in communities of color at large, fine. Bringing religion into the mix, fine. Arguing over what gays have the “right” to advocate for? Not cool. Disagreeing on points of law? Fine, we did that in the prop 8 post – and pointed out some GLBTQ activists who also didn’t really feel moved by a push for marriage rights. Disagreeing on points of law in a post not about points of law or policy? Not cool.

    If every time you comment on a certain subject, you make the same point, don’t comment. I want people to address the topic at hand, and too often, the topic only serves as the jumping off point for what they really want to say. This is one of the reasons we don’t discuss dating/relationships as much on the site anymore. Reading the comments – particularly on black dating and asian dating – was like fucking groundhog day with the same people saying the same things thread after thread. Not interested.

    3. Saying deliberately inflammatory things like “I don’t have a problem with gay rights, but God will judge you for it later.” I tend to let the religious folks have their say, but a lot of people try to sneak little slams like that under the radar.

    4. General jerkiness. Look, there’s always going to things on this site you don’t agree with. There are things on this site that *I* don’t agree with, and I am the editor! But what’s most important to me is having an insightful conversation about the issues. And if someone makes a good argument, I post it – even if I disagree. I wish commenters would exercise the same judgment, particularly if you are not a member of the group in question. So, you have to read a gay post once in a while – 90% of content on our site is hetero focused. Deal. Read something else, come back tomorrow.

    Generally, it’s using good judgment and not antagonizing people, not repeating comments, and engaging with the topic at hand.

    If you personally, BC, have more questions, you can email me at latoya@racialicious.com

    If someone wants to email me to complain about why there are so many rules to comment here, don’t bother – no one is forcing you to be here, and if you can’t play by house rules, you need to grab your toys and go. I am only interested in engaging with commenters who respect this space and respect each other.

    Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 7:24 pm ¶

38. jvansteppes wrote:

    First of all I’d like to say that homophobia is not just the outright hate of homosexuals, it is also heterosexism and the subtle assumptions about homosexuality being unnatural or respect for queers being an irrelevant issue.

    Black Canseco, I don’t want to irk you in saying this, but I don’t think you’re indifferent to homosexuals. I know I’ve only caught a glimpse of you through comments but I’d wager that you would defend a gay/lesbian or transgendered family member or neighbor if you saw some homophobic shit going down. I don’t think you’re totally against coalition making with queers I think its the TYPE of coalition that is the issue.
    You have mentioned your issues with white gays before and I have seen and felt similar experiences in mainstream white homo communities. I can appreciate that gayborhoods can really suck from many angles and I don’t want the conversation to proceed without anyone validating your experience even if I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn from it.

    I also have a tip for you and OGBoundary and whoever else finds that white gays are aggressive with them: next time white gays accuse you of being homophobic for not contributing to a campaign because you’re overextended, tell them that you contribute to queer liberation through GoC organizations like the Audre Lorde Project, the Sylvia Rivera Project or another queer/trans people of color organization in your area. Ask them if they do solidarity work with those groups and it will derail their accusations. Tell them that you only give your time and energy to GLBT organizations who work in coalition with your advocacy group when you need help too and that since those groups are the most underfunded of GLBT organizations you’d really rather invest your effort in GoC movements.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 1:13 am ¶

39. Vik wrote:

    “Once we decide to refuse to look at people solely as victims who have nothing to contribute, and to see people as subjects who have agency and a will to change, the path will be laid for us to have personal transformation on an individual and societal scale.”

    I like that.

    Victims can be perpetrators. Someone close to me realized that a long time a ago but the fact of the matter became applicable very recently. She wonders why people can “Chink” and “Chinese Woman” her all they want, but she can’t use the “N-word” to counter. I told her that it should never come down to that and that there are smarter and better ways to counter such ignorant words, but she still wonders why not just be straight forward about it. They did it to her, why not do it to them? She also asks me how people who speak about racism, complain about racism, and take every opportunity to point out that something is racist can be so racist themselves? I tried to answer her to the best of my ability, but I started to ask myself the same thing.

    I’m glad you decided to post on this topic.

    One of my explanations was that they were possibly trying to compensate for things that happened in the past, but it never will make any sense to spread animosity and hatred that you’ve experienced to someone else.

    I know that this person doesn’t hate Black people. I know that her experiences with this particular group has caused her to believe generalizations to be taken as the truth. I just don’t understand why some victims feel that they have the right to perpetrate these sort of things. I’ve heard people incorrectly blame karma for such things but it isn’t karma when the person you attack has done nothing to bring on the use of a racial slur. Secondly karma is not something you can enforce, it’s something that naturally occurs due to prior circumstances and situations.

    So how do we fix this?

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 1:23 am ¶

40. m.dot wrote:

    Dios Mio.

    I had response this piece, but Firefox burped and it died.

    Perhaps I will just make another blog post instead.

    Thank thank you to everyone who commented.

    It is allays interesting to see the direction
    that comments take.

    It really informs my thinking as a writer.

    ~m.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 1:49 am ¶

41. DeeDee wrote:

    @firstofall – “Also, by your belief, you must have wanted me specifically to shoot you down and disagree with you for some reason, even though it was impossible for you to know if anyone would even read or respond to your post, let alone me in particular. Hmmm….”

    I think you’re confused, as I never stated that the secret/theosophist view was my belief. So to clarify let me state that it’s NOT. I was simply using that as an example to show how the conversation began within the confines of the victim/perpetrator realm.

    I don’t ever need anyone to “shoot me down” as you state because I’m not engaging in any sort of aggressive dialogue. I do enjoy discussion and seeing several sides of an issue, and if you disagree with me that’s fine.

    I was simply stating my opinions regardless of whether or not anyone happened to read them. When I’m concerned about who’s reading my opinions I won’t be responding to blogs but publishing my own work.

    All the best!

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 2:35 am ¶

42. robert wrote:

    I am impressed with this blog. I got linked here from slashdot and I’ve seen a lot of intellectually stimulating stuff, which is generally my criterium for a good website.

    you have to have a lot of balls to post stuff like this. There’s definitely an almost stifling atmosphere of racism clarity- that there is only one right view, and holding that view is paramount to not being racist. That view definitely seems to be one of “victims cannot be perpetrators,” at least for the most part. I’ve always liked the idea of balance, that an argument must have two sides because otherwise it isn’t an argument. It’s the same reason I don’t like the overuse of the word ‘feminism.’ In reality, most of the feminists are (hopefully) thinking of the rights of every gender class. In this light, I think the word should be changed – of course Populists was already taken. When I intimated this view to one of my acquaintances who has a reputation for being very active against racism, he smiled and said, “and when has there ever been an instance where women are better off?”

    it’s true: in almost or possibly every case, men are at least on par with women. I could only think of a few: I can’t show up to class in a skirt, I’d probably be laughed off the field hockey team, and the Society for Women Engineers would never take me. But that’s not the point. The point is that campaigning for a certain demographic’s rights exclusively is only correct when that demographic is completely underrepresented. In essence, while one can focus on a specific demographic, one shouldn’t be cheering when some other demographic is left out, leaving more room for one’s own demographic. Similarly, if it gets to the point where a demographic is finally equally represented, campaigning for more rights for that specific demographic would seem unfair. I don’t think ether of those things happen, and I don’t think they should.

    Such can be applied to racism too. It is possible to be black or gay or anything and be racist. In fact, it really doesn’t take that much effort. But people don’t like to admit that. After all, it’s much easier to support a martyr than someone like Andrew Jackson.

    I’m still hesitant when I make these points though. I think I tend to side with my own race and gender more than most people, which can lead to tension, especially in such a left-wing state as mine. It’s definitely comforting to see that I’m not the only one who doesn’t think along the boundaries of the ‘right’ view on racism. I think that believing that I will always agree with the articles posted here would be foolish, but I’m definitely going to start visiting this site more regularly.

    To keep the topic on track, I haven’t heard much of Prince’s work but what I have heard I don’t like too much. I can tolerate only a few mainstream artists; the closest I’ve ever gotten is Iron Maiden and 50 cent.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 6:58 am ¶

43. Jess wrote:

    @Cruel Secretay–

    I looked at the links, and while what you said clears things a bit, the links don’t.

    “Disrespected” isn’t a legal term. “Not recognized” is, and I could certainly see filing for the recognition of civil unions across state lines and for the expansion of the legal rights associated with them.

    But the term “marriage” is a red herring, it seems to me. If the legal situation is the same, then it doesn’t matter what you call it. That is the salient issue here, I think, and too often we all get bogged down in the word “marriage” (which actually brings up the more interesting question of what governmental authorities should be doing in this regard anyway).

    @Latoya–

    sorry that this devolved into a gay marriage discussion. I think to some degree that’s going to happen, since The Artist/Prince (or whoever — It’s years since I cared) brought it up, directly or indirectly.
    —————–
    On another note:

    after reading through the comments, and the post:

    The discussion posited by the headline, to me, is a bit — well, old hat. I mean, I thought the whole concept that just because two groups are victimized they must automatically share all interests and goals was sort of shot dead and buried back in 1968. See Vine DeLoria, “The Red and the Black.”

    That doesn’t mean you can’t build coalitions, but it’s the whole reason you have to build coalitions in the first place.

    Look, I don’t expect everyone to be aware of the whole history of activism — I sure am not, and I was steeped in the stuff my whole life. But I read through the comments here, and a part of me is thinking, “Where the hell has everybody been?”

    Coalitions have to be built on shared interests. They aren’t always obvious. Hence the coalition-building process.

    As for Prince, well, he’s entitled to be a jerk if he wants. As far as I know he didn’t give money to the Yes on 8 campaign, and he hasn’t stumped for any wildly homophobic/bigoted candidates, or said anything about it unless he was asked. (I still like his music tho, but I admit I haven’t picked up anything new by him since the “slave” stunt at least).

    I don’t ask pop artists to be political activists, and there are very few who made their views matter — by putting their careers on the line, for instance. Think Paul Robeson or Harry Belafonte and you get the idea of why I can’t work up the passion about it some folks here seem to have about Prince’s politics.

    That isn’t to say that discussion of it is trivial, just that somewhere along the line I think we all need to put it in perspective.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 3:41 pm ¶

44. lakergrrl wrote:

    …I’d like to say that homophobia is not just the outright hate of homosexuals, it is also heterosexism and the subtle assumptions about homosexuality being unnatural or respect for queers being an irrelevant issue.

    Hmm. According to Merriam Webster, homophobia is simply an ” irrational fear of, aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals”. Growing up and going to school (in West Hollywood, no less), that is the definition I always heard & used. i.e. the straight dude who wouldn’t play on the same football team as a gay dude, simply cause the gay dude was gay.

    So when I saw this column I’m thinking ‘well of course victims can be perpetrators, sometimes of the worst kind (Eldridge Cleaver, anyone?). But I’m not sure this whole Prince kerfuffle is the best example to illustrate that precisly because I don’t believe his comments were homophobic. Very un p.c. ? Yes. Should have been more diplomatic ? Definitly. Intolerant? No.

    Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own b: the act of allowing something : toleration

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 3:48 pm ¶

45. m.dot wrote:

    @ J,
    Thank you for commenting.
    I was very clear that our choices take place WITHIN our options. However, there is something to be said for thinking that just because I had a jack up day or messed up childhood that that gives me the right to rage at others. It doesn’t. As a human, I have an obligation to treat others LIKE humans. Not objects.

    I chose victims vs. perpetrators because the discussion started out about whether drug dealers should be held accountable for the impact they have on the hood. I am interested in accountability both on a societal level and on a personal level.
    The binary sucks in some ways, but it is relevant as well.

    @jvansteppes wrote
    Thank you for pointing out that heterosexism is at work here as well.

    @cmd
    I TOTALLY forgot the Prince HIT Appolonia in Purple Rain. His daddy also beat his momma. Hmmmp. Thank you for reminding me of that.

    @Robert
    you have to have a lot of balls to post stuff like this.
    =====
    I am such a gender bear, but I know you come from a good place so imma go to your sentiment and the the “balls” alone.
    The courage to post it? How about the courage to write it? lols.

    And finally, I want to bring two things into the Prop 8 discussion.
    First, that marriage, historically has been about the consolidation of property between families. It is why a father “gives his daughter away”. It is why a woman, legally,
    CEASES to exist and assumes the legal status of her husband.
    Second. Laws are used to structure society in general, and reinforce patriarchy specifically.

    Thank you all of reading and commenting.

    ~m.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 4:37 pm ¶

46. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Jess–
    …then let me try to explain it another way, using your waiter analogy.

    You said, “As long as the waiter does his job, I don’t care if he hates on me because my wife isn’t white.” If that waiter offers you and your wife the proverbial “service with a smile,” but then goes to another table another couple not quite the same service–not quite smiling, cooler tone of voice, not quite as friendly. The server is doing the job–zie is serving the food. But one couple got the best treatment, the other, not quite as much. Much in the same way, marriage and legal unions are similar: both are legal unions (the waiter) but one (marriage) is given a advantageous status (the waiter smiling at you, the first couple) and civil unions are given the (barely) tolerated status (the waiter treated the 2nd couple not-quite-so-friendly). Those fighting for gay marriage want marriage because of those smiled-upon advantages.

    Also, Jess, I have to take exception to your thinking this conversation is “old hat,” as stated: But I read through the comments here, and a part of me is thinking, “Where the hell has everybody been?” Bluntly stated, everybody ain’t you. Not everyone has been steeped in activism as you have been or may have read the same things you have or been exposed to the same ideas that you have in your lifetime. If I’m not mistaken, one of the reasons people come to this blog is to feel out some new ideas or be challenged about some others. To me, saying such things as “where has everybody been?’ tends to silence moreso than draw people into a discussion.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 4:55 pm ¶

47. NancyP wrote:

    I am a big fan of the obvious. I can’t get all worked up about pros and cons of some political/psychological theories of black-on-black crime. Most of the theories aren’t provable anyway.

    I never thought that black-on-black crime meant more than proximity and therefore opportunity. This holds for crime against strangers, members of enemy gangs, or individual enemies, as well as for domestic violence. To the extent that there is neighborhood segregation, there will be X-on-X crime. Petty thieves are lazy, and they will go for the most convenient target, likely within a few miles of their home.

    Geography of race, crime, and socioeconomic status is relatively easily determined and can be subjected to statistical analysis (by someone else, please, I feel happy to eat lunch by dinnertime).

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 9:12 pm ¶

48. jvansteppes wrote:

    Lakergrrl:
    I don’t ascribe to the belief that homophobia is simply an irrational fear of homosexuals any more than I think racism can be reduced to the KKK. And maybe that makes having a conversation about homophobia pointless between us. I tend to look at things holistically when it comes to different angles of marginalization because oppression is not only violent it is also insidious.
    I don’t think advocating ‘tolerance’ as an antidote to racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism makes sense. I’m not here to learn to ‘tolerate’ people of color. I’m hear to engage with the nuances that make up racism and deconstruct the assumptions I’ve been raised with in a white supremacist society. This involves looking beyond the dictionary definitions of racism that cannot do justice to the big picture of how racism functions. And the same goes for homophobia and heterosexism.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 9:19 pm ¶

49. NancyP wrote:

    1.
    Jess, words are important in law. If you want legal equivalency between state (or federal) recognized opposite-gender and same-gender couple rights / responsibilities, the term used for that status must be the same for both couples. From a religious and academic viewpoint, I’d be thrilled if the states and feds converted every heterosexual “marriage” to “civil union”, but that would require a lot of laws to be changed, and brings the risk of missing one or more of the laws. It would be much simpler to use the term “marriage” for the same-gender status.

    I’d also like to see addition of a preamble to the state marriage statutes, stating that the word “marriage”, as defined in all state law, indicates a CIVIL status and has no connection to any religious status. Well, duh, you might say – Obviouswoman strikes again. Unfortunately, the MAJORITY of Americans do not understand (or do not agree with) the First Amendment religious clauses, let alone the subsequent elaboration of “separation of church and state” ideas and legal history, from Jefferson onward.

    A minority (10-15%) of Americans favor overturning First Amendment religious clauses (and some, the free assembly, speech/ press clauses). Many of this 10-15% would be in favor of giving only Christians full citizenship rights, and presumably would consider civil marriage without benefit of clergy invalid. This dominionist 10-15% forms the core of the conservative religious activists, pundits, and most influential pastors, and no doubt the strategists that designed the Yes on 8 misinformation ad campaign.

    2.
    I haven’t heard any gays claim equivalency of anti-gay and anti-black discrimination as a whole. Then again, I don’t know any really stupid gays in real life. The gays I know have some common sense, some powers of observation, and at least minimal historical knowledge.

    It is reasonable to draw some limited qualitative parallels – a person is just as dead if zie was killed because zie was a transwoman as if zie would be if zie was black. That statement doesn’t address rate of bias murder in the two populations, or the history of “private” vs “public” murder (”public” here means lynching and also ordinary “private” murder subsequently used to strike fear into population). Some interracial couples were not allowed to marry; most same-gender couples are not allowed to marry.

    I think that some LGBTs’ sloppy language and failure to spell out the details are behind the (false) impression that “all” LGBTs consider anti-LGBT discrimination to be identical to anti-gay discrimination. The sloppy formulation is: “anti-LGBT discrimination is “like” anti-black discrimination.” That “like” word is about as vague as one can get.

    Posted 03 Dec 2008 at 11:57 pm ¶

50. Jess wrote:

    @Cruel Secretary–

    Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like the old dude who yells “get off my lawn.”

    Part of it I freely admit is that as the years pass I get less tolerant of stuff I feel is ill-thought out, or lacks a little perspective.

    I also feel there are, to a degree, more interesting ways to approach the question, many of which have been done here already.

    Also, as someone who has been around the block a few times, it just drives me nuts to see people having what looks like the same discussion again when there’s a dire, dire need for a real left opposition. its like when I see someone bleeding on the street and have to tell the EMT twice that he’s been hit by a car.

    That means building coalitions. And that also means understanding that the answer to “if two groups are marginalized, are they natural allies” is no, but you can make them allies and move on and do it. That takes a little time and work. And I want to see that work happen. But I see the no on 8 folks making the same damned mistakes I remember from when I was young, and I am thinking “Has anyone learned a thing?”

    But I don’t mean to shut discussion down. Lord knows. I was just venting a little frustration.

    @NancyP–

    There actually is a way to redefine marriage the way you describe, and it would actually not require a legal change.

    Marriage is a contract, right? It happens to be state-sanctioned, but so is an LLC or a deed to your house. If we look at it that way, there needn’t be any difference between civil union and marriage because marriage is one already.

    That reinterpretation could happen with a few well-placed appellate court decisions, I think. You say “it doesn’t matter what you call it, any state-sanctioned contract between two people to live together for the purpose of building a family (even if of only 2 people) carries the same rights and responsibilities.” end of story. And that’s an interpretation issue that has to some degree been settled by the Griswold decision (indirectly) and the separation of church and state.

    Also, while many Americans might not want that equivalency, or believe in the First Amendment, the fact is it’s still in force. (A good thing too). So what Americans believe in polls or what not is sort’a not the issue — after all, a sizeable minority think interracial marriage is wrong too. So what? I didn’t invite those people to my wedding. It’s legal. They can deal with it or not, but it’s legal.

    That’s what I am talking about in the difference between acceptance — which honestly, LGBTs will never get from some quarters — and equality. If you frame the debate as about fairness, I think a lot of people (especially African Americans, if the polling research from Pew among others is to be believed) will respond to that. If you frame it as about acceptance, that seems a losing strategy to me and inhibits coalition building.

    Can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you know?

    Posted 05 Dec 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶

51. Tracey wrote:

    Even before I read the evidence of what Prince said, I suspected that if Prince was being intolerant, then perhaps may have something to do with his interpretation of the tenets of his faith practices.

    Prince is a Jehovah’s Witness.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses are virulently homophobic.

    This is a group that celebrates and sings happy songs about the day God will come and wipe all the bad people (that is, those who aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses , off the planet).

    It isn’t a matter of personal intrepretation. That religion teaches you to hate people.

    Take it from an ex-JW.

    –Tracey

    Posted 05 Dec 2008 at 9:30 pm ¶